Jackie Broon

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.

The PL published a new handbook on Friday with some interesting looking changes to the O&D test. They’ve introduced an “owners’ charter” which has to be submitted by each director 14 days before the start of each season. Although the rules are silent on what the Owners’ Charter actually is, “Owners’ Charter means the document of that name agreed by Clubs” is all the rules say. It also requires that “where the Director is not a natural person, it must ensure that the individual signing the Owners’ Charter on its behalf is duly authorised to do so.” And there is a new guidance note added to the O&D test in Section F that states "where these Rules impose an obligation on a Director (or proposed Director) to submit a Declaration (whether under this Rule F.2 or Rule F.24) and the Director (or proposed Director) concerned is not a natural person, it must ensure that the individual signing the Declaration on its behalf is duly authorised to do so and to bind that Director to comply with the obligations placed upon it by these Rules." They have also altered the definition of "Connected Person" (which is a term used in the all important definition of "Control") to include reference to circumstances involving a person who is not a natural person. No idea what that means for us, but it seems that the PL are concerned that their previous rules didn't deal clearly enough with circumstances where a person taking control is not a natural person i.e. a company or state.

The statement was a joint statement by the club and PL, that suggests some element of agreement.

I think the fact that he sent all of his evidence to the club's legal team only after the clubs case was submitted and didn't receive a penny for his time says everything you need to know about the quality and usefulness of his evidence.

Something I hadn't realised before tonight was that the statement the club released on Monday was in fact a joint statement by the club and the PL. That definitely seems to suggest a thawing in the relationship between the club and PL.

That's absolute guesswork too, no one really knows what the issue with disclosure was. The arbitration has been watertight so far, no ITK or journalist has accurately predicted anything, everything that has been revealed has been completely out of the blue.

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.