Jackie Broon

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.

I mean it's not a public process, it would be between two parties behind closed doors. Just because something has been reported or publicly announced it doesn't commit them to actually going though the formal process of doing that. For example if you're buy a house and you've exchanged contracts and you then decide to pull out of the sale, you can't just make an announcement on twitter that you've decided not to buy the house, you'd need to get your solicitor to formally stop the purchase. If you were to just make a public announcement on twitter that would not either formally withdraw you from the purchase or commit you to actually withdrawing from the purchase, legally it would mean nothing.

It seems that's the basis of the PL's jurisdiction challenge anyway. The basis that an appeal could be made is extremely limited, only on a point of law, right to appeal would have to be granted by the CAT or Court of Appeal and any appeal would not act as a stay on the rest of the case unless the CAT or court orders otherwise. If they lose their challenge the PL could not just make a spurious appeal to delay the case.

We had Terry Hibbitt delivering our milk when I was a kid... how football has changed!

I think he is just salty because he / Keith have been completely cut out of the loop, if it was ever any more than him being taken in by Keith's lies.

Only if there are grounds to appeal i.e. they can make a case that the judge has made a legal error, and they are granted right to appeal on that basis. They can't just appeal because they don't like the decision. But, yes, that is possible.

There's been no reason for them to, they can still make the CAT case go away with their jurisdiction challenge. If they lose the jurisdiction challenge the situation becomes very different for them, no more hiding behind a confidential arbitration process and they will be legally required to disclose everything that they don't want to.

The hearing is but there won't be a decision then. Going by other jurisdiction challenges on their website the decision is generally published about a month after the hearing.

Have you been asleep for the past month? My money is still on the PL folding if/when they lose their CAT jurisdiction challenge, which we should find out the result of around the end of October.

Together with accusing the 'mainstream media' and anyone who questions his obvious bullshit of being in the pay of Qatar. He's a fucking fantasist.

My point around the public announcement was that public announcements are not formal. The formal process of withdrawing from the deal would be separate and behind the scenes. That public statement in reality holds no weight and there is no requirement on them to have actually formally withdrawn from the deal. On top of that there is evidence in the documents of a court case, leaks from government and documents on Companies House that the deal was still alive until at least September.

Are you referring to their letter to Chi Onwurah in which Masters said that PIF "voluntarily withdrew from the process"? That letter was dated 14th August 2020, we know from the CAT case summary 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, for the purposes of the Rules" On 7th September Boris Johnson reportedly had this conversation with Lord Lister: Johnson: "Any news from Saudi?" Lister: "A call is being set up. The Newcastle deal will hopefully be signed this week." Johnson: "Brilliant." PIF clearly were still in for us and the O&D test process was still ongoing until at least September.

The CAT case is for either loss of the sale or loss of opportunity of immediate sale, it also seeks an injunction to require the PL to withdraw or reconsider it's decision. Which suggests their is still the opportunity of selling to the consortium, or was when the claim was submitted in May.

The media only had the public statement from PIF to go on. It's clear that it didn't end their formal interest, both court documents and leaks from within our government show that their involvement and the PL's consideration of the O&D test did continue beyond that public announcement, at least until September.

No, but they clearly were formally back in August-September, after their public statement that they were out. My point is that a public statement is not "formal" and the formal position is not known.

They made a public statement that their bid had been withdrawn, that is not formal. The fact is we just don't know what happened then, and what has happened since, formally but all of the formal elements of the deal that information is publicly available about (the holding companies and £150m loan agreement) are still in place and we know from court documents that the Saudi's interest continued until at least September.

You missed part of their response... "We've checked that Mr Masters was sitting at a fully DSE compliant workstation when he wrote his reply. Fair enough. NUST"

The Man City one also says pending, which it no longer is, so it might just be that ours hasn't been updated and the pending commercial court application it refers to is actually the Beloff challenge. Although, that doesn't seem likely since the CAT case hadn't even started when the Beloff decision was made.

I've done a bit of digging on a hunch and I think there is a third case, in addition to the CAT and arbitration, currently pending in the commercial court. Possibly challenging the enforceability of the PL's O&D test rules on the basis of restraint of trade is my hunch. Adam Lewis is the PL's QC in our cases and this is obviously ours: Club C v Premier League; Company D v Premier League Premier League Section X Arbitration, Commercial Court and Competition Appeals Tribunal. Current. Acts for the Premier League in an arbitration with a club challenging a Board decision. Commercial Court application pending. Competition law proceedings before the Competition Appeals Tribunal threatened in the same context. https://www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/adam-lewis-qc/

In reality the position is no different to what it was before the CAT jurisdiction hearing was listed, in fact the hearing is much sooner than expected by people who did a bit of research on the process and weren't taken in by Keith's bullshit.

End of September is actually sooner than I had expected for the jurisdiction hearing.

Keith knows fuck all, he was saying that the PL had already lost their jurisdiction challenge before today.

I thought that at first but reading again the Director that would bound by the rules would be the KSA, not Al-Rumayyan himself if he were authorised to sign on the KSA's behalf. So it doesn't really seem to resolve the issue for us, which is that the KSA don't want to be subject to the PL's rules.

That bit seems to possibly be more of a response to the ESL. It also requires any director that is involved in any other football organisation to disclose that and what is discussed at their meetings.

I'm not sure that's good for us though. Aside from the new stuff that seems be in response to our takeover, they've also made changes that seam to mean the directors of the ESL clubs would be disqualified from being directors.