Jackie Broon

True but that would have to be coordinated and agreed by all three parties, Ashley, the PL and the consortium. The consortium would essentially be paying for the PL's liability, maybe a few tens of millions is so little to PIF that they'd be willing to do that to get the deal done. I hope so.

The PL have already established their position and are currently defending that position in a case that could see them liable for ten of millions in damages. They can't just change their mind now, to do so would be admitting liability.

If they have then Justin Barnes would possibly be guilty of contempt of court because he gave an affidavit submitted in evidence for the CAT hearing that no new deal has been agreed or discussed.

That's not the case, the PL's decision related to who would 'control' the club only, there was no assessment carried out under the O&D test of any director. We all know their real motivation was due to the piracy, but that's not what is being considered in the arbitration or CAT case.

One of the only specific allegations we're aware of from the CAT case is that beIN influenced the PL's decision, it was raised at last week's hearing.

I can't see it being as simple as the PL just allowing it through now, if they were to they would essentially be proving our case that beIN influenced them to block the sale. Unlikely that the consortium are going to be willing to pay the previous valuation of the club or that Ashley would accept dropping the CAT case if offered less. So, unless all three sides get together with PIF willing to pay the previous value and Ashley willing to drop the CAT case, I can't see how this results in the deal getting the go-ahead. Hope I'm wrong obviously.

1. Yes, probably by the end of the month, although that's only the decision on whether the CAT has jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The next step in the CAT case, unless it's thrown out or delayed, is the PL's submission of its defence, then a public case management meeting. But that almost certainly wouldn't be before the arbitration in January. 3. Dunno, it probably probadepends depends what happends where we are in January and whether PIF are actually waiting in the wings.

There such a mess of conflicts of interest with the way the PL operates. I just can't see how it can be lawful to have what is in effect a market regulator that is collectively owned by and has such a close cosy relationship with some of the businesses in the market it regulates.

The issue is that the definition of a person in control of a club in their rules is so broad that it technically allows them to do that, even if the KSA wouldn't be considered to be a director or owner in either UK or Saudi law. I think the arguments in terms of 'separation' are going to be that the PL have been inconsistent in how they have applied the definition of 'control' in relation to other clubs and it is so broad that it results in unfair trading conditions being imposed on the consortium.

Before posting about our case the CAT twitter account had received a total interaction of three likes since it was set up

The CAT case will almost certainly go ahead, the PL are not realistically going to get it thrown out altogether, even if they were to get it thrown out now a new CAT claim would inevitably follow if the PL lose the arbitration. The best the PL are likely to get from their challenge is a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration, and really the only impact of them not getting that is that they'll have to prepare their defence now rather than after the arbitration.

True, but there doesn't seem to be any additional reason for the PL to settle on the outcome of the jurisdiction challenge rather than months ago. Realistically they're not going to get more than a stay until after the arbitration from their jurisdiction challenge, which in effect they've already got.

The PSG setup isn't relevant, they're not in the EPL and I'm not sure there even is a similar O&D test in France. City could be but I assume Sheikh Mansour is disclosed as a director for them. Palace is probably more relevant if it is the case that the PL haven't required them to disclose the owners of the company in Delaware.

It seemed pretty clear from the hearing that, even if the PL don't win the jurisdiction challenge or get a stay, there won't be a case management conference before next year and disclosure won't happen before that. So, there won't be disclosure in the CAT case before the arbitration hearing in January. Maybe the PL would settle if they lose the jurisdiction challenge, but there doesn't seem to be much reason for them to now if there won't be disclosure in the CAT before the arbitration.

Yeah, there is that

Firstly, the stuff about SJHL being bound by the PL rules is nothing to do with the overall CAT case, it's just an argument in relation to the PL's jurisdiction challenge. The PL's challenge is that section 9 of the Arbitration Act requires a stay on any other proceedings on those matters brought by a party to the arbitration. We've realised that SJHL hasn't signed up to the PL's rules and so technically isn't party to the arbitration. It's just a potential get out of jail free card for us on jurisdiction, it's not our whole jurisdiction case and will have nothing to do with the main CAT case. Secondly, the PL can't just apply their own rules as they wish. They are in effect a regulator of a closed market of competing businesses, deciding who can enter that market and therefore affecting competition within it, they need to do that in accordance with competition law.

It does. I think the PL might unofficially know PIF are still in really, which I think is why their QC reacted the way he did when ours said they didn't know whether PIF are still interested and referred to the Inter story.

Although it's only the PL's QC that said PIF are still in (although he seemed very sure of that) our QC said that PIF have given no indication that they are still interested (which the PL's QC laughed at).

Almost certainly yes, although there would probably be quite a bit of it that would cut away to private, like yesterday.

By the PL's rules they should have been disclosed as a director but weren't and the PL never picked up on it.

Aye, particularly as his whole argument is that both cases are identical.

That wasn't really their case, their case was around section 9 of the Arbitration Act which restricts other court proceedings brought by parties to an arbitration. The club's argument is that SJHL are not a party to the arbitration. From my understanding the PL rules only came into it insofar as the PL argued that they require SJHL to be a party to the arbitration.

I thought it was convincing, but they don't need to win that part it's just something that would torpedo the PL's case if they do. The main argument will be that the scope of the arbitration is different to the CAT case and most of that was heard in private. The SJHL stuff just gives us two different routes to defeat the PL's case, the PL have to win both arguments, we only have to win one. Even if the PL do that it looks like at best they will get a stay until after arbitration they're not getting the case thrown out altogether.

Barristers are self employed, chambers are essentially just groups of self employed barristers sharing administrative costs rather than a company that employs them.

They would still have to be able to provide evidence to back that up if it went to appeal, arbitration or other judicial process. They couldn't rely on the WTO report because that is being appealed and there is no prospect of that appeal happening in the near future. There is an exemption for convictions under appeal in the O&D test.