B-more Mag

Would be interested to know what the fuck Bruce's mojo hand is, though.

Everything seems normal.

Gonna fucking suck when he scores against us next season. #negativepessamism

Get yer fucking Rob Halford leathers on, Mikey.

Yep. Which creates a duty to publish, but doesn't necessarily mean that publishing a person as such, or not publishing them as such, has any effect on whether the person actually falls within the definition of "Director". I'm not saying it's right, or good, or perfect, or anything -- just that's how you can have a person be a "Director" without being a director.

Ultimately, you have to go through layers of definitions and cross-reference different sections, but it boils down to the term "Director" not being limited to a literal director for corporate governance purposes but also encompassing people who have a level of control that the rules deem sufficient for them to be treated as such:

Sort of unrelated, but live tweeting your legal strategy is almost always not a good move. Maybe it works out for Keith and the rest of us here, and, if so, fair play. But as a rule, fuck no.

This admittedly doesn't squarely answer your question, but one thing I can say with a pretty good degree of certainty, is no reputable lawyer's going to put their ass on the line in a transparent blackmail effort. Having said that, there can be many, many square miles of real estate between between trying to get into a venue where some information may come out that would make the other side super antsy and a "transparent blackmail attempt." So, I think there could be something there. But I'd be pretty reluctant to buy whole hog into the notion that the club's in possession of a nuclear bomb that won't go off if the EPL lets this go through. I'm no fucking help, like.

It might not be. But arbitration usually isn't a thing that gives tons of clues along the way about whether it's going well or not. It's fight it out (put on your evidence and make your arguments), put it in the hands of the arbitrators, then find out if they agree with you or not. Yeah, there are extreme cases on either end, bad or good, but most cases aren't near those extremes. And yeah you can also pick up a a sense of where it may be headed. But I can also envision circumstances where you might say, regardless of where the arbitration's at, let's see if we can do something in a different venue that may expand the scope, be faster or slower, more in the public eye, etc. I could also be dead wrong and the club's fucked in arbitration.

I'm pretty wary of this being any sort of indication, one way or the other, about the arbitration.

Arbitration is inherently adversarial, as is litigation. In that sense it's not necessarily counter-productive--it's an overlapping thing in a different venue. The CAT case is not purely damages-based, either, it also seeks injunctive relief.

I do think the Consortium Supporters dude(s) have a valid point in there somewhere about the Competition Appeal Tribunal being a fundamental challenge to the homer venue of confidential arbitration. Whether or not it's successful gets deeper than my hip waders--I'd suspect there's an issue in there somewhere about whether the CAT can exercise jurisdiction in light of arbitration being baked into the EPL rules and at least tacitly accepted as a condition of being in the league. And while I think dude(s) overstate confidentiality not being "a thing" outside of arbitration, there's probably a point there, too.

I won't sully the positive-optimism thread with this, but the crowing from the Consortium Supporters dude is a bit much to take. Seems pretty clear-ish the reason the case was "transferred" was because the club had a lot clearer standing to bring it than he did--despite him going on about how standing wasn't an issue. Ultimately kind of neither here nor there, I guess, just a bit ... much.

True. And I mean, it's all obviously arguable -- thus, people arguing about it. To me -- grain of salt time -- the rules make it clear that this issue is not one of PIF being a body/entity that is legally "separate" and distinguishable from KSA: I think it can be admitted that it is. The issue is rather whether KSA has the raw power, whether exercised or not, to control the PIF. That's where I see potential problems and haven't seen anything that convinces me that KSA couldn't exercise control over PIF if it decided it wanted to. It's also where I don't have enough insight into the underling facts or applicable law to be particularly helpful.

That's me, that's me.

Nobody's reached out to me for an American lawyer's entirely irrelevant opinion, but I'd happily supply it...at a completely reasonable hourly fee.

"Because we didn't actually have standing ..." but, fine, take the win.

Yes, it is.

At the risk of negative-pessamism-ing, I worry that this is an uphill battle: I mean, maybe they do really have some evidence that the decision was pretextual, but there's pretty clearly a prima facie case that KSA would be a director applying the literal language of the rules.

Just realized he's the (racist fuck) interim/caretaker manager at Fenerbahçe, apparently?

I hear he still sleeps on Nolan's couch.

Sad state of affairs that my bag o' fucks is down to crumbs and I can barely find enough pieces to cobble together one to give.

Anyone know how 11/10 converts to the 5/7 scale?