B-more Mag

Not really. Yeah, I don't know how that works under U.K. law. On a really quick look I didn't find anything right on point (though I did find a U.K. case where a court stayed a competition case pending resolution of underlying arbitration, but it wasn't a CAT case and wasn't the same type of competition claim).

That would be the case if it were an enforcement matter by the Competition and Markets Authority or something like that, but this is just a private action. It may be able to get somewhere with that argument (i.e., that it's not a party to the arbitration agreement), the fact that it's the sole owner of the club may complicate it, though.

Because Section X of the EPL rules provides for arbitration as the exclusive forum for resolving disputes between a club and the league.

Never going to cool down the temp with bangers like that.

Classic Yorkie.

One of these days I'm going to make it over there and go. Hopefully Ashley's out by then, otherwise it's going to be a bit of a shit conundrum.

That's why I went with "interesting" and not necessarily smart or likely.

Again, it starts to get a bit murky here as to what has actually happened, but assuming it hasn't happened, it would be interesting to see the KSA square up and say, yep, go ahead and O&D us, *checks notes*, EPL.

They could have structured this a bit differently.

I understand the argument, but it's not really equivalent... https://www.pif.gov.sa/en/Pages/Boradmembers.aspx

Oh my.

Nope, no per se prohibition that I'm aware of. This gets into an area where the publicly available information isn't really available or clear. Speculation would be that KSA wouldn't want to be subject to providing the declaration of facts and other information that would be required of it as a director under the O&D test.

I'm a solid "fuck if I know." I can't see all the actual evidence one way or the other, and we're even going off secondhand accounts of what the issue is (those accounts make sense and they're from courts, so you figure they're fairly reliable, but still there's a little bit of telephone game there). My pure gut feeling is that the EPL would win on the issue, because the definition of control is so broad and I'd be pretty surprised if KSA the club/PIF/whomever can establish KSA's outside that definition. But, honestly, there's so much at play we're not privy to, that my gut reaction is not worth very much and I'd be happy to ultimately find out it's wrong.

I would think they'd be looking at whether, under applicable facts and law, KSA has the actual raw power and authority to direct the PIF's affairs (whether or not it may have voluntarily elected to refrain from doing so thus far) and whether there are any enforceable limits or constraints on any such power. Like if all KSA could do is appoint a bunch of figurehead directors with no actual power, and other parties are the ones who can appoint "real" directors, that's one thing. If KSA has the authority to wipe out the board whenever it wants and appoint whomever it wants whenever it wants, that's quite another. What I don't think will cut it are unenforceable representations or promises that KSA hasn't exercised control before and won't in the future, if it actually has the power to do so. As far as the arbitrators go, I doubt any of them will feel beholden to whomever appointed them--that's not good for long-term reputational prospects.

You're reading it correctly. And I suppose "separate" isn't an unreasonable shorthand for the concept -- it's just that you can be separate and still have control. Like if I own 100% of the stock in a corporation, the corporation and I are separate and distinct legal "people" with our own rights and liabilities, but I still control the corporation. The main applicable definitions from the rules are here (and I'm not necessarily saying the EPL wins, here, just that this is the language at play):

I'm not sure where the idea that the issue is whether KSA and PIF are "separate" came from or why it has continued. It's not about separateness, per se, it's about ability to control (whether actually exercised or not).

Could field a seniors team with those ages.

True. I would say, though, that the way the High Court opinion characterizes the issue in the arbitration and the Notice of Claim and extension judgment characterize the CAT claim (at least as I recall them), the pivotal "thing" is framed as the PL decision that KSA would be a director, not anything flowing from that decision.

That's the way it reads to me, too: i.e., in the arbitration the PL asked to extend disclosure to 26 May, which is also the current deadline for the PL to file its evidence in the arbitration, and he PL is also asking for that deadline (the one to file evidence) to be extended to June 9. Then the CAT guy says it doesn't matter whether the arbitrators grant those extensions or not--I think you can prepare evidence for that and this at the same time.

Close, but not exactly. The PL does want to argue the competition case should be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. The CAT judge granted the PL an extension for the time to make that argument. He's basically saying Ashley's confidential document about losses isn't relevant enough to the jurisdictional issue for them to need to see it to make that arugument.

It's in the Notice of Claim in the CAT proceeding. Unfortunately, it's just a recitation of what the claim says, as opposed to an actual determination to that effect. https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/1402_St_James_Summary_060521.pdf (at second sentence of first paragraph on the second page_

Correct. Presumably the argument is some variation of "the EPL rules specify arbitration; that arbitration is pending; this claim is an improper attempt to sidestep that forum". We don't know the exact contours of the argument, because they've just gotten an extension to even make that argument. Now, having said that, some of the authorities quoted in that piece from The Athletic seem to think the CAT claim may have enough competition law elements that are sufficiently different than what the arbitration board has authority to decide, that the EPL may well lose its jurisdictional challenge. But the short story is, yes, it's a fight before the fight.

One thing to note is this is an extension of time merely to submit the filing by which the EPL will challenge the CAT's authority to even hear the case (i.e., jurisdiction). It doesn't even get into the substantive merits of the allegations in the claim yet. CAT rule re: challenge to jurisdiction in spoiler.

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/1402_StJames_Reasoned_Order__130521_1.pdf