B-more Mag

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

Stick to competition law, Keith.

If this thing ever does go through, my only feeling about Mike Ashley will remain "fuck Mike Ashley, fatally".

Not really sure what this means in terms of banana STR888ness.

Argel Fucks.

Good piece by Chris Waugh in The Athletic Whole thing in spoiler below.

It would have been helpful if someone in this thread had said Fulham were really bad.

Direct correlation with high score on the face-punchability index. That and the memories of all the spinny little turns.

"How did a difference become a disease?"

I assumed the mods/admins always just threw it in neutral but left the engine running.

Over here (so totally irrelevant, but maybe you guys have something like it?), in a civil case, if a party refuses to disclose responsive dox in discovery, or engages in any sort of spoliation, they'd face a presumption that the information in the dox is adverse to them.

Only time I've ever used "gris-gris" and "mojo hand" in a match thread.

There's definitely some sort of inverted cross shit going on.

Boiled chicken head broth at the half.