Craig H

JD Sports Australia

I rang and they said all emails had been sent if successful

Yep i didn’t get one. Waiting for son to come home from school to tell him the news…

Just spoke with the box office. All emails have been sent

Anyone from p5 onwards heard anything?

Same here im in p4 nothing in history and no payments taken

Not yet

Ballot in. Cat4 price only option if that means anything

ahh no not me

Err you’ve lost me there

Hope so travel and hotel are booked just need that ticket even if I’m in the gods

I’ve spoke to box office about ballot as was unable to locate the terms If unsuccessful in 4 you don’t move to 5 and so on. it seems that if you are in 4-7 you may have an equal chance. when you apply you fill in the ballot sheet online and then pray until the following Tuesday

New shirt on sale in Sp@RTS D!rect in Washington Galleries. kids sizes only

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/mishcon-gave-element-of-trust-to-murky-football-transfers-tribunal-hears/5109799.article

Good spot you could teach a few journalists a thing or two

Away kit black/gold according to SD website

I’m more surprised the hearing is as early as that. I know Keith has been suggesting things will be done quick using this route but I would have had my doubts. if the PL are unsuccessful don’t expect them to file a defence the next day, they will delay matters further and probably seek additional time to file it. IF the arbitration hearing goes ahead in early 2022 (subject to further procrastination) the club may already be looking down to the second tier by then. Good to see the Premier League protecting its member clubs and their fans. They did I suppose impose those devastating fines on the so called big 6. I mean Man Utd have only been allowed to spend nearly £150m on 2 players.

The Chair of the CAT will not make a decision on jurisdiction on the papers, it doesn’t work like that (or rarely) contesting jurisdiction is in the rules and when the application is made both parties will make submissions. The rules state there will be an oral hearing the next stage of CAT will be either that the matter will be listed for a hearing on the point of jurisdiction or if an application has not been made there will be a response to the claim made. after that I would expect it to be listed for a case management conference I doubt any hearing will take place this calendar year. forget about the CAT claim for now. It will be the arbitration process that will possibly bring quicker results.

I agree say arbitration is heard over 2 weeks (at worst) and decision is made by the panel straight away (within 24 hours) and it’s in Ashley’s favour. All the ground work is done so it’s a matter of transfer of funds (a week) then end of July would be possible, but that again is optimistic oh and Ben Jacobs interpretation on what is going on doesn’t mean it’s accurate. He can still be wrong if when he thinks he fully understands everything. Journalists whilst may report on matters they are not experts on everything

I doubt it’s far off because of a collective issue. The argument is still one of Jurisdiction not the overall case. if no jurisdiction application was made there maybe some imminent progress but I wouldn’t hold my breath this process is quite a niche area and there will be a need for court time. I would apply optimism at this stage on the July arbitration.

Just being realistic. (I’m not Craig Hope) And yes I am a lawyer (though not in that field) I’m optimistic about arbitration in July though to go in favour of FCB. The only thing is that I would expect arbitration to heard over 5 days.

My understanding of The CAT proceedings are that the claim was submitted in April. The PL sought an extension to make an application to contest jurisdiction and the deadline make an application has passed. It is not known if an application was made but I assume it was. Any application of such significance will need to heard and the Chair is unlikely to provide a decision on the papers only, which will be extensive. Looking at the CAT diary there is a case which was made in March and an application was made to contest the jurisdiction n of that claim which is listed for 4 day hearing in November. Using a similar timeline a hearing on Jurisdiction is unlikely to be heard until December probably later. the CAT process IMO is a tactical fall back on a failure of arbitration in July

Regarding the piece in the Financial Times, where does it state the meetings are in relation to the takeover? Bien Sports have an interest in the Premier League in respect of broadcasting matches. Up until recently those matches may not have proceeded therefore the product bought had changed. There have numerous reports of TV companies potentially seeking a partial refund of their outlay. Masters more likely than met with them regarding those issues and would not necessarily discuss the Owners and Directors test, I would assume he wouldn’t be involved in the actual test but would be the one to sign it off. So the report would be accurate in that they met and Bien are up in arms about the takeover but it doesn’t have to follow that this was the topic discussed but it makes better story by implying something may have occurred. Looking at the O&DT it comes down to disqualification of a director. Who is the director that is causing concern? The PIF or NCUK don’t have as I see the prince as a director and it’s it’s probably being looked at with regards to a legal entity. I note the term to sue being used. If there is a finding under Rule f.5 there is a right to appeal the finding to a tribunal (a bit like Keegan v Ashley) that’s where it could get costly for the PL. If it goes through in the near future I wouldn’t be surprised if it occurs around the time of the games coming back.

With regards to the issues of human rights and broadcasting issues that is being peddled as some new stumbling block that could put a block on it, isn’t it the case that when the story broke in January the Chronicle suggested that these are possible issues? The buyers (or those negotiating the deal and paid significant amounts to do so) will have anticipated this. Those dealing will be experienced lawyers not some newly qualified lawyer with a low charge rate. If the PL want to curtail piracy wouldn’t it be more beneficial to have the alleged pirates on board?