Various: N-O has lost the plot over potential end of Mike Ashley's tenure

[Strawberry]

Anyone listened to that Duncan Castles talk-in?

 

Yeah not much we don't know. Small rumour that the PL may make a decision this week although he says the buyers haven't even heard that so could be bad news if true.

 

Mentions AS getting an apology in court and credits the Newcastle fans for making sure it was known. (Judge also thanked public for alerting the court)

 

I wonder the buyers are in the liberty to say so even if they know about it. Also it is positive for me when he assured from his sources there is no legal framework to say NO.

[Danh1]

This all reminds me of last Summer, waiting what seemed like an eternity to hear whether Rafa was staying.

 

Hopefully this time we get a decent outcome.

[Whitley mag]

Just catching up with today I thought Raabs comments today were encouraging re investment, however the Qatari’s seemed to have spun it the other way.

 

The telegraph and other newspapers seem to be getting spoon fed at the minute by bein, and are lapping it up.

 

You can see how they got the World Cup, the fuc#%rs are relentless.

 

 

 

 

[Guest godzilla]

[FloydianMag]

 

He’s a barrister, I’ll take his assessment over Luke fucking Edwards.

[Judge Holden]

 

He’s a barrister, I’ll take his assessment over Luke fucking Edwards.

 

The assessment didn't come from Luke Edwards, came from whatever legal beagle the Telegraph asked about it did it not?

[Greg]

 

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable.

 

See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833

 

And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/

 

"The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed.

 

The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute.  Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3.  However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4."

 

I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism.

[Strawberry]

 

He’s a barrister, I’ll take his assessment over Luke f***ing Edwards.

 

The assessment didn't come from Luke Edwards, came from whatever legal beagle the Telegraph asked about it did it not?

 

 

Are we defending that clueless Edwards now? 

[Optimistic Nut]

Snippet from Almiron’s agent.

 

[Judge Holden]

 

He’s a barrister, I’ll take his assessment over Luke f***ing Edwards.

 

The assessment didn't come from Luke Edwards, came from whatever legal beagle the Telegraph asked about it did it not?

 

 

Are we defending that clueless Edwards now? 

 

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

[SUPERTOON]

If they didn’t fear a lawsuit, this would have been rejected by now.

[Guest Carrick18]

Snippet from Almiron’s agent.

 

How fucking on brand for Charnley does that feel. 

 

"Sir I can tell you nothing. It's an advanced stage and they will revolutionise the team, but as I say, I can say nothing."

[Guest reefatoon]

Mmmmmmm revolutionise the team.

[Strawberry]

Snippet from Almiron’s agent.

 

 

Thats correct Lee never know anything.

[nufcnick]

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster, just want to say hi as this seems the most active thread  :D :D

[STM]

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster, just want to say hi as this seems the most active thread  :D :D

 

I wouldnt bother.

[1964]

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster, just want to say hi as this seems the most active thread  :D :D

Do yourself a favour mate and go back to lurking, there's some mad buggers on here

[nufcnick]

Hi guys, long time lurker first time poster, just want to say hi as this seems the most active thread  :D :D

Do yourself a favour mate and go back to lurking, there's some mad buggers on here

:D :D, I have noticed but it seems good fun and all in good humour, mostly anyway

[Guest awaymag]

 

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable.

 

See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833

 

And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/

 

"The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed.

 

The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute.  Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3.  However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4."

 

I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism.

 

Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland.......  and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge.  Seems ridiculous if true

[nufcnick]

 

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable.

 

See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833

 

And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/

 

"The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed.

 

The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute.  Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3.  However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4."

 

I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism.

 

Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland.......  and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge.  Seems ridiculous if true

 

The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Judicial review is just one possible legal action though right? There are probably many other grounds that lawyers could take action themselves.

[Choppy Chop Chop]

 

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable.

 

See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833

 

And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/

 

"The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed.

 

The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute.  Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3.  However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4."

 

I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism.

 

Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland.......  and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge.  Seems ridiculous if true

 

The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining

 

Nothing about this sorry saga is entertaining

[SUPERTOON]

[nufcnick]

 

I'm pretty sure he is wrong. Judicial review is only available of decisions made by public bodies. It is well established in case law that sports governing bodies are not judicially reviewable.

 

See R -v- Football Association Ltd, ex parte Football League Ltd [1992] 2 All 833

 

And: https://www.ashurst.com/en/news-and-insights/legal-updates/judicial-review/

 

"The following characteristics have been considered relevant to whether an act or function can be reviewed.

 

The "but for" test: in other words, whether, but for the existence of a non-statutory body, the functions exercised by such body would inevitably be regulated by statute.  Bodies which have been considered amenable to judicial review using this test include the Advertising Standards Authority2 and the Takeover Panel3.  However, the Football Association's decisions escaped review as the court held that if the Football Association did not exist, the state would not have found it necessary to perform its functions4."

 

I may be wrong - but there's lot of reading out there on this - or may be thinking of a different judicial mechanism.

 

Don't know who is right but if you are Greg, then could the PL just turn round and go - takeover denied because......well we can't be arsed with the hassle? Or we don't like NUFC as we love Sunderland.......  and PIF wouldn't be able to legally challenge.  Seems ridiculous if true

 

The PL do seem to have it in for us TBH, if they do turn it down the court battle should be quite entertaining

 

Nothing about this sorry saga is entertaining

 

Yeah sorry, what I ment was it would be entertaining watching the PCP/PIF lawyers rip the PL’s case apart

[FloydianMag]

Judicial review is just one possible legal action though right? There are probably many other grounds that lawyers could take action themselves.

 

You would think so, I would have thought no company, organisation public or private has immunity to prevent litigation.