alexf Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Appreciate positive spins being applied to this. However bit concerning that this was the first step for our highly esteemed legal team to flex their muscle and it looks like they failed. Sounds abit QAnon to start saying it doesn't matter as they just wanted to get the bias out in public. I don't think they would have done this if then didn't intend to win the case but they haven't, they've lost. So were essentially right up against it now when the arbitration starts. The positive is that this is clearly still going on in the background of course but with relegation looming its not as exciting as it could have been. Seems abit irrelevant now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 The only real negative is who Ashley is up against. Beloff, Neuberger and Dyson are proper heavyweights. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GavMcEl Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 I've read it twice now still havent a clue ? Could somebody break it down for the halfwits of the group, is it good news, bad news ? And what's this about ashley on SSN thanks ? It's both. Good news = The deal is still on the table and the final result of the hearing will be made public. The club also won on the fact they were allowed to make the most recent judgement public. Bad news = The club were unsuccessful in removing the chair of arbitration who they suspect could be biased. Additionally, the club lost when requesting the whole hearing be made public. Unknown news = If casting public doubt on the chair of arbitration will prevent them from being bias. The fact the result and some details of the arbitration hearing will be public should help prevent that. I'm far from an expert but the above is my high level takeaway from the clubs statement. Happy for others that are more knowledgeable to correct me if my interpretation is wrong. Thanks lad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Good to get some confirmation that things are actually ongoing (and surely totally disproves whatever info Luke Edwards was fed), but doesn't exactly seem to bode well for the outcome of arbitration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Are people really trying to spin this as positive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards wasn't wrong, he just chose his words in such a way to drive people into a bit of a frenzy, with misleading connotations about how it had all gone to shit and that no takeover existed any more in any sense. Just being a daft little wum at usual, important to remember that about him before giving any time to what he's actually saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards still trying to throw shade on this, failing to see any (potential) positives... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards still trying to throw shade on this, failing to see any (potential) positives... He’s being reasonable for him, and hard to argue against that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards wasn't wrong, he just chose his words in such a way to drive people into a bit of a frenzy, with misleading connotations about how it had all gone to shit and that no takeover existed any more in any sense. Just being a daft little wum at usual, important to remember that about him before giving any time to what he's actually saying. Edwards still trying to throw shade on this, failing to see any (potential) positives... Case in point, "it's not good news." It's not necessarily bad news either. Just framing the news in such a way to get people chomping and worried and contributing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candi_Hills Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 I wouldn't mind hearing from someone who actually understands the legal process. Has that Shell lass said anything on twitter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlymouthGeordie Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 The only real negative is who Ashley is up against. Beloff, Neuberger and Dyson are proper heavyweights. That isn't who they're up against, they are the arbitration panel. Apparently the club chose Neuberger, EPL chose Dyson and Bellof is the "impartial" appointment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consortium of one Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 But the chair offered his opinion to the EPL in 2017 and that was before PIF ever became involved. And, if I'm not mistaken, the opinion he offered was strictly in regards to the piracy of BeIn's signal. Piracy was always going to be an issue with anything related to KSA so this may not as big a "loss" as it initially appeared. If the results are public I hope that that it mitigates the fact that this guy still will chair the panel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Feels like an early loss for the guy described as the Lionel Messi of sports lawyers tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards still trying to throw shade on this, failing to see any (potential) positives... He’s being reasonable for him, and hard to argue against that. If ashley had lost the chairman being replaced AND the 'in public' ruling, then an argument coul dbe made that its been lost. But even then, all this does is set the stage, the actors still have to play their parts. Instead, ashley can have it in public which I'm betting, the PL absolutely did not want to happen. Another worry may be if Ashley is called to give a statement, hes not exactly credible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlymouthGeordie Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Are people really trying to spin this as positive? It is neither positive or negative. Losing out on the removal of the chair isn't great but just because they suspect he may be unconsciously biased doesn't mean he will be and he isn't allowed to let the clubs request to remove him prejudice the hearing. Losing out on the whole case bring public is just meh. That wouldn't influence the panels decision imo. The only relevant news is we now know for definite the the panel for the arbitration is finalised and it will now begin at the behest of the club (based on whether we chose to appeal today's news/decision). We also know the arbitration is for the sale of the club and not compensation and that PIF, PCP and Reubens are all still on board. It's more of a state of play than a good/bad news update. Only my opinion like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards still trying to throw shade on this, failing to see any (potential) positives... He’s being reasonable for him, and hard to argue against that. If ashley had lost the chairman being replaced AND the 'in public' ruling, then an argument coul dbe made that its been lost. But even then, all this does is set the stage, the actors still have to play their parts. Instead, ashley can have it in public which I'm betting, the PL absolutely did not want to happen. Another worry may be if Ashley is called to give a statement, hes not exactly credible. The only benefit (if there is one) of the findings going public is if the arbitration fails, but something in the findings show that it wasn't a fair process, so can then be challenged in the court. We've been hearing for weeks now that this isn't even going to arbitration, so how can this actually be positive now? