B-more Mag

Not good form to quote myself, but easier.

Hope whenever the fucker does finally sell up he's immediately hit by a truck. Maybe a freak asteroid.

So much progress could potentially have been made on another path by now.

It's fucking enraging the way the supporters and the people of Newcastle have been jerked around throughout this. Hopes built up, then dashed. No one putting them first and giving a straight story. Fuck it all.

In this case, the primary purpose is probably for the judge to ask questions and get answers to flesh out the parties' arguments. In some cases it would also be an opportunity to take testimony of witnesses, but in this case it seems like it would primarily be an issue of law that wouldn't require witnesses to the same extent (if at all) that fact issues often do.

Correct. For example, the PL hasn't been required to file its substantive defense to St James Holdings's claims yet, because the jurisdiction challenge is a preliminary issue about the CAT's authority to even hear the case. If that's resolved in Ashley's favor, then the PL has to file its substantive defense and then disclosure, etc., before the actual "trial" on the merits of the case.

No, that was the extended deadline for the PL to file its reply to St James Holdings's opposition to the PL's jurisdiction challenge. We don't know if the PL filed the reply or not, because the CAT doesn't post those on its website, and it would look really bad not to file one after asking for and getting an extension, but even then it wouldn't necessarily be fatal, because its main argument would have been in its original filing. In the CAT President's ruling on the extension, he indicated that the jurisdiction issue would be set in for a hearing.

The PL hasn't failed to get the CAT case thrown out. That was misinformation some people were spreading. (I mean, they haven't succeeded at it either. It's just still an open issue that the CAT will hold a hearing on.)

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.