Inviting consortium to arbitration before making a decision isn’t the way the ODT should be conducted.

Consortium disagreed with #PL’s ‘determination that one entity would fall within the criteria...’ #NUFCTakeover

Then why didn’t 1) #PL accept consortium’s disagreement or 2) disqualify that entity under ODT either for breach of rule F.1.1. (see image, and also rules F.4. and F.6.) or other rule F.1. sub-rules.

The consortium could *then* appeal that decision if it wanted (rule F.13).

If the consortium is confirming that one entity is not falling ‘within the criteria requiring provision of... information’ then it’s rational and understandable why the consortium did not ‘procure the provision of the additional information’.

As I’ve said from the beginning, ‘the lacunae in any commentary or analysis of the... takeover... is not knowing exactly what the proposed structure of any takeover is or who is involved in the... takeover’.

The letter doesn’t fill those lacunae.