B-more Mag

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.

"Dear Diary, Craig Hope is so mean! I wish he would just die!"

If this gets Bruce the sack Ritchie deserves a statue On it.

This fucking club, man. Motherfuck.

Post for man of the game.

Ah, the sweet, sweet feel of normal service resumed.

One of the few ever bits of joy I have associated with this here cloob. And motherfuck time in its various orifices, I say.

Oguchi Onyewu is apparently Sporting Director at Orlando City B. Ripe pickin's for a jaunty director of football experiment.

That's mediation, which is non-binding. Arbitration is basically litigation through a private tribunal, instead of a court, resulting in a binding decision. Edit: Oops, I see jonny1403 already answered that. What he said.

His little hop. Miggy doing Tic Tok dances.

The PL can't reject arbitration -- it's the dispute resolution forum called for in the EPL rules. I don't remember whether any particular timelines are spelled out in the rules, though.

This still isn't right.

Yeah, someone rightly pointed out that unless NCSL have entered into a confidentially agreement (which they offered to the PL and was presumably turned down) they are under no obligation to keep the information private... then he deleted the original tweet. I haven't seen anyone take the position the NCSL breached any sort of confidentiality. The issue is more that until the club's statement the only evidence of some sort of legal action between the EPL and the club was NCSL's representation of what was said in the letter--one that hasn't been made public.

So did the EPL actually leak other than the alleged leak in the letter? The NCSL should just publish the EPL's letter.

That's what I was thinking, but I honestly can't keep track of who's saying what at this point.

Club statement https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/club-statement-19112020/

Wait. Did I tell Luke this?

Not sure why it wouldn't have been released on letterhead and with identification of the signer (or, for that matter, why it's an extract and not the whole thing, as sent).

Customers are able to engage in legal action if it affects their costs or the quality of the product. The letter isn't persuasive in that regard, then, as it doesn't establish either of those. They clearly talk about it read it again I did read it. Page 7. Not persuasive that the supporters group is being harmed.

Customers are able to engage in legal action if it affects their costs or the quality of the product. The letter isn't persuasive in that regard, then, as it doesn't establish either of those.

It's a nice P.R. piece, if nothing else. Substantively, though, I have doubts that a supporters group would be found to have standing to pursue an anti-trust case here (i.e., how has the Consortium Supporters group been harmed?). And somebody else being behind it wouldn't solve that problem if they're not going to step up and be a party. Not hating on it, though--somebody has put some effort and money into it, so hopefully it helps.

Just passing along what I've found.

Something something, something something something.

I mean, what even is Carabao anyway?