Jackie Broon

She's the Chair of the review panel currently looking into English football governance, she could potentially make recommendations that could result in the PL losing its powers to self regulate. If the PL insist on this being held privately when everyone else wants it to be public it's a very bad look for them when the panel decide whether there needs to be independent regulation of the PL.

That's just another Burnsie account I think.

He's clearly just a bullshitter, possibly just to wind up Burnsie and other 'ITKs' who pick up stuff from there or just in general.

That does sound very like something Donald Trump would say, although I have a feeling you might take that as a compliment.

Well, hopefully, I'm wrong on that because it looks like the PL are likely to fail to get the CAT case heard in private if that's true, and they certainly seem to have something they are desperate to hide.

Not saying he doesn't have contact with the club / consortium, but I really don't think he's being told anything of note.

I'm not convinced that he knows much about what is happening with the case, or that he had as much influence on the club's CAT case as he makes out (otherwise they would have reimbursed him for his work on it). I get the impression from him and Kennedy of people desperately trying to appear relevant and ITK when really they've just been used when it's been in the club/consortium's interest and know fuck all other than that.

Told... by the club's statement. The article suggests that he's just taken that from the statement, but I think he's possibly wrong. "It is currently attempting to prevent the competition courts considering a claim by the sellers from taking place in public," (prevent the CAT case, which would take place in public, from going ahead) "arguing that too should be held in confidential arbitration." (arguing that the arbitration, which is confidential, should consider the claim instead)

I think Kennedy has just inferred that (the jurisdiction challenge has failed) from the club's statement, possibly incorrectly because the wording of the statement is very unclear on that point.

Of course you fucking did

I thought that on first view but I think it can be interpreted either way. Particularly with it saying "that too should be held in confidential arbitration", the CAT claim is not arbitration. What I think it is most likely actually saying is that the PL are trying to prevent the CAT case, which would be public, from going ahead arguing that should be dealt with under the arbitration instead. That suggests to me that the PL's jurisdiction challenge is still yet to be decided.

Yeah, the only reason a process like this needs to be confidential is that it potentially involves commercially sensitive information for the consortium and club. The PL has absolutely no legitimate reason to insist on confidentiality if the club and consortium want an open process.

Although, from Michael Beloff QC's emails published in the high court judgement: “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”

Ashley said the O&D test had been refused in September, which the PL then denied. The PL's 'decision letter' from 12th June 2020 is included in the high court judgement. It basically says that they had made a provisional conclusion that the KSA would be a person in control of the club but would take into account any other submissions from the club before making a final decision, after which they would go forward with the test on the other directors if that decision were that the KSA would not be in control. But it seems that they never actually made that final decision and instead insisted on arbitration. "From the information you have provided, [PLL] is provisionally minded to conclude that KSA satisfies both elements in the test for “Control” over [NUFC] through its control over PIF (which, as noted, recognises that it will be a Director). In summary: 1. As to management, … PIF’s directors are appointed by Royal Decree, and its current board is almost exclusively composed of KSA Government Ministers. The PIF Law puts [it] expressly under the direction of … a KSA Government Ministry. Its function is to serve the national interest of KSA. 2. As to ownership, it would appear that PIF is state-owned, and that it manages only state-owned assets. Again, if you disagree with either of these provisional conclusions, we would welcome your reasoned response. Following receipt of any submissions, [PLL] will fully consider them before reaching a final decision on the issues. If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board’s decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also.”

I think he's probably wrong that a new O&D test submission would be needed, I think the PL would have to continue with the one that was submitted if they lose the arbitration, and/or that it would take a long time. But he is right that the test was never carried out on the other proposed directors, that was confirmed in the high court judgement.

PL FFP is over the past three accounting years, allowing a loss of up to £105m over those three years, but 19/20 is excluded from that. Could we possibly be pushing losses into that accounting period to help with FFP?

They're obsessed with making up stuff to fool Burnsie on there, it will be a photoshop I think.

Even discounting the fact that the PL haven't followed their own process and all of the other behind the scenes lobbing and delaying shenanigans, the O&D test is clearly vulnerable to challenge under competition law. The PL is essentially in a monopoly position and PL clubs are businesses competing against each other in a closed market. The O&D test restricts access to that market and so restrict competition within it. The judge will probably ask why is it necessary to restrict access to people who wouldn’t be barred from being a director of any other company. The PL will probably give reasons like ‘football is the national sport, reputation, soft power’ etc. I would think the judge will conclude that it’s the role of government to legislate to control ownership if necessary for those reasons, but as it stands the PL are subject to competition law and the O&D test unacceptably restricts competition by restricting access to people who could own any other business and requires people to become directors when they wouldn't in any other circumstance. I'm convinced that the PL will lose the CAT case, although I'm not so convinced that will deliver the takeover.

You're right, but that would have been a big risk to take and they clearly didn't want to take it.

Not that it would ever actually happen, but the PL can technically suspend the club from the league until the club is sold: F.9. If a Director who receives a notice under the provisions of Rule F.6.1 fails to resign and his Club fails to procure his removal from office as required, or if a Club proceeds with the appointment as a Director of a Person to whom Rule F.4 applies despite having received a notice under the provisions of Rule F.6.2, the Board shall have power to suspend the Club by giving to it notice in writing to that effect

That's if the CAT case hasn't already killed the whole concept of an owners and directors test. In which case the government will have to legislate for it if they want special controls to be in place on football club ownership over and above those of any other company.

My worry is that I don't think the CAT case is a route to the takeover, it will probably take too long. I think the takeover hangs on the arbitration and I'm less confident about that going our way.

I don't think the CAT rules don't state that there "will" be a hearing, their guidance (not the rules) states that there will usually be a hearing. Which suggests that there would be the option for it to be decided on the papers. Given that it seems to solely relate to the arbitration covering materially identical issues, it seems conceivable that the CAT would want to make a decision, at least to stay the case, before the arbitration takes place.

I don't think it's that black and white. The PL's challenge is that the arbitration is dealing with materially identical issues, it seems the most likely outcome if their challenge were successful is that the CAT case is just stayed until the outcome of the arbitration, rasher than thrown out. If the PL's challenge fails / has failed, I don't think that really says much about the strength of the club's evidence, but it might indicate that the scope of the case is such that the club could lose the arbitration and still have a viable anti-competition case.

I think the 28th for the start of arbitration came from Sheikh_of_Araby on not606 originally, my feeling is that his first post saying he'd heard that the PL's jurisdiction challenge had been dismissed was genuine (not necessarily correct, but I think he'd genuinely been told that by someone) but everything he's said since then has just been to show up twitter ITKs / cover his tracks after he saw how far that spread.