B-more Mag

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.

"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).