Whitley mag

Undoubtedly the Man City ownership model has one extra company set up to differentiate it from what is basically their sovereign wealth fund. Is Al Nahyan not a potential shadow director of City, or for that matter did Mansour even sit the O&D test. The PL test should supposedly be applied to current owners every season. Along with proving separation I’m quite sure De Marco will be using other ownership examples to show how unreasonable and inconsistent the PL’s approach to shadow directorship has been in this takeover.

1983 to 88 club crest for me, looked particularly great on the old silver shirts. https://www.nufc.co.uk/club/history/club-crest/

It’s good to see a journalist recognising the potential significance of all this.

Investigative powers in the UK To open a civil investigation the CMA or sectoral regulator must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement. Once it has started an investigation it may acquire information through: dawn raids on businesses where it may access electronic data; review, copy or remove physical or electronic documents; ask for factual explanations of documents relevant to an investigation, and interview individuals. In practice, its dawn raids often involve taking copies of electronic servers and reviewing these at a later stage; mandatory requests in writing for information and for specific documents or categories of documents. The CMA can require individuals connected with a company to answer questions, including ex-employees, suppliers and customers. In criminal investigations, the CMA may also obtain evidence through surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. Companies or people who obstruct the CMA in the exercises of these powers or failure to comply with any requirements can face civil or criminal proceedings. Richard Masters letter to the MP Liz Truss in January stated ‘I would like to reiterate that it is the Premier League's desire to have the matter resolved in timely matter.' Well the times nearly up for the lying bastards now. They refused to make a decision so we couldn’t appeal and take this to court. They’ve kicked it down the road in the hope the Saudis would walk. We’ll find out soon how confident they are in their actions, as things are going to get very uncomfortable for them in disclosure.

It’ll be interesting to see if the club go for a fast track anti competition case. I’m not sure what the difference is in terms of levels of disclosure as opposed to a full blown case. Where clearly banking on disclosure forcing the issue though and as such I’ve got a feeling arbitration is not happening if the case gets the go ahead. This article would support that these things tend get settled in regards to anti competition. Competition law expert Ben Lasserson of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said that use of the fast track had taken off "much more quickly than expected" following its introduction as part of the 2015 Consumer Rights Act (CRA 2015) on 1 October 2015. The previous two cases had settled quickly and this third case, brought by online training provider Socrates Training Ltd against the Law Society of England and Wales, was likely to do the same, he said. "The debate surrounding the CRA 2015 reforms to private actions in competition law predominantly focused on the introduction of the collective actions regime, given the significance of that change," he said. "The 'fast track' procedure did not attract the same level of attention, yet this latest filing shows a pattern of fast track applications emerging." "Interestingly, we are yet to see how this procedure will actually work in practice as each case has settled at an early stage. It is perhaps not surprising that the claims brought so far all involve an allegation of abuse of dominance. The reality is that companies understandably want to avoid the risk of a judicial finding of dominance, and will not want the added complication of having to fight an issue as complex as dominance in circumstances where the timetable is expedited and costs are capped. As a result, there is an obvious impetus towards early settlement. In its own way, therefore, the new procedure is arguably proving very effective for claimants as a means of challenging anti-competitive behaviour," he said. The ability to allocate competition law proceedings to a 'fast track' procedure was one of several new powers given to the CAT by the CRA 2015. Claims allocated to the fast track must be heard within six months, and costs recoverable by the winning party will be capped at a level set by the CAT. The CAT can allocate a case to the fast track either on its own initiative, or on the application of one of the parties. The procedure was designed primarily to benefit small and medium-sized businesses complaining of competition law infringements, but the CAT must also consider whether the case can be heard in three days or less and the complexity of the issues involved before deciding whether to allocate the case to the fast track.

NCSL confirmed that when they we’re seeking evidence it had actually gone out to clubs, one club said they had not received it. They we’re initially disappointed as it would have been evidence of lobbying against the bid, however they now have evidence all corrupt 6 and PL received the letter.

