B-more Mag

At the risk of being accused of being non-positive, I can't see why there would be any reason for the CAT to delay posting the ruling until Friday, when rulings from other CAT cases are posted same day.

It looks like the CAT doesn't post the parties' written filings (at least I haven't seen any in any of the cases that I've pulled up where it has entered a ruling based, at least in part, on what would have been written submissions), but as @Jackie Broon points out, as far as hearings go, the CAT is very transparent (you can watch hearings and hearing transcripts are posted). The CAT's decision on the PL's challenge of the CAT's jurisdiction will be filed at some point, and that should give us a fairly good idea of what the PL submitted and what, if anything, Ashley's company submitted or submits. I'm a bit skeptical of the rumors that the CAT has already decided, as the CAT's guidance on the CAT rules says: "Any application to dispute the jurisdiction will usually be set down for oral hearing by a Chairman sitting alone." But "usually" doesn't mean "always", so maybe/hopefully this is an exception.

Which one's Gorka?

The arbitration is actually about whether the PL appropriately decided KSA would be a director under the definitions in the PL rules.

While it would be great if the PL loses the jurisdictional challenge, it wouldn't really say anything about the strength of either side's substantive case in the CAT proceeding.

Would be insane to restart it.

My wife went into v-tach rhythm back in March and had to have compressions and such. Luckily it happened when she was already in the hospital. Had bypass surgery and is now doing great. Can only hope the quick medical response results in something like that or better for him.

Fuck, man. Just heard about this. Hope he pulls through.

The silly hat and shirt clearly a reference to traditional Saudi attire, the culturally insensitive fuck.

My guess is that it's a bit of both. One prong of the relief Ashley's holding company is asking for in the CAT case is an order that the PL must reverse its decision about KSA being a director. That's pretty much what the club is after in the arbitration, through a different channel and probably somewhat different legal theories. But it's also additional pressure on the PL--and pressure is always what you're looking for in any kind of litigation, etc., as it's what brings things to a head.

That's basically right. The submission is to the CAT itself, and it could do the two things you mentioned, or possibly a sort of in-between option of saying "there may be something here for us, but we've got to wait until after the arbitration decides certain things before it gets to our part, so this is on hold until then".

Yes, effectively. Technically, it would be an argument that the CAT doesn't have the power/authority (jurisdiction) to handle the case before it, so the case must be dismissed or possibly paused (stayed). Presumably the argument centers on the probability that the arbitration will decide some or all of the issues that would be before the CAT.

Good. Looks like they probably did then. (Though that's really awkward language, since PIF doesn't get declared -- it's making declarations of fact to the PL).

Looks like one of those things we don't know for sure.

That's ambiguous, though, and leaves open the possibility it was done through informal correspondence. I'm wondering if they actually submitted the formal declaration. Hopefully they weren't stupid enough not to.

Do we know for sure that the PIF submitted its signed director declaration? I honestly can't remember.

*rimshot*

A PL appeal panel, with members selected by the chair of the PL judicial panel. Its determination would be binding.

Possibly. But the definitions of Director and Control aren't limited to what "shadow director" means under the Companies Act -- they're specifically defined terms that are effectively contractually agreed by virtue of the club accepting membership in the PL-- and they expressly contemplate control of board composition as something making a person a director. Maybe the arbitrators can be convinced there's a basis for determining that the definitions aren't enforceable -- I don't know. I'd rather it be clear KSA is outside the definitions, as written, so it doesn't matter whether they're enforceable or not. Also, here's the what the PIF website says is the PIF Law: https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/GDP Attachments/PIFLawDocument-En.pdf

He's apparently taken that article, or maybe his whole site, down, but as I recall it (which could obviously be wrong) most of his analysis was about the piracy issue and how any KSA issues there shouldn't be imputed to the PIF, and I don't remember him doing any actual control analysis. Maybe he did. But if he did, and if he came to the conclusion that the KSA doesn't control the PIF, I'd be interested to know the basis for that, including whether the KSA has the power to remove directors or restructure the PIF board or determine the division of the government to which the PIF is answerable. I mean, maybe the club has evidence the PIF is entirely autonomous and not subject to KSA control. As et tu brute wrote above, none of us have access to the evidence, so I express basically no confidence in my opinion. Having said that, based on what I do know, I'd still prefer to have the PL's case over the club's in the arbitration (but fuck the PL).

The concept of existence as a separate legal entity and the concept of control are distinct. It is entirely possible, and in fact common, for entities to be separate and distinct from one another while one has control over the other. For example, in a parent and subsidiary corporate relationship, the corporations are separate--the parent is not the same entity as the subsidiary and vice versa--but the parent controls the subsidiary by virtue of owning its stock and having the right to appoint and remove its directors. That's not the exact thing happening here, because we've got a state and a sovereign investment fund, and I buy that they are separate entities. But the PIF was formed by royal decree and reports to the Saudi Council of Economic and Development Affairs. I don't know all the details of Man City's ownership, but my understanding is that they don't have a sovereign wealth fund in their chain of ownership.

Based on the PL rule definitions of director and control, and the way the High Court opinion and CAT opinion describe the issue in the arbitration, I'd rather be in the PL's shoes than the club’s (though, to be very clear, fuck the PL). I just haven't seen anything to suggest that the KSA doesn't have the authority to control the PIF by virtue of the authority to appoint its directors, or that the PIF wouldn't have the authority to ultimately control the club. I suppose it's possible the KSA doesn't actually control its own sovereign investment fund, with its board comprising a bunch of KSA ministers, but ... not really. And that "Football Law" piece some have mentioned was all about how the KSA shouldn't be disqualified as a director--not that KSA wouldn't fall within the definition of a director.

Ultimately it would end up in arbitration, exactly where it is, on effectively the exact same issue: was the PL justified in determining the KSA is a director (only difference being a preliminary vs final determination)

Fuck yes, Brentford.