Jackie Broon

I don't think that necessarily means that PIF is not legally separate from the state. For example if the queen sits on the board of a company would that mean that it were controlled by the British state? I think the issue is whether PIF is set up in a way that gives it independence of decision making, which I belive it is. From what I can gather it also has very limited requirements to report back to government, less so than most other SWFs that are established as legally separate entitles.

Because it sets out the basis of NCSL's original anti-competition case, which the club has now taken on because (probably rightly) the PL responded to that saying that NCSL didn't have the legal standing to bring the case. The case included that beIN's letter objecting to the takeover was anti-competitive and that the PL had a legal duty to report both it and the reported lobbying of other PL clubs against the takeover to the competition authorities, and publicly distance themselves from it. If that is the case, it looks like the PL might be screwed.

Yeah, you're reading the wrong one, it's this:

It's explained in NCSL's letter before action to the PL.

When you watch that, set against the case made in NCSL's original letter before action, that the PL had a legal duty under competition law to publicly distances themselves from any hint of influence from beIN, it does not look good for them.

That Hoffman is his BFF and will sort out the Newcastle issue.

Yeah, even if the PL can make a sound case that the KSA would control the club, it's the way they've gone about things that will be the main issue for the CAT case I think. The delays, refusing to make a formal decision, failure to distance themselves from the influence of beIN and other premier league clubs, the leaking of negative information. That makes it look like their decision was not fair and balanced. Plus the potential inconsistency when set against what they've required from Man City and Crystal Palace.

On the topic of separation I didn't realise that NUST had released their barrister's letter to the PL, which was kept private at the time. "The KSA PIF board is responsible for ‘the long-term strategy for the fund, approves the business plan and the annual budget, PIF’s organization and governance structures, investment pools, and major investment decisions’. The KSA PIF’s ‘Program 2018-2020’ identifies the KSA PIF’s ‘Funding Sources’ and ‘Governance and Operating Model’, which indicates that the KSA PIF is an entity separate to the KSA system of government. Further, Qatari- and the KSA-based lawyers have reviewed the KSA’s laws applicable to the KSA PIF to advise that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity to the KSA system of government." https://nufctrust.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NUST-Letters-with-PL.pdf

They might not be, we'll know fairly soon whether they're going to fight it or not. So far they have been suspiciously quiet about it.

If you actually watch it Keith is more using that letter to describe the process of cross-examination the the PL will have to go through rather than presenting that has strong evidence, he actually acknowledges that it's not particularly strong evidence. But, in hindsight, it is more interesting when set against other stuff about the timing we now know. In his response to Chi Onwurah Masters said: “In June, the Premier League board made a clear determination as to which entities it believed would have control over the club following the proposed acquisition, in accordance with the Premier League rules. “Subsequently, the Premier League then asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional information, which would then have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualifying events. Well, the letter to Hatice Cengiz's QC was written on 29th June, after they had made a "clear determination" that the Saudi state would control the club.

Have to congratulate the premier league on the quality of their trolling

I think the only thing that would be positive about it is if the government had used it as a bargaining chip e.g. why should we approve this when you blocked investment into the UK and potentially harmed our relationship with Saudi Arabia? By the way the letter to Masters is published here, the decision hasn't been formally made yet and they're taking comments on it up until 28th May: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/premier-league-broadcast-rights-potential-exclusion-order/letter-to-richard-masters-premier-league-12-may-2021 Quite apart from the irony of stating that the PL attracting investment into the UK is one of the reasons for being minded to allow the exclusion order, this will be bad for anyone who pays to watch televised PL football in the UK as we will end up paying the cost of it.

The potential costs and implications are huge and they wouldn't be taking it on the chin, the PL itself is not a wealthy organisation, their legal insurer would and they will have a say in what the PL does.

I don't think we've even had any of the usual unofficial press releases from the usual suspects saying that the PL are privately confident that they will successfully defend the case. Have we?

I very much doubt that would prevent them from denying that they have acted in any unlawfully anti-competitive way.

The fact that the PL haven't made any comment on the CAT case could possibly be a good sign. It seems common practice for companies having anti competition cases brought against them to publicly refute them as baseless (such as Apple and Google recently). The PL have publicly responded to other announcements, such as after the withdrawal of PIF and Ashley's statement, but just 'no comment' on this.

I don't think so, it states that: 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”). It's stating that it was the decision that Saudi Arabia would be a director, not that it was blocked by disqualifying the proposed directors, which would be effect of a formal decision. We know from what was said by the PL in response to Ashley's statement in September that the PL made determinations in June and September that Saudi Arabia would be a director, but didn't make a formal decision disqualifying the other directors, so I think that is what is being referred to.

We did agree, only after that did he disclose that he had done work for the PL (advising on the O&D test), which is why we went to the High Court to try to get him removed.

They didn't make a formal decision. Following Ashley's statement in September, where he said they had refused the takeover, the PL made a statement saying they hadn't made a formal decision and basically that PIF had withdrawn so they didn't need to.

It's not a matter of realism vs. optimism, it's all speculation. Negative speculation isn't any more inherently realistic. "The takeover if dead, just accept it" vs. "there are these indications that the takeover is still alive" is not realism vs. optimism, it's pessimism vs. optimism.

They might not make that decision, it will almost certainly be the PL's legal insurers that will foot the bill and they will decide whether to fight or settle. I've seen it where I work, we had a multi-million pound damages case against us and the insurers were the ones making the decisions, they even required us to bring in new policies in response to it after they had settled the case.

Apparently 6-8 weeks if it's expedited, about 3 months if it isn't, but if the PL were to settle that could happen at any time. That's most likely to happen at the disclosure stage, which is half way through.

No one here could know that. For all we know Masters may have recommended that the board approve the takeover and been outvoted, it seems possible that something like that happened given the positive noises that were made to the government followed by an opposite non-decision.

In which case they should have just made a formal decision refusing the takeover (or more precisely disqualified the proposed directors under rule F.6 for breach of rule F.1.1.1). The process as set out in the rules is this: The club submits a declaration with the details of the directors it is proposing to appoint (including anyone taking control of the club). The PL board have five working days to respond confirming whether any of them are liable to be disqualified as a director under the provisions of Rule F1 (which includes where they believe details of another director haven't been provided). If so, the board will issue a notice disqualifying those directors under the provisions of rule F.6. Rule F.6 requires that notice is issued immediately. No allowance for going back and asking for more information, no allowance for months of indecision, if the declaration isn't adequate the proper process in rules is to formally disqualify the proposed director/s immediately. Then the club can either submit a new declaration with those details or appeal. There's also no explicit consequence for not following that process, there is no rule that says for example if a decision is not made within five working days the directors are automatically approved. Which the PL have obviously taken as a green light to take as long as they want. But the issue here is going to be whether they have behaved reasonably or appear to have deliberately blocked the deal (and right of appeal) by refusing to actually make a decision that their rules explicitly state will be made within five working days. I think they are probably going to have a very hard time defending their actions.