B-more Mag

Yes -- one of the potential outcomes of the jurisdiction challenge is the CAT staying the case pending the arbitration.

There's certainly no guarantee the CAT case gets heard on the merits before the arbitration does. The CAT hasn't even scheduled the hearing on the jurisdiction challenge yet.

There were rumors of it failing, which are unfounded. The current stance is that the PL filed its application on jurisdiction (i.e., the challenge to the CAT's jurisdiction), St James Holdings filed its response, and the PL got an extension of time to July 12th in which to file its reply to that response (which it has now presumably done). The next step is for it to be set in for a hearing. (See https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-07/1402_StJames_Reasoned_Order_020721.pdf for all this.) In another case before the CAT, in which a jurisdictional challenge was apparently filed in May, the CAT scheduled a hearing on the challenge for November. That doesn't necessarily mean the timing would be the same in our case . . . but it could be.

The whole "they wanted the CAT first" thing doesn't hold water, either, given it's subject to a jurisdictional challenge, the hearing of which may not happen for months, and which might result in the CAT case being stayed (or dismissed). Even if the jurisdictional challenge is denied outright, there's still a good chance the arbitration goes forward before a substantive hearing on the CAT case.

Correct, as evidenced by the most recent CAT ruling, in which the one-week extension was predicated on the PL simultaneously preparing for the arbitration.

Very strong "My name is [insert name], and I'm here to say..." white guy rap energy.

"Issues with the disclosure of evidence" is such a fucking woefully inadequate explanation for a delay of at least six fucking months.

The club's statement is so vague it's impossible to know what's going on with any level of confidence. Super frustrating.

Contracts like this one would effectively say we're presently making a binding agreement that the sale will occur at a closing that will happen once contingencies X, Y, and Z, etc., have been satisfied, but if all of those contingencies haven't been satisfied by date A, the contract terminates, either automatically or at the parties' option, and closing doesn't happen. In this case one of those contingencies would have been the O & D test (either expressly or implicitly). Having said that, obviously I haven't seen the contract -- this is just how these normally work.

It's like everyone's forgetting the long history of actual lynchings of white football superstars. For shame.

Who the fuck names their kid Dick Bush?

"Mavromati's gripping tour de force will leave you begging for more adventures in the esoteric world of arbitration procedure."

But I'm positively optimistic he appreciates a copy of his friend's book, so I feel like I'm not out of line here.

Not to be pessimistic or anything, but as our arbitration isn't in the Court of Arbitration for Sport, I'm guessing he's just thanking his friend for sending a copy of her book and giving her some free publicity.

Rafa and Marx for me, like.

Fuck. Not even charging enough in my shitposting.

Develop argument that B. Jacobs and sources fail to appreciate nuance of arbitration issues. 0.3 hr. £1000

Then I don't have any confidence his sources have an understanding that's anything more than superficial.

The fact that he starts out taking about "separate" and "different" and doesn't give any reason why the definitions of "director" and "control" would or wouldn't wrap in the KSA is a pretty clear indication that his understanding is superficial at best. That's not to say he may not ultimately turn out to be right -- but that would be more down to happenstance than him actually knowing how the legal analysis by the arbitrators is likely to turn out. (To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest I do, either. )

Reminds me of when there was "talk" of Deco coming.

The issue is that if the KSA is a "director" due to "control" of the PIF, then the KSA must submit a declaration that certain facts about it are true. There's no publicly available definitive evidence that I'm aware of, but speculation is that the KSA has not supplied, and would not supply, such a declaration (one would guess most sovereign nations wouldn't agree to do so). (Actually, if the KSA had given the declaration, it would be an admission that it's a director-- so that's pretty conclusive that it hasn't done so.) Without that declaration, the EPL's rules allow it to say the KSA is disqualified as a director, which effectively prevents the deal as currently structured.

We don't get to see real time filings, unfortunately. (Actually, we haven't been able to see the parties' filings at all, real time or not, and have only been able to hear what's going on after the fact, when the Registrar published a summary of the claim and the CAT President entered orders. There should be greater transparency when it comes to the hearing, which I believe we'll be able to stream, whenever it happens.)

Slightly different than this. EPL has already filed its primary evidence why the CAT doesn't have jurisdiction. What the EPL would be filing today is its reply to St James' Holdings' responsive evidence. (The way these things work is the moving party files, the opponent files a response, then the moving party has the chance to reply to things the opposing party brought up in the response -- that's the point this is at.) So if EPL doesn't file anything today, it would look really, really bad, since they requested and got an extension, but doesn't automatically mean the CAT case would go forward.

Tough for those kids, man.

Oh fuck.