Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP

[ToonArmy1892]

2 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Unremarkable in the sense that it’s going to have no impact on the arbitration, which is the only path for the takeover to be completed.

How do you know that?

 

I'll tell ya, you don't.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by ToonArmy1892

[Armchair Pundit]

Hehe, eeeeee, old Fanny Breeze, he's a one 

[Fantail Breeze]

7 hours ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

How do you know that?

 

I'll tell ya, you don't.

 

Correct. I never said it was a fact.

 

Just like those who think it was big news, haven’t got a clue either. 

 

Do we really need to put *in my opinion* at the end of every post? I thought it was fairly obvious.

[Jackie Broon]

19 hours ago, nbthree3 said:

I'm reading the CAT rules for guidance https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2017-11/The_Competition_Appeal_Tribunal_Rules_2015.pdf // https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-05/1402_StJames_Reasoned_Order__130521_1.pdf

 

I don't think there is a time frame set for the review to be heard. Ashley's case is under "section 47A of the Competition Act 1998" so the guidance I can apply is from rule 29 onwards, part 4. 

 

An acknowledgement of service was filed by the PL on the 4th May - which needed to be done within 1 week of receiving the claim -  and ordinarily they would have 28 days (until 1st June) to file a defence. Within 2 weeks, they could challenge jurisdiction by submitting an application to contest said jurisdiction, which they did on 11th May through rule 34. This means that the PL do not need to submit a defence until after the hearing of the jurisdiction claim which has drawn out proceedings by many weeks. Perhaps similarly that we did with trying to remove Beloff as chair of the PL arbitration. 

 

Rule 35 talks about how 4 weeks after receiving the copy of the claim form, which was 4th May ordinarily, the PL must file a defence but it's subject to rule 34. I assume because the hearing of the jurisdiction application must happen first, the league have 4 weeks after that application is heard to file a defence but I might be wrong there. It'd make sense because it's the length of time they would have anyway dedicated to filing a response. 

 

Within 3 weeks of receiving the defence whenever that is because the dates are uncertain, Ashley could file a response. He doesn't have to, but he could. I'm expecting people to play the long game and that has already brought us up to 7 weeks extra before we consider when the jurisdiction application might be heard. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I don't think there's a set timescale for the CAT to make their judgement.

 

I've had a look through other CAT cases and jurisdiction challenges don't actually seem to be particularly common. Generally, decisions seem to be made about a month after the jurisdiction hearing, but there could be a case management conference to decide how it is handled before that, so the hearing could be up to a couple of months after the challenge is filed.

 

There are so few of them to go off and they might have been more or less complex jurisdiction cases than this, so might have been handled differently to how our case will be, but I think my initial guess that we would get a decision around the end of the month looks a bit optimistic.

 

I think that a date for jurisdiction hearing / case management conference will be published in the diary on the CAT website soon, so we'll have a better idea of how long it will be then.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Slim]

 

 

 

[ToonArmy1892]

What does that mean then.

[Yorkie]

8 minutes ago, Slim said:

https://twitter.com/SimonZekaria/status/1403328272193265666?s=19

 

Cool, so what are they submitting submissions and evidence for again? To present their argument that it shouldn't go to CAT? 

 

Is that right, @B-more Mag? You've always seemed to have a pretty clear take on all this! 

[Slim]

3 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Cool, so what are they submitting submissions and evidence for again? To present their argument that it shouldn't go to CAT? 

 

Is that right, @B-more Mag? You've always seemed to have a pretty clear take on all this! 

 

Yeah it was expected.  

 

Judge will decide if the case should be heard. I would then think the prem might try to settle if its heard in public.  Unless they have a strong case, but if it was that strong would the judge even let it get thst far and not just reject the case.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Slim

[B-more Mag]

23 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Cool, so what are they submitting submissions and evidence for again? To present their argument that it shouldn't go to CAT? 

 

Is that right, @B-more Mag? You've always seemed to have a pretty clear take on all this! 

 

Yes, effectively. Technically, it would be an argument that the CAT doesn't have the power/authority (jurisdiction) to handle the case before it, so the case must be dismissed or possibly paused (stayed). Presumably the argument centers on the probability that the arbitration will decide some or all of the issues that would be before the CAT.

[Shearergol]

25 minutes ago, Slim said:

 

Yeah it was expected.  

 

Judge will decide if the case should be heard. I would then think the prem might try to settle if its heard in public.  Unless they have a strong case, but if it was that strong would the judge even let it get thst far and not just reject the case.

 

I mean, with everything that's happened so far, can you see anything other than this happening?

[Yorkie]

2 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

Yes, effectively. Technically, it would be an argument that the CAT doesn't have the power/authority (jurisdiction) to handle the case before it, so the case must be dismissed or possibly paused (stayed). Presumably the argument centers on the probability that the arbitration will decide some or all of the issues that would be before the CAT.

