PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[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..

[Mattoon]

1 minute ago, Dr Jinx said:

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..

 

Not to mention that we clearly have an entity ourselves able to make decisions that's not listed in SJHL

[AyeDubbleYoo]

28 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.

 

It definitely seems like sporting rules alone can't be enough, if those sporting rules are unfairly applied to cause commercial impact on a business. Sure, Newcastle agree to be bound by FA rules on one level, but it seems a logical stretch to argue this means that they agree never to seek other remedy if they get shafted.  

[Lazarus]

10 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

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..

 

Exactly - the PL QC has, at length, set out the governing rules and isnt even finished as point 3 is still to make?? i think?

 

If we can prove that those same rules have not been applied equally to every other club, and the ODT has to agreed every single year, then surely theyre fucked.

 

Would look even worse if, for example, a club was taken over several years ago and the PL have rubber stamped concealed/dodgy ownership every year since....

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Lazarus

[Abacus]

I feel Lewis will ask for a one hour delay whilst he finishes his sandwich.

 

A motion backed up Charnley on Teams.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not sure that's the right logic if it boils down to "they applied the rules unfairly before, they should do it for us too". 

[ED209]

They must be all having a second pint at lunch. 

[Dr Jinx]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I'm not sure that's the right logic if it boils down to "they applied the rules unfairly before, they should do it for us too". 

No and the court won’t entertain that angle, it’s to highlight the discrepancy of only applying their rules to some clubs and not others. Which makes his argument of “we all signed up to the rules” look absolutely absurd, which it is 

[Chris_R]

PL are late because they're running round all the cashpoints trying to max out their daily withdrawal limit for a bung.

[Mattoon]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I'm not sure that's the right logic if it boils down to "they applied the rules unfairly before, they should do it for us too". 

 

Aye but shows evidence of a two tier system, especially if, for example, it was proven that Man City has a shadow director that has been discounted not only on the original ODT but every year since, when it clearly states in their own rules (Something reiterated several hundred times by their QC) that should such a director refuse to be subjected to the ODT then they will be disqualified from the league.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Dr Jinx said:

No and the court won’t entertain that angle, it’s to highlight the discrepancy of only applying their rules to some clubs and not others. Which makes his argument of “we all signed up to the rules” look absolutely absurd, which it is 

 

Hmm, maybe. I still think it gets a bit close to that territory of asking for the rules to be bent. Unless it can show that the whole concept of the FA rules is nonsensical and doesn't bind us... but that seems a long shot. It'll be 'interesting' to see what they say in response anyway.

[Lazarus]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

I'm not sure that's the right logic if it boils down to "they applied the rules unfairly before, they should do it for us too". 

 

Aye but as far as I can tell - the consortium are trying to buy the club 'properly' and arnt concealing anything via company structure or who would be a director.

 

This then opens up the 'why Newcastle United', 'why follow your rules now' questions and becomes the anti competition angle - and even ask questions around the wider outside influence issues

[Guest reefatoon]

De Marco being a rebel and not coming back. 

[junkhead]

They are back, without De Marco.. they're continuing without him ffs!

[nbthree3]

Another half an hour for Adam Lewis! (it'll end up being an hour)

[Chris_R]

He's now spending 5 minutes talking about how he needs to speed up.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Lazarus said:

 

Aye but as far as I can tell - the consortium are trying to buy the club 'properly' and arnt concealing anything via company structure or who would be a director.

 

This then opens up the 'why Newcastle United', 'why follow your rules now' questions and becomes the anti competition angle - and even ask questions around the wider outside influence issues

 

I agree this point is right, I just think it would be almost impossible to prove that those rules weren't applied properly before in the context of this tribunal. And even if you did, what would it mean for this decision?

 

Balance of probabilities might be enough to sow doubt I suppose, I don't know exactly how the tribunal works.

[Numbers]

This blokes plan is clearly just to talk non stop so nobody else has time to say anything

[Lazarus]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I agree this point is right, I just think it would be almost impossible to prove that those rules weren't applied properly before in the context of this tribunal. And even if you did, what would it mean for this decision?

 

Balance of probabilities might be enough to sow doubt I suppose, I don't know exactly how the tribunal works.

 

Ive no idea

[Lazarus]

NDM back now.

[Guest reefatoon]

Fighting the arbitration are you? Why they fighting it?