Jackie Broon

Seems that way, or maybe they genuinely think they haven't done anything wrong, or maybe they have tried to get out but Ashley wanted more than they could agree to.

There are no other tests like this for ownership of any other type of business as far as I'm aware, other than for board members of NHS trusts but that is supported by specific legislation. That's why I think the test itself will almost certainly be eventually be found to be an unlawful restriction of competition and/or trade.

What we really should have been pushing for is a CMA investigation, that's something that the government can intervene to request, unlike the current judicial processes that they cannot intervein in. When NCSL were encouraging people to write to MPs that's what I asked for, rather that draft letter which asked MPs to intervein in the CAT process, something they are not able to do.

I don't think that's necessarily true, the two biggest obstacles to a settlement would have probably been the PL knowing the arbitration could go either way and Ashley being willing to gamble on winning the arbitration and then taking the PL to the cleaners in the CAT. With the PL, subject to the outcome of their jurisdiction challenge, potentially facing disclosure in the CAT before arbitration, there may be more incentive for them to settle. There's obviously stuff the PL desperately don't want to disclose. And with no prospect of an imminent decision from the arbitration Ashley is likely to be more willing to agree to a settlement. Not saying that I think any of that will happen, but there is a logical glimmer of hope that this could trigger a settlement.

Yeah, this is their barrister in our cases. He seems to have a pretty impressive CV: https://www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/adam-lewis-qc/

Yeah, I really don't think this is part of any plan, it's clearly a victory for the PL. However, there was a rumour a month or so ago that the PL had offered to settle and Ashley had refused as he was so confident of winning and through he had them over a barrel. Probably bullshit like the rest but if that were true, which I can absolutely imagine Ashley doing, then there would be a possibility that this setback would change Ashley's mind.

He can't have heard anything about yesterday's announcement beforehand because it's absolutely clear that no one did, it was an unexpected decision made by the arbitration panel on the first day of the hearing.

And they'll be proven to be bullshitters yet again in the next few weeks when the CAT jurisdiction hearing is listed and we find out that it is months and months away.

It would be the same issue, the PL's position would be that the KSA would control the club via control of PIF and PIF's control of MASH holdings and St James Holdings Ltd.

We don't know that for sure, the owners of the company in Delaware might have been disclosed for the O&D test.

Also, the High Court judgment makes it clear that the arbitration only relates to whether the definitions of 'control' and 'director' in section A of the PL's rules would apply to the KSA. The section F O&D test itself, and therefore claims of the KSA being involved in piracy, is not relevant to the arbitration.

And if they're admitting that the PL are even partly to blame that means the PL must be predominantly or entirely to blame. Even if it was both sides that failed to disclose things, the PL are the governing body of the premier competition of our national sport, they should have absolutely nothing to hide and no issue with disclosing anything.

The club didn't need to be 'offered' arbitration by the PL, it is their right under the PL's rules if they have any dispute with the PL to take that dispute to arbitration. However, the club probably wanted a decision that they could appeal rather than the longer more complex process of arbitration. The PL refused to actually make a decision, despite saying that they would in their provisional conclusion letter of 12th June 2020 that is published in the High Court judgement. That looks much more damning for the PL.

He's been shown to be wrong on virtually everything verifiable he has said about the clubs CAT case since it was made public. He said it would take 6-8 weeks at the start and would be a public case conference within a few weeks, that was back in May. He might not have factored in the jurisdiction challenge in that, but when that came he said he knew the PL would do that. When there were rumours about the jurisdiction challenge being unsuccessful he first said he wasn't allowed to speak about it, then said the the PL had 'failed to get the case thrown out' and that a decision is only published if they had succeeded. Not long after the CAT agreed an extension and seemingly confirmed that there would be a jurisdiction hearing, proving that he was wrong. He's still claiming that the PL has 'failed to get the case thrown out' and that the case will go ahead in August, which cannot be correct given that the jurisdiction hearing isn't even listed yet and every other jurisdiction challenge I've found on the CAT site has taken at least a month after the hearing to get a decision. He clearly doesn't have a clue what is actually going on in the case, less of a clue than anyone with internet access and the ability to read.

They didn't start the current CAT case, it's a separate case brought by the club. The fact that they say they have received no remuneration, despite passing all of their work to the club's legal team, indicates that they have had vary little influence over the club's case. I think that Keith is massively exaggerating how involved they have been in the club's case and what they know.

And subject to that happening by 30th June 2020, the PL procrastinated so long that the contract expired.

I'm discussing their actions in relation to the PL blocking us from being taken over. That is separate, irrelevant and, whilst laudable, is a pipe dream that if successful will result in nothing more than tokenism IMHO.

If there is no other accountability, all the more reason to ask difficult questions and publicly hold them to account. NUST had the opportunity to do that and instead accepted Master's responses and said the ball is in the consortium's court. That took all momentum out of the pressure on the PL at that time.

Verbally, yes. Their response to him was weak and deferential, they just accepted his responses and said 'over to the consortium'. That took the pressure off the PL when there was significant pressure building against them.

Barely saw a single police officer at Wembley for the final. What a bunch of fucking pusillanimous cunts the PL is run by, calling the police in to protect them from a few dozen peaceful protesters trying to deliver a letter.

I agree, my work involves reading a lot of legislation and policy, and court judgements interpreting that. Judges do get it wrong sometimes though, I see a few a judgements that I really don't agree with, and its not that unusual for interpretations to go one way in the High Court another way in the Court of Appeal and even back again at the Supreme Court. Such interpretations are usually subjective, although judges are very skilled at delivering them with a veneer of objectivity.

“It does occur to me that with EFLs permission I could respond by saying that my advice did not iscuss (sic) the meaning of the defiitionsin hre (sic) rules of person’’dire tor’or control’. (sic) The cklub (sic) would have to-asnd (sic) might not-take my word for it,amnd (sic) would say that without the advice they could not be confident that this was so” The Honourable Michael J Beloff QC

She avoided it because their public position is that they are out.