B-more Mag

Woo. That piece in The Athletic makes some wild logical leaps. "The announcement on Wednesday that beIN Sport, the Premier League’s official Middle East broadcaster, will no longer be barred from operating in the kingdom means the takeover is on the cusp of being completed." I mean seriously, fuck off with that.

Technically a director of every club.

I'm firmly out of this round of irrational exuberance.

Say the line, Bart!

We don't know what was said behind closed doors, no. But the High Court ruling makes it clear the issue at play is the director issue, which was also confirmed in public parts of the CAT hearing. To say "we'll let it go through because piracy is fixed" is tantamount to saying "oops, ha ha, yeah we lied, our bad."

It has no bearing whatsoever on whether KSA is a director under the rules-- which is the position they've locked themselves into. So if they let it go through based on this, they're never going to admit it's the reason.

"As you well know", "as you must already know", "as I had hoped you would have already known", etc., are the stupidest and most condescending rhetorical devices--especially when used over, and over, and over, and over, and over again.

16 points for the season at this rate.

Put 'em in a pressure cooker, like? Fucking sick bastards.

I don't think he could have done any investigation of Mauriss. I spent about an hour or so on various Google searches and looking at court records, and that's all it took to find out the guy was a fraudster who had been convicted of securities violations in the U.S. and was having assets seized by the government.

That's true. The standard for being a "director" under the rules, though, is not KSA actually directing affairs of the club -- it's having the legal authority to direct affairs of the club (e.g., through ability to appoint directors of PIF, etc.).

That would have to happen at the substantive stage. Right now only jurisdiction is before the CAT, not the substance of the case. In fact, the PL hasn't even had to answer SJHL's claims yet.

Not really. The rules say who is and is not a director. I don't like the result, but objectively it would be crazy for the PL not to have primacy in interpreting and applying its own rules. (As always, to be clear, fuck the PL mercilessly.)

KSA would have to admit it's a director and submit a declaration about a laundry list of issues laid out in the rules-- which it hasn't done and presumably doesn't want to do.

Yeah, I don't think it really changes anything. Some had hoped the CAT case would come first due to the public nature, but that wasn't really ever likely to be the case.

There may be a little lag between the parties getting a copy and it going up on the web, but it shouldn't be very long between. (In some cases you get a ruling from the bench, with a more formal written decision to come, but it doesn't sound like they're doing that here.)

I didn't watch, but sounds like it went well enough. Positively cautiously optimistic!

Written judgments are running about a month plus. Probably looking at seeing something November-ish, unless they speed it up due to public interest. If SJHL wins outright, then the PL will have to file a response to SJHL's claim and there should be an administrative hearing to set a schedule. Looking at next year sometime before anything substantive would happen. (I mean, barring a settlement, of course).

I'll represent you. Been wanting to pull out the old we're Americans and we does what we likes defense.

I'm not watching -- is it anything different that what we've already known: i.e., that PL says KSA's a director and the club/PIF/KSA disagree and haven't provided the info necessary to test KSA?

Baseline is CAT has jurisdiction. It's the PL's burden to establish the CAT doesn't.

What if the pigeon was wearing little Air Max?

This exploitation of pigeons is shameful and really just exacerbates people's pigeon-related prejudices. Not a fan.

It's also not necessarily a binary issue of either being dismissed or moving forward--it could also be stayed pending the arbitration. That could occur if the CAT determines the arbitration is the appropriate venue for certain factual or legal determinations but the CAT also retains jurisdiction with respect to other factual and legal matters (e.g., issues of competition law and monetary damage not at play in the arbitration). This would effectively pause the CAT proceeding until the arbitration is complete, with the CAT case picking up afterward, unless the result of the arbitration makes the CAT case moot.

Chris Mort for me, like.