PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Jackie Broon]

36 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Did anyone else think that the argument of seperation for SJHL and the club to be quite flimsy? 

 

Seems to me to be the key point to the hearing.

 

I thought it was convincing, but they don't need to win that part it's just something that would torpedo the PL's case if they do.

 

The main argument will be that the scope of the arbitration is different to the CAT case and most of that was heard in private.

 

The SJHL stuff just gives us two different routes to defeat the PL's case, the PL have to win both arguments, we only have to win one.

 

Even if the PL do that it looks like at best they will get a stay until after arbitration  they're not getting the case thrown out altogether.

[TK-421]

10 minutes ago, Wandy said:

With the arbitration...is it a case of the Saudis having to prove to the tribunal panel that the state is separate to PIF?

 

Or is it a case of the PL having to prove to the panel that the state and PIF are one and the same?

 

In other words, who has the burden of proof?

 

 

 

I believe its the former, PIF have to prove they are separate from the Saudi State. Its not on the PL to prove the link, They are happy just to sit and keep saying they (PIF) need to prove separation, and the can gets kicked along again.

 

However, had there not been claims over the last year or so that declarations had been hand delivered from the Saudi Royal family, stating as such, which clearly hasn't been enough to satisfy the PL (yet).

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by TK-421

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It might be flimsy in common sense, but it might be quite strong under the letter of company law. Always hard to judge how much normal common sense applies. 

[Thumbheed]

8 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I thought it was convincing, but they don't need to win that part it's just something that would torpedo the PL's case if they do.

 

The main argument will be that the scope of the arbitration is different to the CAT case and most of that was heard in private.

 

The SJHL stuff just gives us two different routes to defeat the PL's case, the PL have to win both arguments, we only have to win one.

 

Even if the PL do that it looks like at best they will get a stay until after arbitration  they're not getting the case thrown out altogether.

Ahhh see, my interpretation was that if SJHL fell within the scope of the PL rules, then that in affect would sink any need for a CAT case as they're bound by the agreement to settle disputes internally, so of that argument is proved to be correct then this would get thrown out. 

[Wandy]

22 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

 

I believe its the former, PIF have to prove they are separate from the Saudi State. Its not on the PL to prove the link, They are happy just to sit and keep saying they (PIF) need to prove separation, and the can gets kicked along again.

 

However, had there not been claims over the last year or so that declarations had been hand delivered from the Saudi Royal family, stating as such, which clearly hasn't been enough to satisfy the PL (yet).

 

 

 

 

Is it not simply the case that the burden of proof was only on the Saudis to get past the ODT? But when in court the burden of proof switches to the PL?

 

With Beloff on that panel I still think the PL will fancy their chances and won't be backing down....unless the burden of proof falls to them.

[Jackie Broon]

21 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Ahhh see, my interpretation was that if SJHL fell within the scope of the PL rules, then that in affect would sink any need for a CAT case as they're bound by the agreement to settle disputes internally, so of that argument is proved to be correct then this would get thrown out. 

 

That wasn't really their case, their case was around section 9 of the Arbitration Act which restricts other court proceedings brought by parties to an arbitration. The club's argument is that SJHL are not a party to the arbitration. From my understanding the PL rules only came into it insofar as the PL argued that they require SJHL to be a party to the arbitration.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[BennyBlanco]

35 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

 

I believe its the former, PIF have to prove they are separate from the Saudi State. Its not on the PL to prove the link, They are happy just to sit and keep saying they (PIF) need to prove separation, and the can gets kicked along again.

 

However, had there not been claims over the last year or so that declarations had been hand delivered from the Saudi Royal family, stating as such, which clearly hasn't been enough to satisfy the PL (yet).

 

 

 

Really? 
 

Surely though if the premier league accused the Saudis/PIF of colluding in piracy, for example, then they would have to prove this accusation. Seems arse backwards that you can accuse someone of something and that the accused has to be the one who has to fuck about refuting the accusations.

 

If the premier league think that the Saudis and PIF are de facto the same entity it should be on them to explain why they think this.

[deejeck]

Still chuckling at the judge totally pieing off and laughing at Lewis' argument of not having enough time to prepare both cases.

[Dr Jinx]

And am I correct in thinking that Mike Ashley signed the agreement on behalf of himself and not SJHL, or that they were supposed to sign up to the rules but they didn’t.

 

Its pretty straight forward, what Jowell is saying, if they didn’t sign up to the rules, they can’t be bound by them.

[Wandy]

1 minute ago, BennyBlanco said:

Really? 
 

Surely though if the premier league accused the Saudis/PIF of colluding in piracy, for example, then they would have to prove this accusation. Seems arse backwards that you can accuse someone of something and that the accused has to be the one who has to fuck about refuting the accusations.

 

If the premier league think that the Saudis and PIF are de facto the same entity it should be on them to explain why they think this.

 

Agree. They surely can't just say "we think MBS will be the person running the show, now prove to us that he wont". They have to be the ones that prove that MBS would be controlling things.

 

The whole thing is so fucked up though that I wont be surprised if the burden is actually on the buyers. 

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, deejeck said:

Still chuckling at the judge totally pieing off and laughing at Lewis' argument of not having enough time to prepare both cases.

