B-more Mag

Can't wait to see the rationalizations they all up with.

The whole idea of five also-rans eager to lap up the 15 permanent members' sloppy seconds every year is gross.

Also, I've grossly misjudged the market for Super League/Missy Elliott crossover humor.

That really gets at the heart of what makes this so foul: the owners gleefully dropping any remaining vestige of the "club" and giddy at the prospect of winning more people over to their corporate logo and color scheme.

They'd be all like "I can't stand the rain."

Totally. The U.S. league and franchise system is a product of its environment (e.g., large geographic area, regional leagues coming together fairly early on to provide a more uniform national structure, MLB having a legal exemption from the antitrust laws, etc.). It's not perfect by any stretch, but it wasn't done in the context of hundreds to thousands of other already existing and viable clubs with long histories and supporter bases that would get completely dicked over by closing up shop.

All very Harlem Globetrotters vs Washington Generals.

Lazio signs Mussolini.

Need a few days away from the training ground. FUCK ME!

Scott Parker keeping Fulham up is really going be the fucking icing on the cake.

Crossing my fingers for a Dunk goal off a corner so I can say we got Dunked on.

Couldn't we just do it at 19th or 20th in the table, for once?

I wonder how big American Express's welcome bonuses are.

Point accumulated.

While it's creative, there's nothing there suggesting the PL didn't require disclosure of the ownership of the Delaware entities.

Like a bizarro Wigan 1-0 Newcastle on 26 December 2007

Based on what I do know--which isn't any greater than anyone else who's not directly involved--I'd probably feel more comfortable in the PL's position than NUFC's. X.5.1 -- Can't see this being an issue. The determination of KSA being a director is pretty squarely within the Board's remit. X.5.2 -- From what I've seen, I wouldn't feel great having to prove this. But, again, I don't know what evidence NUFC has. X.5.3 -- Maybe, if they can cobble evidence sufficient to establish that the whole director thing is artifice and the real issue is the IP/broadcasting stuff. X.5.4 -- I've got no clue. I can't imagine NUFC would have any problem establishing the final part, about its interests being prejudiced or suffering loss.

The thing about litigation and arbitration is even if you've got a case you think you're 100% going to win, there's at least a 10% chance you lose, and when you've got a case you think you're 100% going to lose, there's always at least a 10% chance you win. And most cases don't come anywhere close to approaching either of those poles.

I don’t believe the PL have accused the buyers or the sellers or violating the rules of the o&d’s test. Also at this point I don’t even believe they rejected it out of hand. The sticking point was getting KSA (or MBS) listed as a director. It never moved on from that point. Any NUFC fan trying to reason that PIF is not under control by KSA is clutching at straws and to be honest, Mike Ashley probably was too by hiring that legal team, they are basically arguing semantics. If they win it’ll be on the technicality of wording. Or, and again tin foil hat time, the other two on the arbitration panel, both have political ties, NUFC’s nominee Lord Neuberger was brought in by Conservative Ken Clarke whereas the PL’s choice was brought in by Jack Straw. Some lobbying by KSA/PIF could be useful, corrupt yes but that’s the game they’re playing. Correct. The judgment expressly says the issue is the PL's decision that KSA would be a director and that the PL had not gone on to make any decision about whether KSA would be disqualified as a director. My point about the standards wasn't so much about violation of the O&D tests as it is that the PL has to prove one of these grounds with respect to the PL's decision that KSA is a director:

We all need to erase the concept of "separate entity" from our heads -- that's not the issue, and by all accounts KSA and PIF are "separate entities" that have distinct legal identities. The issue is whether the EPL's provisional decision that KSA could be deemed a director, due to control, violated any of the standards I quoted earlier. (PIF and KSA can be separate legal entities with KSA still having sufficient control to be a director.)

He had been an arbitrator in 12 proceedings with the PL's lawyers in the last 3 years and had been appointed as arbitrator by the PL's lawyers in 3 of those; and he had previously given legal advice to the PL, including advice about potential changes to the officers & directors test:

The ruling also confirms that the arbitration is being conducted as a "Board Dispute" under the EPL rules. Here are the available grounds for review in a Board Dispute:

I'm a U.S. lawyer, not a UK lawyer, so discount accordingly , but by far the most interesting thing in the judgments, at least to me, is this: This confirms that one of the issues in the arbitration is the PL's "provisional" decision that KSA would be a director, which NUFC, et al. don't agree with. I also confirms that, in light of that impasse, things never reached a point where it was decided whether KSA, as a director, would be disqualified. Nothing necessarily new that hasn't already been assumed by many -- but it does provide some confirmation and clarity.