Ankles Bennett

I seem to recall seeing a post last year where someone posted a list of PIF sporting assets and it showed NUFC as being a PIF asset. Don't know if it was kosher or not!!

Especially seeing the rumour that Krafth might be sold!!!

But the North East is traditionally a Lsbout stronghold. He may take the point of view that whatever he does that won't change so why bother supporting the takeover!!!

So if PIF is found to be separate from KSA the PL will carry out the O&D on PCP and the Reubens. Any bets taken that one of them will fail the O&D test?

and you are missing the point that by challenging the appointment of Beloff they ensured that he will have to be completely impartial. Any hint of illegally favouring the EPL case will be grounds to have that decision overturned on appeal

if they really want Benitez once (if) the takeover goes through I have no doubt they will buy out his contract at Everton!

Point 6 just means that if the CAT decides it does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, or decides it does have jurisdiction but decides not to exercise that jurisdiction, for reasons best known to them, they can give directions as to the disposal of the case, i.e. throw it out, or stay (postpone) the proceedings, because they consider they may have jurisdiction to here the case if we win the arbitration case. Point 7 simply says that if they decide point 6 has no application i.e. they decide they do have jurisdiction and decide to proceed to hear the case, they can issue directions to the parties advising when, and in what order, they will hear the arguments put by both parties to the appeal.

I thought all the declared directors had already passed the O&D test. That's why the EPL came up with idea that KSA would be an undeclared director or shadow director in order to block the takeover !

Probably from the TV revenues. It would mean the prize money for final table positions at the end of 21/22 season will be drastically reduced.

Interesting point but no. The epl clubs have all signed up to follow the epl rules. Our case is the interpretation of those rules. E.G in legislation if it says "MAY", implement certan legislation in reaching a decision the decision maker has "discretion" in making their determination. However if it says "SHALL" then the decision maker has no discretion and must implement the legislation!!!

But if Arbitration finds the EPL implemented their own rules correctly, even if they did take into account evidence put before them by Bein and the "big six" before reaching their determination, there is categorically no grounds to support jurisdiction for a CAT hearing!!!

If Arbitration finds the PL followed their own rules correctly and that ksa could be regarded as an undisclosed director, then there is no issue of a breach of competition law. It follows that regardless of when the CAT case is heard the CAT has no jurisdiction. The sensible course is the CAT judge will adjourn the CAT hearing including any disclosure until after the Arbitration hearing is determined one way or another.

The PL will be arguing that if they win the Arbitration case then the CAT will have no jurisdiction. It's basically saying that deciding the CAT before the Arbitration determination is putting the cart before the horse and I think they have a valid point!

Kanes trying to avoid getting injured so he can get his move to man city

Watched most of the games so far and this "tournament" football is absolute shite!! Its all about keeping the ball!! None of the forwards are prepared ro take a man on. The number of times the full/wing backs are in a position to cross the ball only to play it back until it ends up with the centre backs who pass to midfield who then play in the full/wing backs who play it back again. Rinse repeat for 90 minutes!!!

Agreed, but the solicitors chasing it could have amounted to an attempt to gauge a settlement figure in the event they looked like losing!

We are told Ashley is furious that the PL failed to approve the sale of the club, and I find myself wondering whether, if Ashely loses the CAT and/or the Arbitration so the sale collapses completely, he will still be so furious that he pumps money into the club in order to sign the players that will allow us to gate-crash the big 6 and take a great big slice of the PL prize money and European places, by way of his revenge on the big 6. This rumour of a £50m war-chest could just be an indication of this. Alternatively it could just be he sees an opportunity, given the effect on PL clubs financial turnover, due to covid, whether he sees an opportunity to buy promising young players at knock down prices. Imagine buying Willock type players for £10m to £15m when in normal financial circumstances they would cost £25m to £30m. Selling on those players in 2 years time could turnover a huge transfer profit for the initial outlay of £50m.

Be nice if our takeover goes through and we hijack the deals for Kane, Sancho, Haaland etc. I can dream cant I?

The PL need to be careful when imposing punishment. Too harsh and the big 6 will just say sod it we are off to join the ESL!!

I seem to recall reading an article where Carroll said he didn't want to leave and wasn't given a choice in the matter!

I work with Barristers on a regular basis arguing points of law in tribunal cases, and trust me De Marco will come at this case from every conceivable arguable angle in order to counter whatever argument Bird & Bird present. Unfortunately so will Bird & Bird. Its just a case of is De Marco better at his job than Bird and Bird!!!

Totally agree!!

But the point that is being overlooked is BeoutQ were stealing from Bein not the EPL clubs. If Bein coudn't prevent the piracy, how could they expect the EPL to do so. The only way that could be achieved would be to block Bein surely, because it was their broadcasts that were being pirated, not the EPL broadcasts. Bein arguing that the Saudis were stealing from the EPL clubs is nonsense. BeoutQ was stealing from Bein who had already paid £500m for the right to broadcast to the MENA region and that money went to the clubs via the EPL. What Bein probably meant was they would not pay £500m for the broadcasting rights in future due to the piracy, which meant the EPL clubs would get less, hence the roundabout route of arguing the Saudis were stealing from the clubs, which to me is a rather tenuous argument.

Whatever argument we rely upon in the CAT and Arbitration tribunals it must be supported by binding case law otherwise our argument will be as effective as a bucket of water full of holes.

I've thought this from the start. The Reubens will be he developers the Saudis use to develop the run down areas of the city.