 

Aye, particularly as his whole argument is that both cases are identical.

[Wandy]

2 minutes ago, deejeck said:

Still chuckling at the judge totally pieing off and laughing at Lewis' argument of not having enough time to prepare both cases.

 

Jowell was absolutely pissing himself at that. Wish we could have got a snippet of it as it would have made for a canny meme. 

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

And am I correct in thinking that Mike Ashley signed the agreement on behalf of himself and not SJHL, or that they were supposed to sign up to the rules but they didn’t.

 

Its pretty straight forward, what Jowell is saying, if they didn’t sign up to the rules, they can’t be bound by them.

 

By the PL's rules they should have been disclosed as a director but weren't and the PL never picked up on it.

[Ed210]

5 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Jowell was absolutely pissing himself at that. Wish we could have got a snippet of it as it would have made for a canny meme. 

 

Aye if he spent less time waffling no more time preparing it would be to hie benefit 

[Hhtoon]

West Ham United protesting against their owners. Even though things are looking rosy at the mo, they're standing their ground against the historical issues. Good on them I guess...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58736570

 

What I find most annoying though, isn't that they can organise a protest, but that Rio F is backing them and some potential new owners. What happened to "it's their club and they can do what they like".

Fucking hypocritical knob.

 

[TK-421]

12 minutes ago, Wandy said:

 

Agree. They surely can't just say "we think MBS will be the person running the show, now prove to us that he wont". They have to be the ones that prove that MBS would be controlling things.

 

The whole thing is so fucked up though that I wont be surprised if the burden is actually on the buyers. 

 

But surely if the burden of proof is on the PL, then we would have had even more ammunition to blame the PL for the delays, if they were supposed to prove a direct link, and couldn't, yet still hadn't made a decision on the takeover?

 

That's why I thought it has always been on the buyers to prove the separation, and the PL have not been satisfied with the evidence (or whatever was submitted), hence the non-decision?

[Pixelphish]

14 minutes ago, Hhtoon said:

West Ham United protesting against their owners. Even though things are looking rosy at the mo, they're standing their ground against the historical issues. Good on them I guess...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58736570

 

What I find most annoying though, isn't that they can organise a protest, but that Rio F is backing them and some potential new owners. What happened to "it's their club and they can do what they like".

Fucking hypocritical knob.

 

 

It's almost as if he has a business relationship with the owner of NUFC.

 

Rotten scumbag.

[NE27]

The only way PL would be satisfied is is the KSA were subject to tests.

 

Not sure we could ever persuade them otherwise because they have reasonable suspicion and that is seemingly enough for them.

 

Not a lawyer, I'm most definitely talking dogshit but you know, this is more entertaining than nufc itself.

[Fantail Breeze]

14 minutes ago, Hhtoon said:

West Ham United protesting against their owners. Even though things are looking rosy at the mo, they're standing their ground against the historical issues. Good on them I guess...

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58736570

 

What I find most annoying though, isn't that they can organise a protest, but that Rio F is backing them and some potential new owners. What happened to "it's their club and they can do what they like".

Fucking hypocritical knob.

 

 

Weird. A protest organised by the FSA supporters group which appears well organised, peaceful and has attracted media attention. Ours tells us every day how that is impossible.

[Wandy]

14 minutes ago, TK-421 said:

 

But surely if the burden of proof is on the PL, then we would have had even more ammunition to blame the PL for the delays, if they were supposed to prove a direct link, and couldn't, yet still hadn't made a decision on the takeover?

 

That's why I thought it has always been on the buyers to prove the separation, and the PL have not been satisfied with the evidence (or whatever was submitted), hence the non-decision?

 

Or maybe we do have the ammunition for a legal dispute, but we can't do anything or protest about anything to do with the actual ODT itself whilst undertaking it. It's their test and they can do what they want with it, unless we challenge it legally.

[madras]

18 minutes ago, NE27 said:

The only way PL would be satisfied is is the KSA were subject to tests.

 

Not sure we could ever persuade them otherwise because they have reasonable suspicion and that is seemingly enough for them.

 

Not a lawyer, I'm most definitely talking dogshit but you know, this is more entertaining than nufc itself.

That's where business/competition law comes into it through restraint of trade etc.

[NE27]

9 minutes ago, madras said:

That's where business/competition law comes into it through restraint of trade etc.

 Fair enough, I'm out 

 

Also, topless skateboarding nuns

[Thumbheed]

I just don't know how this could be thrown out when you consider the letters significance in the context of the PL and BeIN being slap bang in the middle of negotiations for TV rights during this whole saga.

 

 

[gjohnson]

So to summarise....they talked for nearly 6 hours, and no one is actually any clearer on the situation possibly excepting the judge who likely made his decision half an hour into proceedings

[Rocker]

1 minute ago, gjohnson said:

So to summarise....they talked for nearly 6 hours, and no one is actually any clearer on the situation possibly excepting the judge who likely made his decision half an hour into proceedings

 

 

I think loads came out of yesterday. How could the judge make his decision half an hour into the proceedings when the clubs QC didn't get to talk for about 3 hours into it?