Joey Linton Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 Just now, gdm said: Right, I’m on board here he is drawing our new owner, Amanda #penandink #drink #cans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, gdm said: Right, I’m on board here he is drawing our new owner, Amanda I’m more interested in what’s happening with that ladies crotch.. zebra toe? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 absolutely rock hard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, thomas said: absolutely rock hard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 Obviously saying deals gone tits up. Ffs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 34 minutes ago, Slim said: Obviously saying deals gone tits up. Ffs Tits are facing down so it must be going through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 6 hours ago, Abacus said: I'm not sure it would really mean anything. The PL were trying to argue that the courts had no jurisdiction in an anti-competition claim, if i've understood it correctly. I may well not have. If they do have the authority to look at the claim, then the challenge can go ahead, but it says nothing about the strength of the actual case on either side. The positive would be, if that rumour was true, that the PL don't get to pick the judges in this one, unlike with the arbitration. 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 12 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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! How so? The arbitration is to decide if the PL were adhering to there own O&D test in insisting that the KSA are a shadow director, the CAT is because Ashley believes that he was blocked from selling the club because of undue influence in the PL by the greedy 6 and Bein sports, what was stoping competition in the league, they are 2 totally different things Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 13 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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! But the arbitration will probably be finished by August, the CAT case won't be decided until a long time after that. Also, even if the club lose the arbitration, if there is evidence that there was an anti competitive influence in the way they handled the process there could still be a case for the PL to answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 6 minutes ago, nufcnick said: How so? The arbitration is to decide if the PL were adhering to there own O&D test in insisting that the KSA are a shadow director, the CAT is because Ashley believes that he was blocked from selling the club because of undue influence in the PL by the greedy 6 and Bein sports, what was stoping competition in the league, they are 2 totally different things 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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. That still doesn’t allow clubs and outside broadcasters to interfere and try and block the take over, which is a clear breach of competition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 33 minutes ago, nufcnick said: That still doesn’t allow clubs and outside broadcasters to interfere and try and block the take over, which is a clear breach of competition. 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!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 7 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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!!! Does it then become about their rules are unlawful if they are deemed anti-competition? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 16 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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!!! you cannot communicate/facilitate/scheme with outside parties not involved in a confidential and NDA takeover application. That is totally against competition law before any rules are even considered. Ashley’s legal team are alleged to have the supporting evidence that the involvement of outside parties is clear, As such, if this evidence is available and implicates the involvement of these outside parties, then it certainly does 100% justify this CAT case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Hhtoon said: Does it then become about their rules are unlawful if they are deemed anti-competition? 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!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted June 19, 2021 Share Posted June 19, 2021 1 hour ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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!!! And does it say 'May' or 'Shall' in their rules? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 1 hour ago, Ankles Bennett said: 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!!! Ironic example since the PL's rules state that within five Working Days of receipt of declaration of a new director the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1. Irrespective of whether the (non)decision stands up at arbitration the fact that the PL didn't properly follow the process set out in their rules, if combined with evidence of anti-competitive influence, might still result in there being a case for the PL to answer. I think it's possible the CAT could also determine that the rules themselves, in particular the incredibly broad definition of control, are anti-competitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty__mag Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 Who is this mouth of the Tyne supposed to be? Is it more Twitter fame hunger, or actually reliable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingcrofty Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 He’s just lifted it off Not606. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 3 minutes ago, mighty__mag said: Who is this mouth of the Tyne supposed to be? Is it more Twitter fame hunger, or actually reliable. The clue is in the name, shows the power of social media and misinformation. It was mentioned on one message board and has become almost accepted fact in 24 hours Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 It’s burnsie is it not? Total bullshitter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted June 20, 2021 Share Posted June 20, 2021 5 minutes ago, gdm said: It’s burnsie is it not? Total bullshitter Yes it is burnsie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now