This is my hope and having considered the very deliberate announcement yesterday means they're hoping the premier league don't want their dirty laundry exposed which will be if they win or lose.
Takeover (Covid-19/20)
- Thread starter RobEllious
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
This is my hope and having considered the very deliberate announcement yesterday means they're hoping the premier league don't want their dirty laundry exposed which will be if they win or lose.
Nope just checked and apparently nufc lost in an attempt to have the details of the arbitration case made public, so the premier league are less likley to fold.
but nufc won in their desire to make yesterday’s judgement public. There is now doubt cast on their shady dealings. In other words they are under the spotlight.
Yes but it's not the arbitration case mate and that's now going to include a bias chairman and whatever happens the premier leagues dirty laundry will not be exposed.
I feel like it's a loss coming.
The arbitration findings will now be made public. So it has to be seen to be fair and impartial.
Given that Lords Neuberger and Dyson are on the panel is important. It is massive.
So today we are Arsenal and Sheff Utd fans?
Right?
Right?
So it's actually 1-1 and captain downie syndrome has got it wrong?
Ok then I'm back to hoping they fold through fear of any underhand behaviour
NDM knew exactly what he was doing and wouldn’t have expected a diffrent outcome.
Michael Beloff has worked with NDM more times than he has worked with the EPL. Even if that wasn't the case, NDM knows that no judge is ever going to rule that a top, highly experienced QC doesn't have the capacity to act impartiality when required.
On the second ruling, again NDM knows very well that arbitrations are private processes that aren't played out in public. Though the findings will of course be made public which is standard practice.
The purpose of both appeals was to further build the narrative that the EPL are a biased, untransparent organisation. The club statement effectively calling the EPL out further supports this.
Additionally it intensifies focus on the arbitration panel and creates grounds for an appeal if the panel are in any way not impartial. Therefore if the EPL were hoping that Beloff was in anyway going to be biased towards thier arguments, this now ensures that he can't be.
Also it works in our favour that arbitration is only focusing on who should be named as a director and therefore be subject to the O&D test. Piracy claims, chopping up journalists etc is all an irrelevance to the arbitration process and would only ever be relevant later down the line if the KSA is named as a director.
All NDM and SF have to prove is that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se. The WTO recognise this as being the case so I'm confident that NDM and SF will be able to present a convincing case.
Though I think the EPL will pull out of arbitration before the panel can make a decision and agree to list the KSA PIF and not the KSA as a director and then proceed with the O&D test. Especially if it is true that the EPL have acted improperly and discussed the takeover with the likes of BeIn.
The last thing the EPL will want is for the arbitration panel to conclude that they acted improperly during the process even if they find in thier favour in terms of listing KSA as a director. As this will open up the prospect of challenges in the courts and it'll get messy for the EPL.
Michael Beloff has worked with NDM more times than he has worked with the EPL. Even if that wasn't the case, NDM knows that no judge is ever going to rule that a top, highly experienced QC doesn't have the capacity to act impartiality when required.
On the second ruling, again NDM knows very well that arbitrations are private processes that aren't played out in public. Though the findings will of course be made public which is standard practice.
The purpose of both appeals was to further build the narrative that the EPL are a biased, untransparent organisation. The club statement effectively calling the EPL out further supports this.
Additionally it intensifies focus on the arbitration panel and creates grounds for an appeal if the panel are in any way not impartial. Therefore if the EPL were hoping that Beloff was in anyway going to be biased towards thier arguments, this now ensures that he can't be.
Also it works in our favour that arbitration is only focusing on who should be named as a director and therefore be subject to the O&D test. Piracy claims, chopping up journalists etc is all an irrelevance to the arbitration process and would only ever be relevant later down the line if the KSA is named as a director.
All NDM and SF have to prove is that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se. The WTO recognise this as being the case so I'm confident that NDM and SF will be able to present a convincing case.
Though I think the EPL will pull out of arbitration before the panel can make a decision and agree to list the KSA PIF and not the KSA as a director and then proceed with the O&D test. Especially if it is true that the EPL have acted improperly and discussed the takeover with the likes of BeIn.
The last thing the EPL will want is for the arbitration panel to conclude that they acted improperly during the process even if they find in thier favour in terms of listing KSA as a director. As this will open up the prospect of challenges in the courts and it'll get messy for the EPL.
Beautifully put.
100% this.
The High Court judgement found that section F - the test had not commenced because the dispute was over section A.
Arbitration resolves section A to allow section F to commence. If KSA PIF are found to be a separate legal entity then we have new owners.
It really is that simple.
Far to well thought and balanced. For this reason. I’m out.
And as far as the WTO is concerned this has already been proved?
I am not 100% with that one. If they have then thst is persuasive precedent.
Again not my area of law but as opposed to English law and also as opposed to Saudi law will it not be how the issue is viewed in International law that will determine whether PIF are viewed as a separate entity to the State. If PIF are viewed by the World as legally separated from the Saudi state which I vaguely seem to remember reading way back when then that should be conclusive to decide separation., I think.