 

So the response from the (whoever they've submitted papers to) will be "you're right, PL, this can all be done under arbitration, NUFC go away," or "hmm yeah there's something in this for us, sorry, PL, CAT's gonna have to go ahead."

 

? 

[B-more Mag]

19 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

So the response from the (whoever they've submitted papers to) will be "you're right, PL, this can all be done under arbitration, NUFC go away," or "hmm yeah there's something in this for us, sorry, PL, CAT's gonna have to go ahead."

 

? 

 

That's basically right. The submission is to the CAT itself, and it could do the two things you mentioned, or possibly a sort of in-between option of saying "there may be something here for us, but we've got to wait until after the arbitration decides certain things before it gets to our part, so this is on hold until then". 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by B-more Mag

[ToonArmy1892]

So more waiting, sound.

[Jackie Broon]

19 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

That's basically right. The submission is to the CAT itself, and it could do the two things you mentioned, or possibly a sort of in-between option of saying "there may be something here for us, but we've got to wait until after the arbitration decides certain things before it gets to our part, so this is on hold until then". 

 

Thinking about it seems a strange move from the PL to delay the jurisdiction challenge. By getting an extension of the deadline they've probably ensured that the arbitration decision will come before the CAT case really starts, which seems like it would weaken their argument on jurisdiction.

[Yorkie]

28 minutes ago, B-more Mag said:

 

That's basically right. The submission is to the CAT itself, and it could do the two things you mentioned, or possibly a sort of in-between option of saying "there may be something here for us, but we've got to wait until after the arbitration decides certain things before it gets to our part, so this is on hold until then". 

 

  again.

 

So - in the event of that - could we surmise that, tactically, us going to CAT is just an insurance move, in the event that we don't get what we want from arbitration?

 

Or does the looming prospect of CAT (and things being made public) actually work in our favour during the course of arbitration, regardless of whether or not it eventually goes in front of a judge? A pressure tactic, basically; scare the PL into settling during arbitration?

[Slim]

16 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

  again.

 

So - in the event of that - could we surmise that, tactically, us going to CAT is just an insurance move, in the event that we don't get what we want from arbitration?

 

Or does the looming prospect of CAT (and things being made public) actually work in our favour during the course of arbitration, regardless of whether or not it eventually goes in front of a judge? A pressure tactic, basically; scare the PL into settling during arbitration?

 

Depends of the evidence really.  If they have nothing to hide then they probably wont care.  But I think we all suspect there must be something dodgy. 

[Ben]

Could these tactics be so that the Saudis can't buy us at this time but they could purchase some other club at a later date ? 

[ToonArmy1892]

So was that the response? Or are we still waiting for something in the next hour?

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by ToonArmy1892

[bowlingcrofty]

There won't be anything to see I'd suggest - most likely all behind closed doors, might hear something in the next few days when the judges have pored over it but there'll be nowt until then I reckon.

[ToonArmy1892]

Oh right, thought it was going to be something public.

[B-more Mag]

54 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

  again.

 

So - in the event of that - could we surmise that, tactically, us going to CAT is just an insurance move, in the event that we don't get what we want from arbitration?

 

Or does the looming prospect of CAT (and things being made public) actually work in our favour during the course of arbitration, regardless of whether or not it eventually goes in front of a judge? A pressure tactic, basically; scare the PL into settling during arbitration?

 

My guess is that it's a bit of both. One prong of the relief Ashley's holding company is asking for in the CAT case is an order that the PL must reverse its decision about KSA being a director. That's pretty much what the club is after in the arbitration, through a different channel and probably somewhat different legal theories. But it's also additional pressure on the PL--and pressure is always what you're looking for in any kind of litigation, etc., as it's what brings things to a head.  

[Jackie Broon]

16 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

There won't be anything to see I'd suggest - most likely all behind closed doors, might hear something in the next few days when the judges have pored over it but there'll be nowt until then I reckon.

 

The next thing will probably be the dates for the case management conference and/or jurisdiction hearing, which will be publicly streamed on the CAT website.

[BennyBlanco]

I’m sure I read somewhere that the premier league wanted access to a key piece of evidence that NUFC submitted as part of the CAT case but were denied by the judge. I believe it was in the same request for an extension. Funny how they’ve wanted some transparency.

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, BennyBlanco said:

I’m sure I read somewhere that the premier league wanted access to a key piece of evidence that NUFC submitted as part of the CAT case but were denied by the judge. I believe it was in the same request for an extension. Funny how they’ve wanted some transparency.

 

It was the amount in damages Ashley is claiming. Judge denied them as it involved commercially sensitive information.

[Jackie Broon]

18 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

It was the amount in damages Ashley is claiming. Judge denied them as it involved commercially sensitive information.

 

I think it's how they calculated the amount Ashley is claiming, rather that the amount of damages, which I think they will know.

 

Also, I think they were only denied access to it at this stage because it's not relevant to the preparation of their jurisdiction case. If their jurisdiction challenge is unsuccessful and the case goes ahead I think they will probably get access to it when the confidentiality ring is established.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Jackie Broon