Jackie Broon

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.

No state would agree to that, certainly not one like the KSA, it would essentially bind them to abide by English law.

It's in the interest of our case right now to make it seem like PIF have walked away. The PL seem very sure that they haven't.

Knockout blow there.

Judge looking very exasperated and unconvinced.

Yeah, but as I've heard, from a QC, one of the main skills of a barrister is to put across complex arguments in a succinct, easy to understand way. My experience of hearing cases put across by barristers is that they are usually completely convincing, whatever the strength of their case. You hear one side and it seems they have it 100% tied up and then you hear the other side and they completely take that case apart and persuade you of the opposite.

Arbitration starts again on 3rd January then.

It seems that it hasn't and the PL haven't required it to until this case was brought by SJH Ltd.

If those rules are anti-competitive or otherwise unfair they would be unenforceable, and that's not within the remit of the arbitration. Also, it seems that SJH Ltd haven't actually explicitly agreed to follow them.

This is all just one part of the argument, trying to torpedo the PL's case due to them fucking up and not requiring St. James Holdings to be a director. Our main case is likely to be that the PL's OD test and/or the way it has been undertaken is anti-competitive and that is not within the scope of the arbitration.

Not really in the grand scheme of things, it's actually rattling along so far for a legal proceeding.

Other recent jurisdiction challenges on the CAT site have taken about a month from the hearing to the decision.

The worst of the repeated bilge is the people commenting that the thread is full of repeated bilge, it's easy enough just not to click on it.

Could be an explanation, equally it could be that they're waiting around for the outcome of the arbitration / CAT or whatever else there may be that we don't know about, to complete the takeover if they can. With the jurisdiction hearing at the end of this month and an outcome of that probably by the end of October, I still have some hope that the takeover isn't dead yet.

But they're unlikely to want to keep the companies active, which involves filing annual accounts and confirmation statements, if they are just remnants of an embarrassing failure.

https://www.gov.uk/strike-off-your-company-from-companies-register/apply-to-strike-off

Of course it suggests something, if they were dissolved PIF would definitely be out, their still being active does suggest that they could still be interested. They might not be, but it suggests that they still could be. If their interest ended 13 months ago, as you think, they would have been dissolved by now.

But they will be dissolved at some point if PIF's interest is over, I don't think it's likely that PIF would just leave them as active companies if their interest were over.

While PZ Newco Limited and NCUK Investment Limited are still active I think there is a good chance that PIF are still interested. I can't see them wanting those remnants of an embarrassing failure to be hanging around if their interest in NUFC is over.

I should really have known better than to try to have a reasoned discussion with Stan.

Not entirely true, there are elements of the formal structure of the deal that are public, such as the companies set up for the deal. Those all still exist and have actively been kept live since PIF withdrew. NCUK Investment Limited (PIF) - Confirmation statement made 20/01/2021 Cantervale Holdings Limited (PCP) - Confirmation statement made 09/02/2021 RB Sports & Media Limited (Reuben Brothers) - Accounting period extended 12/03/2021 PZ Newco Limited (PIF, PCP & Reuben Brothers) - Confirmation statement made 05/01/2021 Also the £150m loan agreement between PCP and St James Holdings is still shown as outstanding on Companies House. It's been reported that Boris Johnson was told the deal was days away from being completed in September, well after the announcement of PIF's withdrawal. That is backed up by the summary of our CAT claim which states that "The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC". There is plenty to suggest that PIF's interest continued after their statement on 30th July and nothing really to indicate that interest has ended.

Not necessarily, the PL also have a rule that says that clubs can't enter other competitions without the PL's permission but they know that rule would not stand up to legal challenge. Which is why the government had to threaten legislation to stop the ESL. The same may well be true of the owners' and directors' test rules.