nbthree3

Hold steady on that title for a little

If the league doesn't agree who to apply section F on then how can they start? (Edit: start meaning which "legal entities" to apply section F on - the legal background work gaining further information and questions via the club was ongoing throughout, so I hope I'm not implying that didn't happen as it did) PIF - the league wanted to speak to the media minister who sits on the PIF board Al-Qasabi for instance, for additional information. Same goes for named directors Al-Rumayyan, bin Mogren etc. If PIF ultimately are controlled by KSA according to section A and are thus a shadow director, it makes applying section F a lot easier. Likewise, if they are proven to not. Because with a provisional determination which the consortium could disagree with - settled now via arbitration - that has the chance to force the PL to reconsider their not-set-in -stone decision. The league sought legal advice coming to that 'minded (inclined to think) conclusion' too, just as the club via consortium who disagree. Reubens + Staveley there's nothing up in the air about so they'll be a comparative breeze. I imagine it's a very quick process in the majority of cases once they start applying it. Saves trouble down the line knowing exactly who needs to be assessed before finding out there's someone else they may've not included which makes the process even more complicated. It's all very messy.

(4) Decision letter: "If [PLL] then decides that KSA will not become a Director, then it will proceed to a decision on the application of Section [F] to the individuals who have been declared, including PIF. However, should the Board decide that KSA is also to be regarded as a future Director, then there will have to be a declaration in respect of KSA and the Board’s decision on the application of [Section F] will have to be made in respect of KSA also.” https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/349.pdf (37) "The text of the letter makes it abundantly clear that the sole issue that PLL had decided (and then only provisionally) was that KSA satisfied the definitions so that it was to be regarded as a Director for the purpose of applying Section F of PLL’s Rules." I get the impression section F had not been applied because only the provisional determination (which might still be reversed if we "win" arbitration) had been made by the Premier League board. The consortium was free to disagree despite turning down arbitration initially, and that's alright because we're now at that stage. Section F hasn't been applied and the test remains an impasse unless the 'director decision' in paragraph 4 is reversed like I said

There we go

Odds slashed heavily on Wagner to West Brom. Not gospel, but something's up... last I heard Wilder was all set!

That's all very up in the air, but I'm excited to hear one day what that meant. Provided competition case isn't dismissed after the PL reply by Friday, a public hearing does the fans a world of good regardless of outcome because it's clarity.

Hopefully it gets out there what happened. Because the test supposedly didn't start really, as in no directors were assessed because the league were unsure who to test (KSA as a shadow director as per section A of the O+D which arbitration will settle their provisional determination). And if that took 17 weeks for essentially nothing to happen, it's easy to see why it's suspicious. Gazette claimed all named directors passed the test in a September article so that's even up for contention too.

Howe's a non-starter for Everton fans, arguably Nuno too but he's favourite for Palace. Appoint those 2 and they're accepting to be mediocre, supposedly. I get the impression they hate Rafa too even if he's happy to speak to them but he's that low on the list they won't try unless they Bruce it and like 10 turn them down! Fonseca and Potter I think they like going off the Twitter hashtag

More time is both a good and a bad thing - bad because the process is drawn out far longer than it could have. The Beloff appeal took half a year alone to appeal and we were unsuccessful there, but the reasoning behind it was absolutely justified so it's alright. But good because it's more time to prepare for both cases to create that watertight argument and hope that there's enough time for disclosure to reveal crucial evidence for Ashley's side! Do want it to be over though, we all agree there

I saw a swap for Saul might be in the pipeline if they're interested

Deviating a little but https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221150/Suspended-The-naked-sports-broadcaster-suspected-Radio-5-Live-f-word-sabotage.html

Atsu might be going to Saudi Arabia

https://jusmundi.com/en/document/decision/en-newcastle-united-fc-limited-v-football-association-premier-league-limited-judgment-of-the-united-kingdom-high-court-of-justice-2021-ewhc-349-wednesday-24th-february-2021 Paragraph 67: NUFC maintains that the scope of the arbitration is wider than the "Director" issue. I do not accept that to be so. None of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 8 and 17 of NUFC's skeleton submissions engage in any relevant way with Section F of PLL's Rules or with the issues that the 2017 Advice was concerned with. Section F of the Rules is not material in the circumstances to the true construction of the definitions within Section A for the reasons already explained in paragraphs 38-40 of the judgment. The arbitration is concerned ultimately with and only with the applicability of the definitions in Section A to KSA. Because the advice was related to section F of the O+D test rather than A, which applies to this arbitration the grounds of bias are dismissed - even if it's also mentioned a big oversight not telling Newcastle beforehand! Paragraph 59: "Notwithstanding my conclusion that the failure of the second defendant to set out this request in correspondence copied to all parties was an error of judgment, the only relevant question that arises is whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would infer a real risk of bias from this error. In my judgment such an observer having all the attributes referred to in the authorities would not have come to that conclusion. "