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexf Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Are people really trying to spin this as positive? It is neither positive or negative. Losing out on the removal of the chair isn't great but just because they suspect he may be unconsciously biased doesn't mean he will be and he isn't allowed to let the clubs request to remove him prejudice the hearing. Losing out on the whole case bring public is just meh. That wouldn't influence the panels decision imo. The only relevant news is we now know for definite the the panel for the arbitration is finalised and it will now begin at the behest of the club (based on whether we chose to appeal today's news/decision). We also know the arbitration is for the sale of the club and not compensation and that PIF, PCP and Reubens are all still on board. It's more of a state of play than a good/bad news update. Only my opinion like. How can this be proven? I ask honestly as I know nothing about legal arbitration etc. Isn't it almost like a jury where both sides will present their arguments then these 3 selected people will rule on it. But like a juror who could be a closet racist sending an innocent black man to jail for example. Can't really be proven without evidence against them, and whatever we have we obviously used in this case to have him removed and failed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 The whole process has just reeked of corruption from the start, it just fills me with a feeling of complete injustice and destroys any dreams towards supporting our club. What's the point of the game any more if it's a closed shop? F*cking old boys club b*stards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Edwards still trying to throw shade on this, failing to see any (potential) positives... He’s being reasonable for him, and hard to argue against that. If ashley had lost the chairman being replaced AND the 'in public' ruling, then an argument coul dbe made that its been lost. But even then, all this does is set the stage, the actors still have to play their parts. Instead, ashley can have it in public which I'm betting, the PL absolutely did not want to happen. Another worry may be if Ashley is called to give a statement, hes not exactly credible. The only benefit (if there is one) of the findings going public is if the arbitration fails, but something in the findings show that it wasn't a fair process, so can then be challenged in the court. We've been hearing for weeks now that this isn't even going to arbitration, so how can this actually be positive now? Looks like those reports were incorrect as it seems a bit silly to try and get the arbitration chair removed if you're not going through arbitration. It's not particularly positive but whilst I appreciate the desire to remove him, it doesn't automatically mean he is dodgy or in bed with the EPL. The high courts couldn't give a fuck either way so if they're happy he's going to act appropriately I'm not sure we need to worry about it ourselves. Positive = we're still moving forward with the takeover the aim so assume PIF still on board. Negative = Bruce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantail Breeze Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 https://www.twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/13678437029542092 Erm... what? Edit - deleted by Jacobs: One point that’s been overlooked regarding Michael Beloff being “biased” against #NUFC is Beloff is also part of Blackstone... Nick DeMarco’s firm. So “Messi of sports law” is arguing against “Godfather of sports law” despite Blackstone saying he’s “always a joy to work with.” Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlymouthGeordie Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Are people really trying to spin this as positive? It is neither positive or negative. Losing out on the removal of the chair isn't great but just because they suspect he may be unconsciously biased doesn't mean he will be and he isn't allowed to let the clubs request to remove him prejudice the hearing. Losing out on the whole case bring public is just meh. That wouldn't influence the panels decision imo. The only relevant news is we now know for definite the the panel for the arbitration is finalised and it will now begin at the behest of the club (based on whether we chose to appeal today's news/decision). We also know the arbitration is for the sale of the club and not compensation and that PIF, PCP and Reubens are all still on board. It's more of a state of play than a good/bad news update. Only my opinion like. How can this be proven? I ask honestly as I know nothing about legal arbitration etc. Isn't it almost like a jury where both sides will present their arguments then these 3 selected people will rule on it. But like a juror who could be a closet racist sending an innocent black man to jail for example. Can't really be proven without evidence against them, and whatever we have we obviously used in this case to have him removed and failed. I know very little too. But reading some of Matt Slater's (from the Athletic) tweets and Football Law tweets the panel is about as highly distinguished as you can get apparently. Matt Slater said and I quote "these guys get very annoyed when people suggest they'll be prejudice or anything other than professional, fair and wise when they properly consider the facts of the case". Given that they're at the top of their profession I'd hazard a guess that they didn't get there by making unjust rulings. I also imagine (like today's ruling) they'll have to provide rationale for any ruling they make. I'm probably being naive and I don't mean this post to come across "pro positivity" but I just don't think it'll impact the hearing. We may still lose the hearing but I don't think the chair not being removed will be the reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Michael Beloff also had involvement in helping Nick DeMarco with his "Football and the Law" book if that's of any interest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 The arbitration process will begin in earnest according to Downie on SSN just then. Anyone any idea how long it usually takes ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 The arbitration process will begin in earnest according to Downie on SSN just then. Anyone any idea how long it usually takes ? The chairman of the tribunal shall decide all procedural and evidential matters and for that purpose within 14 days of his appointment he shall either give directions for the conduct of the arbitration addressed in writing to each party or serve on each party Form 30 requiring their attendance at a preliminary meeting at which he will give directions’ Without knowing what those directions are it's pretty much impossible to put a timescale on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexf Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Are people really trying to spin this as positive? How can this be proven? I ask honestly as I know nothing about legal arbitration etc. Isn't it almost like a jury where both sides will present their arguments then these 3 selected people will rule on it. But like a juror who could be a closet racist sending an innocent black man to jail for example. Can't really be proven without evidence against them, and whatever we have we obviously used in this case to have him removed and failed. Matt Slater said and I quote "these guys get very annoyed when people suggest they'll be prejudice or anything other than professional, fair and wise when they properly consider the facts of the case". So isn't that what we have just done? If he wasn't biased against us before, you can be sure he will be now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts