Jackie Broon

I've seen that posted by someone else too, but her husbands continued interest in NUFC on twitter doesn't really make much sense if that's the case.

I agree, I don't think winning the CAT case is likely to be a route to the takeover because it will take too long. But if it's true that the PL have lost the jurisdiction challenge it puts a lot of pressure on them to settle before arbitration, because that is their only way out. If they don't take that chance to get out now they could be in the shit irrespective of the outcome of the arbitration.

MOTT blocked me on twitter, the only reason I can think of was a veiled comment related to him that didn't mention his accounts or name directly and he wasn't tagged into. He must spend every waking hour on twitter searching for people to block

Just my layman's opinion but I think the PL are screwed in the CAT case, even if they win the arbitration, because I think the O&D test itself will probably be found to be anti-competitive. I just can't see how the concept of an O&D test that restricts ownership of football clubs way beyond that of any other business, that isn't backed up by primary government legislation, will stand up to competition law. For the same reason that the ESL collapsed, the ESL clubs were absolutely confident that the PL's rule that they can't enter other competitions without PL approval would not stand up under competition law, but when the government came out and said that they would legislate to prevent clubs from joining the ESL the game was up.

Ironic example since the PL's rules state that within five Working Days of receipt of declaration of a new director the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1. Irrespective of whether the (non)decision stands up at arbitration the fact that the PL didn't properly follow the process set out in their rules, if combined with evidence of anti-competitive influence, might still result in there being a case for the PL to answer. I think it's possible the CAT could also determine that the rules themselves, in particular the incredibly broad definition of control, are anti-competitive.

But the arbitration will probably be finished by August, the CAT case won't be decided until a long time after that. Also, even if the club lose the arbitration, if there is evidence that there was an anti competitive influence in the way they handled the process there could still be a case for the PL to answer.

Or a scapegoat will leave their job.

And De Marco posts this random, even for him, picture of a surveillance camera the same day that it's rumoured the PL's jurisdiction challenge has been dismissed and therefore they have to go through full disclosure and public hearings on their actions.

I've had that thought too, even if the PL were to go to Ashley to discuss settling he's unlikely to just accept "we'll settle the arbitration if you drop the CAT case". He would smell blood and will want to screw the PL for as much compensation as he can.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I don't think it quite works like that, Mike Ashely is legally a separate entity from St James Holdings Ltd but he controls it and the club. I think it's almost certainly a lot more complex than that in relation to the KSA's control over PIF and therefore NUFC, whether that can be applied to the relationship between the KSA and PIF, and also whether the PL's decisions in other cases have set precedents about interpretation of those definitions. But in common sense terms, it's pretty clear that the KSA can control PIF.

I don't think the arbitration about the strength of the test as such, in fact it's not about the O&D test at all, from what is publicly known it's about the whether the KSA meet the definition in the PL's rules of a 'person' that would 'control' the club.

Although, the update in that other case was a jurisdiction hearing set for November, which isn't very promising.

Yeah, it would make sense for them to do it that way too, the government probably couldn't be seen to be raising the issue of their alleged anti-competitive actions around our takeover off their own bat, but I know for a fact that it has been raised in the exclusion order consultation.

It seems beautifully ironic that the PL are still waiting on a final decision on their request for a competition exclusion order so they can extend the current UK TV rights after they were given a 'no red flags' preliminary response over a month ago. How apt it would be if the government, following concerns raised in the consultation, were to require that the PL resolve the current CAT case against them before they will grant the exclusion order.

Rafa's main priority is his family, even if he had the choice of both jobs I think he'd be tempted by Everton over us to be able to spend more time at home.

We'll find out when the jurisdiction challenge hearing is going to be when it appears in the diary here https://www.catribunal.org.uk/diary and the decision will probably be within a month of that hearing. Also, the outcome is unlikely to be that our case won't be heard at all, it seems much more likely that it would just be delayed until after the arbitration is finished. Although, the decision on jurisdiction might come after the arbitration is finished anyway.

Don't forget the green traffic lights reflected in the background too

I think it's how they calculated the amount Ashley is claiming, rather that the amount of damages, which I think they will know. Also, I think they were only denied access to it at this stage because it's not relevant to the preparation of their jurisdiction case. If their jurisdiction challenge is unsuccessful and the case goes ahead I think they will probably get access to it when the confidentiality ring is established.

The next thing will probably be the dates for the case management conference and/or jurisdiction hearing, which will be publicly streamed on the CAT website.

Thinking about it seems a strange move from the PL to delay the jurisdiction challenge. By getting an extension of the deadline they've probably ensured that the arbitration decision will come before the CAT case really starts, which seems like it would weaken their argument on jurisdiction.

Yeah, I don't think there's a set timescale for the CAT to make their judgement. I've had a look through other CAT cases and jurisdiction challenges don't actually seem to be particularly common. Generally, decisions seem to be made about a month after the jurisdiction hearing, but there could be a case management conference to decide how it is handled before that, so the hearing could be up to a couple of months after the challenge is filed. There are so few of them to go off and they might have been more or less complex jurisdiction cases than this, so might have been handled differently to how our case will be, but I think my initial guess that we would get a decision around the end of the month looks a bit optimistic. I think that a date for jurisdiction hearing / case management conference will be published in the diary on the CAT website soon, so we'll have a better idea of how long it will be then.

I doubt there will be anything new of substance until the decision on the CAT jurisdiction challenge drops, which will probably not be until sometime around the end of the month.

The bidder whose president sits on UEFA's exec committee and is chairman of the European Club Association. Nowt fishy about that at all.

The Ruebens use CS-RBN and CS-REU.