He mentioned in that podcast that the reason he's so invested is because it's his niche. He can add to the discussions because of his reporting and sources in the MIddle East accumulated over something like 7 years. He mentioned a Leeds takeover in 2014 involving GFH in 2012 which went pear shaped. "(David) Haigh was convicted of fraud charges in Dubai and spent 22-months in prison, where he claims he was tortured and raped. He is a campaigner for human rights and justice in the UAE, specifically on unfair trials, torture, Interpol and extraditions." Never treat anything isolated as gospel but use the common ground across different reports if they're so conflicting to build up a picture of how you interpret news

Ben's been speaking again about the ongoing process tonight for anyone interested. It's live atm but please though listen with an open mind because he's just another perspective in this long and drawn-out, painful process. If it was so easy, as he's said before on Twitter, it would have already happened. Goes with Edwards to a certain extent, but we seem to know his motivations much more. Cracking thumbnail too!

Transfer ban was the best thing to happen to them (from their perspective obviously!)

Brentford casually matching our rumoured budget

"I had great time at Newcastle and for me I want something else. I had a good time in Germany and won some titles and some nice things but I wanted something else. "Of course Newcastle is a very nice option for me. I was there for a long time - like, half a year - and I was enjoying the moment there. It's a great option and it's a club which knows me, I know them. It would be great to join them. "To be honest I don't know where everything stands right now. I told my agent - I'm at CAA Base now, a UK agency - I want to go on vacation first and then when I come back I'll speak about clubs, the clubs he has interested and what is going on. "I watch every Newcastle game and me and Allan still chat a lot. He's a great guy, a great player and in those final games of the season you saw how important he is for the team in a different way, in a different role," Willems says. "So to see the direction of the fans, it helps you, it keeps you alive. Even if I would put a smiley emoji the fans would say 'That's for Newcastle!' or 'Come back to Newcastle!' "They are great people in Newcastle. It's nice and I feel like I would love to pay them back for their support." Some of the key lines there

Club statements too, they're significant and the club also don't report every minor detail. The appeal on Beloff nobody knew about until the club made that public - we're in the dark just as much as these journalists often are. I like the optimism thread because you rarely get a place that's as isolated in its faith. But too much faith and you lose sight of reality, I think like NCSL have found themselves. There's a delicate balance that we need to go between!

I know it's easy to be caught up in the wave of optimism, but there's better use of people's times than claim ITK. If anything substantial happens then the journalists pick up on it like Jason Burt at the Telegraph or Keith at Sky. They rarely get involved in the process instead over weeks, over months, letting things develop before reporting, we don't need to know every little thing. When something happens, it'll happen.

Ancelotti can't be compared with Rafa tbh. Just a few weeks ago, he was talking about how the rumours of interest from RM were unfounded and he wanted to stay for their new stadium! Rafa stayed until the end of his contract while various more attractive job offers came along. He spoke about investment into the academy as a priority, about the training ground. Things other clubs seem to take for granted, we have to beg for and still don't get. In 3 years all that was done was a re-painting of the walls, apparently. He had every right to walk away because his contract expired, and traded Ashley's continued disinterest (remember Rafa's 3 years we had a negative £11m net spend) for a project in Dalian - owned by Wanda who have the naming rights for Atleti's ground, and formerly 20% of the club itself. He left us on the back of said broken promises for a 200 million pound training ground, maybe the best in the world. He was hamstrung in China because of the foreign player caps, which meant relying on youth, which explained the poor results as you're limited in that regard. He still had every right to leave us for that. That's ambition from Wanda, and he got a doubled wage in the process. You can replace managers, but you can't replace the class and ambition Rafa has. Ancelotti I think strung Everton fans along - the day after he left for Madrid he spoke about how Everton's target differed from Madrid's justifying the move "target is to qualify for Europe and a few years ago to remain in the league." It's cold when 24 hours earlier you were their manager! Sorry for the essay

They follow SCMP "Salary Cost Management Protocol" which is 60% of their turnover to be spent on player-based expenditure (excluding those under 21 or those on contracts longer than 3 years post-relegation). Sunderland's accounts as of 19/20 that end July 2020 have turnover at £29.2m which is a fall of about half from their £58.7m turnover the year before. So 60% of 29.2 million gets you £17.52m that can be spent on wages which has fallen from the £35.22m it was before. A lot of cutting needed at Sunderland this summer basically! The owner if he wants can use equity or 'donations' to help fund the club too but that must all be up front. Any donations count as turnover too, so you can get around things provided you're wealthy enough, but you can't in the Championship because SCMP doesn't exist there. https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/508199/league-1-scmp/