Jackie Broon

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.

That thought has crossed my mind too, but then it would probably be easier to start the CAT case after arbitration if that were the reason, the timing suggests to me that at least part of the reason is to put pressure on the PL to settle the arbitration.

Friday is just the deadline for the submission of the CAT jurisdiction challenge, I don't think there'll be a decision on that for at least a couple of weeks. I'm pinning my hopes on the PL settling shortly after if that challenge fails. Although, I know fuck all and that's just pure speculation.

Reading further down the letter: "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."

Yeah, I completely agree. I think the club are worried the arbitration might not go their way (so am I) and the CAT case is there now to try to force the PL into a settlement on both.

They must have done, we certainly would have heard about it from the likes of Jacobs had they not submitted their declaration properly and that hasn't been even alluded to anywhere from what I've seen.

From the summary of the CAT claim: "The Claim states that the Defendant exercised its power to block the Proposed Takeover when it decided between June and September 2020 that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be a director exercising “control” over NUFC, for the purposes of the Rules (“the Director Decision”). In reaching the Director Decision, the Defendant failed to apply the Rules in a fair, objective and non-discriminatory fashion and/or used its powers under the Rules for the improper purpose of promoting its own commercial interests and/or the interests of its business associates and/or certain of the PL member-clubs in a manner that was detrimental to competition and consumers." For the CAT case the club probably need to demonstrate something like that, on the balance of probabilities, there was some kind of anticompetitive influence and the PL acted on that to block the takeover. If the club can show that the PL didn’t correctly follow their own O&D process, which they clearly haven’t, that probably puts the PL in a very weak position on the second part of that.

They must have, from the PL's 'decision letter' letter in the High Court judgement "PIF expressly recognises that it will fall within the definition of “Director” under [PLL’s] Rules".

Sorry to burst your bubble but rules F.24 to F.27 didn't exist in April 2020, they were inserted in January 2021.

And yet people are still coming back with the same erroneous stuff about the PL not having been able to carry out the test because they didn't agree on the directors. If people stop posting that I'll stop showing that they're wrong. That's the argument for arbitration, but for the CAT case I think the fact that the PL haven't properly followed their own rules is going to seriously weaken their defence, which could increase the chances that they will settle the arbitration to get out of the CAT case.

This makes it clear that the rules apply to anyone who is declared as a proposed director from the point they are declared: F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules; That includes rule F.1.1.1 which, as detailed above, applies to any proposed director from the point they are declared and requires that they be disqualified if any other directors (including new owners) have not been disclosed: F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has: F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

It does given that the opposite of that actually is written down in the rules.

You're wrong, one of the rules the test can be failed on is that is that all directors must have been be disclosed (F.1.1.1.). If it were the case that the test doesn't start until all directors are decided on that rule would be pointless, because it would never come into effect.