B-more Mag

Reasonable wages but he's also got to be tea lady.

Can confirm it's not the same as Facebang.

"Can we do email?" "Dunno. Fire up the Pentium."

The delay'll be Charnley desperately searching for a roll of thermal fax paper.

Really need to change the name of this thread to the insanely fucking stupid arguments thread.

One of the people on the Tribunal has ties to the area, so that's something: "Tim Frazer Ordinary Member Tim Frazer was a partner at Arnold & Porter LLP (now Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) from 1999, during which time he advised on both conduct and merger cases in the EU and UK, and on compliance and audit processes in various jurisdictions worldwide that have adopted the EU approach to competition law. He was previously at Newcastle University, between 1980 and 1997, as Lecturer in Law, Dean of Law and Professor of Law. He is the author of a number of textbooks on competition law and is a director of an educational charity in the North East of England (the Percy Hedley Foundation)."

That's effectively the basis of the monetary damages part of the CAT claim. "As a result of the breaches by the Defendant, the Claimant has suffered loss and damage. In particular, the Claimant has lost the immediate sale, or lost the likely opportunity of an immediate sale of its shares in NUL (which owns NUFC) to the Consortium Company. The Claimant seeks: (1) Damages for loss of profit or, alternatively, loss of opportunity. ..."

A bit off topic, but, between the takeover and COVID, this year+ has been a bit of an eye opener for me about how people react to and process opinions of "experts", whether real or imagined.

It's mildly amusing that THIS, of all things, is something that makes Wraith start to lose hope. Of all the fucking things, the timing of the hearing on the jurisdiction challenge fucking does it.

Oh, yeah, we're nowhere remotely near a hearing on the merits.

Sept. 27 is actually sooner than I had prepared myself for.

If PIF can buy us without KSA being tested, would anyone have an issue with KSA setting up a separate sovereign fund that buys another, additional, PL club?

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

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 way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or (b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, shares or other securities in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club."

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.

The PL hasn't failed to get the CAT case thrown out. That was misinformation some people were spreading. (I mean, they haven't succeeded at it either. It's just still an open issue that the CAT will hold a hearing on.)