Jump to content

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Ben said:

She's not married 

In October 2011, she married British-Iranian financier Mehrdad Ghodoussi, in a ceremony held at West Wycombe Park in Buckinghamshire. Staveley lives in Dubai and has a house in London's Park Lane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Yes -- one of the potential outcomes of the jurisdiction challenge is the CAT staying the case pending the arbitration.

Thanks.

 

No wonder the PL haven’t settled if there’s a chance of further delays. I guess the next big milestone will be if this gets delayed or not then. If it doesn’t I’d expect the PL to settle or there’s going to be a lot of public information which I doubt they’ll be keen on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

The PL hasn't failed to get the CAT case thrown out. That was misinformation some people were spreading. (I mean, they haven't succeeded at it either. It's just still an open issue that the CAT will hold a hearing on.)

 

 

 

I thought the Premier league missed the deadline to have it thrown out on the 12 July 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ben said:

I thought the Premier league missed the deadline to have it thrown out on the 12 July 

 

No, that was the extended deadline for the PL to file its reply to St James Holdings's opposition to the PL's jurisdiction challenge. We don't know if the PL filed the reply or not, because the CAT doesn't post those on its website, and it would look really bad not to file one after asking for and getting an extension, but even then it wouldn't necessarily be fatal, because its main argument would have been in its original filing. In the CAT President's ruling on the extension, he indicated that the jurisdiction issue would be set in for a hearing.

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

No, that was the extended deadline for the PL to file its reply to St James Holdings's opposition to the PL's jurisdiction challenge. We don't know if the PL filed the reply or not, because the CAT doesn't post those on its website, and it would look really bad not to file one after asking for and getting an extension, but even then it wouldn't necessarily be fatal, because its main argument would have been in its original filing. In the CAT President's ruling on the extension, he indicated that the jurisdiction issue would be set in for a hearing.

 

 

 

So does that mean we have to wait x amount of time for a hearing to decide on the  jurisdiction issue…then if the hearing goes against the PL and CAT can go ahead then we have to wait,again, x amount of time before the CAT hearing goes ahead……Is this the timeframe

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

So does that mean we have to wait x amount of time for a hearing to decide on the  jurisdiction issue…then if the hearing goes against the PL and CAT can go ahead then we have to wait,again, x amount of time before the CAT hearing goes ahead……Is this the timeframe

 

Correct. For example, the PL hasn't been required to file its substantive defense to St James Holdings's claims yet, because the jurisdiction challenge is a preliminary issue about the CAT's authority to even hear the case. If that's resolved in Ashley's favor, then the PL has to file its substantive defense and then disclosure, etc., before the actual "trial" on the merits of the case. 

 

 

Edited by B-more Mag

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Correct. For example, the PL hasn't been required to file its substantive defense to St James Holdings's claims yet, because the jurisdiction challenge is a preliminary issue about the CAT's authority to even hear the case. If that's resolved in Ashley's favor, then the PL has to file its substantive defense and then disclosure, etc., before the actual "trial" on the merits of the case. 

 

 

 

Showing my thickness here…and last question…..Why is there a hearing over jurisdiction…Surely the Judge(S) or whoever arbitrates CAT, only need to look at both responses to the jurisdiction case and make a decision as to whether CAT has the right to deal with the case….or is that too simplistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the outcome related to Man City and the EPL have any impact. It would seem the EPL have had some busy lawyers over the last few years? They also reference the NUFC v EPL case in the judgement. Canny signings of Adam Lewis and Andrew Hunter QC's for the EPL!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

Showing my thickness here…and last question…..Why is there a hearing over jurisdiction…Surely the Judge(S) or whoever arbitrates CAT, only need to look at both responses to the jurisdiction case and make a decision as to whether CAT has the right to deal with the case….or is that too simplistic.

 

In this case, the primary purpose is probably for the judge to ask questions and get answers to flesh out the parties' arguments. In some cases it would also be an opportunity to take testimony of witnesses, but in this case it seems like it would primarily be an issue of law that wouldn't require witnesses to the same extent (if at all) that fact issues often do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

In this case, the primary purpose is probably for the judge to ask questions and get answers to flesh out the parties' arguments. In some cases it would also be an opportunity to take testimony of witnesses, but in this case it seems like it would primarily be an issue of law that wouldn't require witnesses to the same extent (if at all) that fact issues often do.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonbobson said:

Why? 

 

Why question people's private lives? 

 

I think it went something like

 

"Her husband posted a negative tweet"

 

"She's not married"

 

"Yes she is"

 

"oh".

 

So it was relevant in the context of the suggestion her husband had reacted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck me, it's has no fucking relevance if she is married or not. Ffs. Whether it was/is her husband boyfriend dogs uncle or whatever.

 

A really weird point to bring out for no reason at all. 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonbobson said:

Fuck me, it's has no fucking relevance if she is married or not. Ffs. Whether it was/is her husband boyfriend dogs uncle or whatever.

 

A really weird point to bring out for no reason at all. 🤔

The only person making it relevant here by being so irate is you though. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Joey Linton said:

The only person making it relevant here by being so irate is you though. :lol:

Ah, so we can continue to just spout any old shite now and who gives a fuck if there's any truth in it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonbobson said:

Ah, so we can continue to just spout any old shite now and who gives a fuck if there's any truth in it?

No. The poster was corrected on his genuine error and acknowledged his mistake straight away. Have you been drinking? 

 

Also you are literally in the "we can continue to just spout any old shite now and who gives a fuck if there's any truth in it" thread right now. :lol:

 

 

Edited by Joey Linton

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...