B-more Mag

Which number causes Ashley pain? I'm smashing that one like a sadist in the Milgram experiment.

I like the sculptures. Just not so sure about naming your team after the Guardians of Traffic.

That fucking janky-ass G like they got their graphic designer from Bizzaro World.

Cleveland Guardians. I don't like it.

Also: https://slate.com/culture/2021/07/tokyo-olympics-dispatch-japan-covid-climate-evictions.html

The EFL already has effectively has the same definitions as are at issue in the PL now -- they just use the term "Relevant Person" instead of lumping it in with "Director". "[T]he following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person: ... (l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club ..." "Control shall be deemed to include: (a) the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of the share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by wa

Mmm. Trick question, I see. The correct answer is don't buy club tat until Ashley's out.

Not good form to quote myself, but easier.

Hope whenever the fucker does finally sell up he's immediately hit by a truck. Maybe a freak asteroid.

So much progress could potentially have been made on another path by now.

It's fucking enraging the way the supporters and the people of Newcastle have been jerked around throughout this. Hopes built up, then dashed. No one putting them first and giving a straight story. Fuck it all.

In this case, the primary purpose is probably for the judge to ask questions and get answers to flesh out the parties' arguments. In some cases it would also be an opportunity to take testimony of witnesses, but in this case it seems like it would primarily be an issue of law that wouldn't require witnesses to the same extent (if at all) that fact issues often do.

Correct. For example, the PL hasn't been required to file its substantive defense to St James Holdings's claims yet, because the jurisdiction challenge is a preliminary issue about the CAT's authority to even hear the case. If that's resolved in Ashley's favor, then the PL has to file its substantive defense and then disclosure, etc., before the actual "trial" on the merits of the case.

No, that was the extended deadline for the PL to file its reply to St James Holdings's opposition to the PL's jurisdiction challenge. We don't know if the PL filed the reply or not, because the CAT doesn't post those on its website, and it would look really bad not to file one after asking for and getting an extension, but even then it wouldn't necessarily be fatal, because its main argument would have been in its original filing. In the CAT President's ruling on the extension, he indicated that the jurisdiction issue would be set in for a hearing.