Jackie Broon Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 2 hours ago, Rocker said: You'd like to think there's enough dirt on the premier league to suggest if the CAT case is allowed to run, they'd want to settle before disclosure. That's if MA wants to settle, that is. That could still take ages and is probably the best outcome. It seemed pretty clear from the hearing that, even if the PL don't win the jurisdiction challenge or get a stay, there won't be a case management conference before next year and disclosure won't happen before that. So, there won't be disclosure in the CAT case before the arbitration hearing in January. Maybe the PL would settle if they lose the jurisdiction challenge, but there doesn't seem to be much reason for them to now if there won't be disclosure in the CAT before the arbitration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Four years today since Amanda was captured on Sky Sports during our 1-1 draw with Liverpool (Joselu screamer ) as guest of Rafa - four years FFS! It'll be the worth wait! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocker Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: It seemed pretty clear from the hearing that, even if the PL don't win the jurisdiction challenge or get a stay, there won't be a case management conference before next year and disclosure won't happen before that. So, there won't be disclosure in the CAT case before the arbitration hearing in January. Maybe the PL would settle if they lose the jurisdiction challenge, but there doesn't seem to be much reason for them to now if there won't be disclosure in the CAT before the arbitration. Yeah, I agree. I do think if the case runs, even the prospect of disclosure in the future may make the arbitration go our way, or an agreement made in the arbitration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Dokko said: I don't know, guess that's the £330m question. For me I'd be asking the PL in front of the judge what separates in the citeh & psg setup and whether the citeh one is tested every year like stated in their rules. The PSG setup isn't relevant, they're not in the EPL and I'm not sure there even is a similar O&D test in France. City could be but I assume Sheikh Mansour is disclosed as a director for them. Palace is probably more relevant if it is the case that the PL haven't required them to disclose the owners of the company in Delaware. Edited October 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 11 minutes ago, Wandy said: Yeah he's just doing the same as everyone else and looking at MBS' role within PIF and drawing a conclusion. But really, how can our legal team show separation when MBS is so intrinsically linked with the PIF? It look nigh on impossible to me. Suppose that’s why you hire the top QCs in their field. They obviously must think they have a decent case. It’s best just to let it play out as none of us have a clue about the legalities involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandy Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 But if the PL lose the arb then they are on record as saying the takeover will definitely be passed. Ashley then has no incentive to drop the CAT after that. If they settle before ARB though they can avoid the damages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Wandy said: But if the PL lose the arb then they are on record as saying the takeover will definitely be passed. Ashley then has no incentive to drop the CAT after that. If they settle before ARB though they can avoid the damages. True, but there doesn't seem to be any additional reason for the PL to settle on the outcome of the jurisdiction challenge rather than months ago. Realistically they're not going to get more than a stay until after the arbitration from their jurisdiction challenge, which in effect they've already got. Edited October 1, 2021 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gjohnson Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 31 minutes ago, Wandy said: He's a complete prick but unfortunately, apart from Mauriss, he's got everything correct so far. And he's very likely to be correct about our chances of winning the arbitration too. We really are up against it. He's got less of a clue than anyone on the street. Anything he's been correct on is a combination of chance and hindsight....I could be correct if i stated now that this will go to CAT. The Mauriss stuff shows that he's is struggling for any kind of decent source on actual information Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 24 minutes ago, Wandy said: Yeah he's just doing the same as everyone else and looking at MBS' role within PIF and drawing a conclusion. But really, how can our legal team show separation when MBS is so intrinsically linked with the PIF? It look nigh on impossible to me. Yeah but even thats flimsy at best. When you think about all the investments PIF have made, not just in the UK, not just in Europe, but worldwide, are the premier league suggesting that MBS is a hands on influence in all these investments? I mean, there literally arnt enough hours in the day. Any business/investment that he might want to influence would be a bit like Solomon servicing all his wives - ie hes gonna do a poor job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 2 minutes ago, gjohnson said: He's got less of a clue than anyone on the street. Anything he's been correct on is a combination of chance and hindsight....I could be correct if i stated now that this will go to CAT. The Mauriss stuff shows that he's is struggling for any kind of decent source on actual information Wouldn't surprise me if the Mauriss stuff was the one time he actually did some investigation from a tip off and it's stung him. Be why he's so cranky about it. Stick to speculation, Luke. It's all you're good for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, Lazarus said: Yeah but even thats flimsy at best. When you think about all the investments PIF have made, not just in the UK, not just in Europe, but worldwide, are the premier league suggesting that MBS is a hands on influence in all these investments? I mean, there literally arnt enough hours in the day. Any business/investment that he might want to influence would be a bit like Solomon servicing all his wives - ie hes gonna do a poor job. That's true. The standard for being a "director" under the rules, though, is not KSA actually directing affairs of the club -- it's having the legal authority to direct affairs of the club (e.g., through ability to appoint directors of PIF, etc.). