Jackie Broon

If the PL are in discussions with Ashley about settling it could explain the delay in publishing the judgement (if the rumours that it was made on Friday are true), they conceivably could have requested that it is held back.

I think you'll find that they made a clear preliminary determination to decide against making a decision.

Saying the PL are deliberately delaying the process when a key element of the case against them is that they deliberately delayed is pretty fucking damning.

Well not the exact same plane but: 'Any news from Saudi?' the Prime Minister asked Middle East expert Lord Lister on September 7, according to a well-placed source. 'A call is being set up. The Newcastle deal will hopefully be signed this week.' The PM replied: 'Brilliant.'

I suppose we'll find out this week. If that is true about the content of the judgment it's absolutely damning for the PL.

It also landed in Luton in early September when they apparently thought the deal was days away from being approved.

That has got to be more than a coincidence.

I think they'll probably be involved to some extent because how PIF operates is probably going to be a fundamental element of the case.

Could potentially be linked to the arbitration? That apparently starts next monday.

Burnsie got something right for once, Saudi Ministry of Finance plane took off from Riydah, stopped off in Sicily, stopped off again in Monaco, now heading straight for the UK: https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=7101e2&lat=42.123&lon=8.051&zoom=5.2&showTrace=2021-06-21

They seem pretty quick with their admin, I'd expect some sort of update this week, either a judgement (if the rumours are true) or a date for the hearing.

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/14025721-st-james-holdings-limited

The CAT process is very transparent, pretty much everything that isn't confidential is posted on their website and they even broadcast their hearings. We will know what is going on in a lot of detail, although the updating of the website might be a little behind the actual events.

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.