Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. You're right - that is interesting, on the face of it it has nothing to do with the jurisdiction strike out defence. Although what you/we need to bear in mind, is that whilst we are all thinking that the CAT proceedings were started because it means that the PL have to disclose a lot of damaging evidence to MA, it also works both ways, and MA has to disclose all of the relevant evidence to the PL. What we call a "fishing expedition" in the trade!
  2. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the value of NUFC - it will be to support the argument that the seller (which I think is still MASH Holdings) has suffered losses as a result of the sale not going through. Although what will be relevant is (for example) they have an alternative proceedable bid at £200m. If that were the case, then you would argue that this is the market value of NUFC now, and if the PL hadn't breached their obligations, Ashley would have had £310m. If you exchanged contracts to sell your house in a hot market, and managed to exchange at £100,000, and the bu
  3. Ha, I'm definitely not - I suspect Chris doesn't spend his evenings catching up on takeover news he has missed!
  4. No problem - I am a lawyer, but admittedly not a litigator or indeed a sports law specialist. I do however work in an international firm, so I have a rudimentary knowledge of how these things work, as when my clients have similar issues I send them to the experts! I also happen to have been involved in a previous purchase of NUFC to a limited degree, completely unrelated to this, so do have some background knowledge - but nothing that really offers any insight into what is happening in this deal.
  5. I read it that the existing deadlines were both 26 May, hence why it was reasonable to give them an extra couple of weeks in the CAT claim.
  6. The CAT proceedings are based on completely different arguments, so in theory it will still go ahead. I'm less convinced personally on the success of that one, competition law and what is unlawful anti-competitive behaviours is very different from what most non-lawyers think is anti-competitive. Most businesses try and harm the competition in the market in some way and seek to advance their own businesses, that's just the nature of business - competition law is geared towards stopping certain businesses getting so dominant that they stifle all competition in the market i.e. Asda and Sainsburys
  7. Agree with that re Ashley - he clearly wants out, and this is the best possible chance he has of getting £300m +, with a ton of side benefits re opening markets, but if this one doesn't go through, it really is a matter of time. And I've never believed the line that previous takeovers were somehow an attempt to push up season ticket renewals/dampen transfer expectations. He does want out - and I happen to know first hand that he was so willing to get out after the first relegation the price was dropped to £80m!
  8. There's really far too much being read into that judgement - it is just normal procedure, and it is neither good nor bad. The first thing you consider in any claim like this is whether you can knock the claim out with a jurisdiction argument - i.e. that the claim is such that it doesn't cover things that the CAT have authority to decide upon. You would try that even if you thought you only had a 1 in 4 (or less) chance - when you consider the sums at stake, there is no reason not to do that. It means you can try and get rid of a claim before spending time and money arguing against its ac
  9. Lawyers typically cannot advertise they are acting for a client without specific consent, regulatory duty of confidentiality and all that. The only way that statement was put up was with Mike Ashley's say so, so it had to be a deliberate attempt to put some more pressure on the Premier League, create a bit of press activity, and then remove the statement. Job done.
  10. I thought I had one through Scan and CCL. Just called CCL and they confirmed that orders (and money) was taken, but stock has gone. They did say that I was number 7 in a queue numbering 120+ or so, which I assume is all of the other buyers who managed to get a purchase through and hoped they had secured it, so keeping it for now. No idea what situation is with Scan, but in absence of a despatch email suspect it is similar.
  11. Reason this is such an issue is that the O&D test involved providing a shed load of information (including but not limited to financial) on those to whom it applies. Politically, proving a body in another country with that information on a world leader is going to be incredibly difficult. If the state pension fund of Russia (just an example) wanted to buy a club, and the PL said that Putin had to fill in a form and provide all of his personal and financial data, you can see why this would be an issue. Essentially the O&D test itself doesn’t really lend itself to state-type acqui
  12. I’m not sure the threat of Ashley legal action will have the PL running for the hills. They’re not really a separate commercial entity - they’re the representation of a club of English clubs, to maximise income for those clubs, and let’s face it, what we really mean here are the top 6 or so clubs. If Ashley claims £100m, it isn’t going to bankrupt the premier league, it would just mean that the premier league clubs will get a little bit less out of the next TV deal (including NUFC). £5m each would cover it. What is it worth for most of those clubs to not have a competing club join the C
  13. Although I wouldn’t pretend this is my area, there are plenty of legal avenues where one could try and base a claim. I’m not sure restraint of trade would be the right one tbh, but if you can get yourself to the position that the PL owe NUFC a duty of care, and they have breached that duty with how they have conducted the process, causing a loss, then that is one angle. Not saying it would succeed, but sometimes that isn’t the point. Just the threat of a £100m + claim might be enough to “settle”. You’ve also got the more obvious claims if you can show that the premier league is carrying out
  14. Written dialogue with the PL is not going to achieve anything except a polite response saying nothing. As we’ve seen with Ashley, the only way this is going to have any impact is of that fan pressure impacts on revenue. If the 50,000 fans who signed the petition had it in them to cancel sky subscriptions, and a mass boycott of any of the PL’s commercial partners. We may not have a huge amount of options available as fans, but we’re still one of the most watched teams, that’s why we’re on so often. A public cancellation of subscriptions, spamming social media etc. would be fantastic if sky l
  15. There is some law which is (in theory) designed to help this sort of situation. Would be interested to know if NUST have considered the judicial review process. It is normally designed to to cover unfair decisions made by government bodies, but it can in certain circumstances be used to challenge decisions made by public bodies. For anyone who knows real estate, it can be a genuine threat. I don't know how good the legal team NUST have involved is, but I would wonder if they have considered that?
  • Create New...