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 31 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: It seemed pretty clear from the hearing that, even if the PL don't win the jurisdiction challenge or get a stay, there won't be a case management conference before next year and disclosure won't happen before that. So, there won't be disclosure in the CAT case before the arbitration hearing in January. Maybe the PL would settle if they lose the jurisdiction challenge, but there doesn't seem to be much reason for them to now if there won't be disclosure in the CAT before the arbitration. The very fact the CAT case gets the go ahead is vital. Whether it proceeds before or after arbitration is irrelevant I think if the Premier league have something to hide. They'll want to settle arbitration in our favour in order for the CAT case to be dropped even if the case is set to be months after arbitration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-more Mag Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 6 minutes ago, Dokko said: Wouldn't surprise me if the Mauriss stuff was the one time he actually did some investigation from a tip off and it's stung him. Be why he's so cranky about it. Stick to speculation, Luke. It's all you're good for. I don't think he could have done any investigation of Mauriss. I spent about an hour or so on various Google searches and looking at court records, and that's all it took to find out the guy was a fraudster who had been convicted of securities violations in the U.S. and was having assets seized by the government. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 1 minute ago, B-more Mag said: I don't think he could have done any investigation of Mauriss. I spent about an hour or so on various Google searches and looking at court records, and that's all it took to find out the guy was a fraudster who had been convicted of securities violations in the U.S. and was having assets seized by the government. Tbf that just means you are a better investigation journalist than Luke Edwards. 😂 I'm still probably right. 🤪 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Edwards is the perfect example of the systemic dumbing down of everything. 20 years ago this fella would have struggled to get a “C” for this in school, yet this shite gets published on a national platform. And he still has the confidence to pass this off as the definitive piece on the takeover. Staggering! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Bruce was asked about the influence of other clubs in the takeover, and made the BBC feed. So some minor cut-through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 7 minutes ago, Scoot said: The very fact the CAT case gets the go ahead is vital. Whether it proceeds before or after arbitration is irrelevant I think if the Premier league have something to hide. They'll want to settle arbitration in our favour in order for the CAT case to be dropped even if the case is set to be months after arbitration. The CAT case will almost certainly go ahead, the PL are not realistically going to get it thrown out altogether, even if they were to get it thrown out now a new CAT claim would inevitably follow if the PL lose the arbitration. The best the PL are likely to get from their challenge is a stay pending the outcome of the arbitration, and really the only impact of them not getting that is that they'll have to prepare their defence now rather than after the arbitration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoob Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Luke 'there is no takeover' Edwards. If it doesn't go through I hope people see that it is in no way any kind of vindication for him. He's not some galaxy brain who was steps ahead of everyone else, or who has any special insight into the case/NUFC. He's just a relentlessly negative bellend who might end up being correct overall despite getting the actual detail wrong all the way through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey47 Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 One thing that stood out to me was the PL QC saying that the CAT case should ONLY have jurisdictation if arbitration didn´t go in favour of NUFC. So he´s pretty much admitting that if arbitrartion doesn´t go in our favour the CAT case will have jurisdiction right? He also seemed to put a fair bit of emphasis on the IF of arbitration going not going in our favour. This is obviously pure speculation but could this suggest that the PL are expecting arbitration to go in our favour? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 15 minutes ago, Joey47 said: One thing that stood out to me was the PL QC saying that the CAT case should ONLY have jurisdictation if arbitration didn´t go in favour of NUFC. So he´s pretty much admitting that if arbitrartion doesn´t go in our favour the CAT case will have jurisdiction right? He also seemed to put a fair bit of emphasis on the IF of arbitration going not going in our favour. This is obviously pure speculation but could this suggest that the PL are expecting arbitration to go in our favour? No, the opposite I would say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Joey47 said: One thing that stood out to me was the PL QC saying that the CAT case should ONLY have jurisdictation if arbitration didn´t go in favour of NUFC. So he´s pretty much admitting that if arbitrartion doesn´t go in our favour the CAT case will have jurisdiction right? He also seemed to put a fair bit of emphasis on the IF of arbitration going not going in our favour. This is obviously pure speculation but could this suggest that the PL are expecting arbitration to go in our favour? Yes, I'm sure they think there is a very strong chance of this. Also, there is no way our people, our legal team, would be investing so much time and money in the Arbitration case, if they were not certain that they would win. There will be 'something' that we do not yet know about that they will know ticks the balance massively in our favour - otherwise (quite simply) they would not be going down the Arbitration route at all !! Edited October 1, 2021 by manorpark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Are you trying to claim that legal teams don't enter legal battles if they might lose? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Reflecting back I didn't expect it to go as well as it did. Seemed very one sided and from my view quite a simple judgement. Even some flickers from the press, including the BBC and bien Jacobs suggesting such. If it doesn't go our way then nothing will IMHO. I don't see how we can spell it out any clearer and if it's rejected then the PL has it sewn up and untouchable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 Putting all your eggs in the negative basket with regards to anything NUFC is always the safe bet, it's all he's done. It was just a perk for him that his 'take' happened to antagonise the NUFC supporters. He knows nothing, but the odds are on his main stab in the dark (no takeover) eventually being reality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted October 1, 2021 Share Posted October 1, 2021 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Shearergol said: Are you trying to claim that legal teams don't enter legal battles if they might lose? What an imagination you have !! I am following this one case, and what is at stake and money expended by us on it. It is only THIS case I am referring to, and it is obvious to me that they would not waste money "in this case" if they did not know something we do not know yet, that we are not yet aware of . . . as it is fairly clear (based on publicly available information that we DO have) that KSA runs PIF. So, as I would have hoped you would be able to work out, it is THIS case that I am talking about. Edited October 1, 2021 by manorpark Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now