Any fines for the top 6 will probably go towards fighting our takeover, win, win for the corrupt 6. A points deduction is obviously not going to happen, but I’d like to see fines running into the millions. The money then distributed amongst the other 14 clubs or down the pyramid. It should not go into the PL coffers to assist there co conspirators Hoffman and Masters.

His preference is for club to pursue anti competition case before arbitration. He thinks we win the anti competition case, but due to bench in arbitration you can never be sure. On this point he is adamant Shaheed Fatima proves separation, but clearly Beloff is a concern. If I remember rightly from CAT case being given go ahead, disclosure could then begin in about 8 weeks. Arbitration hearing still set for July, but just my opinion I think club will then drag feet if CAT case is given ahead.

I was born on the banks of the Tyne in North Shields, if I spoke like Keith I’d be asking serious questions of my parentage. He’s got a few years and a few quid on me, but I’d happily buy him a pint in town for all the work he’s put into this.

Quite obvious why Ashley is doing everything to get this deal through. Some good snippets on Castore deal aswell.

True but if it’s causing issues for the PL board I’m all for it.

Nice to see us leading on this.

I think Jackie Broon makes a very good point in relation to the insurers on this. If disclosure is damning it may be out of their hands.

Dead bird in my garden this morning, hopefully it’s a bad sign for bird & bird.

It was excellent and he showed plenty of emotion aswell. The bloke cares no doubt about it. To suffer threats if he went to the city on Wednesday night, ridicule, financial costs and a relationship break up because of this is a massive sacrifice for anyone to make. We all deserve a happy ending to this, but i’ll certainly tip my hat to him for his contribution and dogged determination to make this happen when it’s all over.

It was again discussed how Bird & Bird have a reputation of trying to obstruct actions with legal technicalities and very rarely end up in court. However, it was also mentioned that they also settle a lot out of court. They’re current tactics are certainly following this pattern. Let’s hope disclosure is the point they do give up and look to settle.

Very good breakdown last night of how Bein letter for example will be used in court. The fact he was initially unable to establish whether clubs had actually received it, then he found out one club outside of big 6 had never received it. How a fan then gets evidence to show the big 6 and PL did receive it is impressive. The fact it is well known in football circles and journalists that Liverpool and Tottenham did then lobby PL, well it starts to become very clear how collective lobbying and collusion to stop a competitor entering the market has taken place. The only doubt Keith has on arbitration is Beloff, other than that he has complete faith in Shaheed Fatima proving separation. It might delay us longer but I have a feeling if judge gives go ahead to CAT case, then they delay arbitration for disclosure in that case to see if PL fold.

You had him down as setting up his own merchandise range the other week. Don’t let the truth get in the way though.

A clear picture of delay, delay and delay. We are told by Slater, Jacobs, Edwards and Fanny Breeze that the PL are confident and going to fight this all the way. It doesn’t look like the actions of a confident party to me. A delay of 2 weeks is nothing, we’ve waited over a fucking year. Keep the faith HTFL.

An attempt to find out what there liabilities could be undoubtedly. As Jackie Broon has previously pointed out, this may yet come down to the PL’s insurers to decide whether this gets to court. And I completely agree there actions don’t tally with an organisation confident in their position. The PL have been through arbitration cases before, but they’ve never had to fight a court case like this from my recollection. The financial penalties are potentially massive for them, if the advice is it’s a 50/50 case will they take the risk or be allowed to.

Yeah that’s the evidence submission, lets see what they’re next delaying tactic is though. They can try and get the CAT case thrown out, but even the Athletic conceded this morning that the case is far more encompassing than arbitration so don’t like there chances. The real question here is do the club want arbitration to go ahead before disclosure, as that may be their breaking point.

Mr Justice Roth, who granted the extra time on behalf of the CAT, noted in his reasons for doing so: "As of present, it is not known whether the defendant will be granted the separate extensions of time which it is currently seeking from the arbitral tribunal but in any event, the extension which it is there seeking for disclosure is to 26 May, 2021, which is also its current deadline for filing its evidence.