PIF and RB Sports & Media

[AyeDubbleYoo]

3 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Those that speak the most generally have the least to say

 

Slightly harsh when applied to someone whose job it is to speak

[Mattoon]

Is that the wafflegoblin finished for good now?

[Darth Crooks]

Ted crilly gans on a bit eh?

[Espio]

Bet Masters is sat there rubbing one out everytime that Lewis dickhead opens his mouth

[manorpark]

Everything the EPL Waffler has said is based on the CAT case being the same as the Arbitration Case and that anyway NUFC have signed up to rules that prevent them using CAT procedures 'outside of' those rules.

 

It is obvious that while some of the elements of each case cover some of the same ground, the cases are (in objective) very, very different indeed. So, he has lost that one already.

 

Also, you cannot tie members (the club in this case) to rules they have signed up to, if the people who set up those rules "break them" by stepping outside of them themselves (ie, the EPLs Cartel with the Sexy Six) so they have lost that one too.

 

Basically, I cannot wait (W A I T) for us to start explaining all of that back to the EPL Waffler. That will be F U N.

 

I also think that the CAT judge has already made his mind up (as he is sick of being insulted and of being described as irrelevant by the EPL Waffler) and that he will order the CAT case to proceed, and proceed IN PUBLIC.

 

I stress - these are only my opinions.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by manorpark

[LV]

Just now, Mattoon said:

Is that the wafflegoblin finished for good now?

Nah, he’s back on after lunch 

[Mattoon]

1 minute ago, LV said:

Nah, he’s back on after lunch 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, manorpark said:

Everything the EPL Waffler has said is based on the CAT case being the same as the Arbitration Case and that anyway NUFC have signed up to rules that prevent them using CAT procedures 'outside of' those rules.

 

It is obvious that while some of the elements of each case cover some of the same ground, the cases are (in objective) very, very different indeed. So, he has lost that one already.

 

Also, you cannot tie members (the club in this case) to rules they have signed up to, if the people who set up those rules "break them" by stepping outside of them themselves (ie, the EPLs Cartel with the Sexy Six) so they have lost that one too.

 

Basically, I cannot wait (W A I T) for us to start explaining all of that back to the EPL Waffler. That will be F U N.

 

I also think that the CAT judge has already made his mind up (as he is sick of being insulted and of being described as irrelevant by the EPL Waffler) and that he will order the CAT case to proceed, and proceed IN PUBLIC.

 

I stress - these are only my opinions.

 

 

 

 

My biggest fear is that Manorpark is actually NDM and when he starts to speak we’ll find out he’s a complete crackpot.

[Wandy]

Can this run on into tomorrow? It doesn't seem like our team will have much time to present their case?

[Scotty66]

So if true early January really really really is "the end" right? 

[manorpark]

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

My biggest fear is that Manorpark is actually NDM and when he starts to speak we’ll find out he’s a complete crackpot.

 

Did you see me on-screen typing this? ooops!

 

Fortunately, though, both of us are the exact opposite of crackpots, which is why we will W I N.

[junkhead]

I have a good feeling. PL's defence so far doesn't sound convincing.

 

Even if CAT goes ahead it could be delayed into eternity of course but I don't see how the PL can deny the case altogether on the grounds that the club is binded by their vague rules..

[Jordan]

Is Lewis’ aim to speak for the entirety of the case so De Marco can’t present the clubs case?

[manorpark]

Just now, Jordan said:

Is Lewis’ aim to speak for the entirety of the case so De Marco can’t present the clubs case?

Just W A I T (the fun will start soon)

[gjohnson]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Slightly harsh when applied to someone whose job it is to speak

Not even remotely harsh...

 

Watch some politicians waffle on for three hours to make a point that could have been made in 30 seconds with a single statement. It's not restricted to legal or political either...

 

I've been in hundreds of meetings which lasted hours but could have been summarised in 10 minutes simply because some need 100 words to state what 10 could do. Those 100 words spark others to need 100 words to spend 2-3 hours going in circles to arrive at the original 10 word conclusion.

 

Talking for talking sake should be punished with scorn or the arrival of Karl Pilkingtons " Bullshit Man" 

 

 

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Slightly harsh when applied to someone whose job it is to speak

 

Yeah, but as I've heard, from a QC, one of the main skills of a barrister is to put across complex arguments in a succinct, easy to understand way.

 

My experience of hearing cases put across by barristers is that they are usually completely convincing, whatever the strength of their case. You hear one side and it seems they have it 100% tied up and then you hear the other side and they completely take that case apart and persuade you of the opposite.

[Joey Linton]

Got a bit to do this afternoon, do we know what time the Fab Four get to make their submissions? 

[Mattoon]

Based on no legal background whatsoever it seems to me that the PL arguing that the case is being heard in its own arbitration case following its own rules doesn't discount the fact that its own rules and it's liberal use of them in this scenario are in question for being anti-competitive. Also the argument that a legal entity is bound by their rules (horizontally) because another legal entity connected to it is, regardless of the fact the given legal entity is not directly contractually bound sounds frivolous to me, they call it a strawman, I call it an oversight that has the potential to bite them on the ass.

[geordie_b]

4 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

Got a bit to do this afternoon, do we know what time the Fab Four get to make their submissions? 

 

Its at the end in the AOB section... Any other bellends

 

[Darth Crooks]

I’d love to hear that from a QC ?

[LV]

10 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

Based on no legal background whatsoever it seems to me that the PL arguing that the case is being heard in its own arbitration case following its own rules doesn't discount the fact that its own rules and it's liberal use of them in this scenario are in question for being anti-competitive. Also the argument that a legal entity is bound by their rules (horizontally) because another legal entity connected to it is, regardless of the fact the given legal entity is not directly contractually bound sounds frivolous to me, they call it a strawman, I call it an oversight that has the potential to bite them on the ass.

Yes, it seems a really flimsy argument.

 

Football teams are businesses and have got a right to an anti-competition claim if it affects their business. They can’t be expected to rely on some shady arbitration with rules set by the very people who are restraining their trade

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by LV

[Lazarus]

Might be talking out of my arse here but...

 

The PL QC reliance on the PL rules, company structure and directors are going to be torn apart simply asking how those same rules applied to other PL clubs where it isnt even clear who the owners are and where clubs are being run by people who havent gone through the ODT.

[geordie_b]

3 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Might be talking out of my arse here but...

 

The PL QC reliance on the PL rules, company structure and directors are going to be torn apart simply asking how those same rules applied to other PL clubs where it isnt even clear who the owners are and where clubs are being run by people who havent gone through the ODT.

 

That was my initial thought, is it Palace or Burnley who are now owned by a company in Delaware?

[Thumbheed]

Feel like I could argue this case myself.

[Dr Jinx]

My thoughts when the judge asked him was his point going to take long was that he’s getting annoyed listening to the waffle.

 

I also think their QC has made a mistake in detailing the structure of how NUFC is set up, by trying to prove a point. If he loses this jurisdiction challenge, surely that would open the door for our side to detail the structure of say, Man City as evidence of a club that has a person of influence who isn’t deemed a director?

 

Also we did seem to have a win so far in that the judge threw out the confidentiality thing by just saying, tailor your argument accordingly..