Indeed and it’s likely they probably already have. They are only responding with the Jurisdiction application today and nothing more. It’s basically the PL giving the CAT the reason why they believe it should be thrown out.
The jurisdiction issue is under Rule 34 Tribunal rules - concurrent tribunal hearings on same facts. Issue with that is that arb is to determine separation so that Rule A of the handbook can be satisfied. Brought by the club. CAT - a lot wider. The issue is whether the PL and its rules contravene the Competition Act. Separation is a tiny part of that issue. The CAT concerns the whole process and is brought by the owner of the NUFC company - St James Holdings, née Mike Ashley.
Indeed and can quite clearly be seen as two separate cases. The CAT case will go ahead I’m convinced of that. Because I can’t see how the PL can prove it is the same as the ARB. Even though some of the evidence overlaps it’s a completely different outcome.
My thoughts exactly. The CAT case is important as it could set a precedent - that the PL cannot perform an ODT as it restricts competition so an independent regulator should be responsible. It is a conflict of interest with the interests of the PL, its commercial partners and member clubs.
That's potentially what decides this.. If they fail to get it thrown out they're clearly determined to hide something.
Yes indeed. This is why @Sheikh_of_Araby was saying that the PL really REALLY want the jurisdiction issue to effectively block it/stop the CAT. It’s Ashley’s bargaining chip. Blackmail if you like. However I just feel the CAT case will go ahead.
The order of events for a positive outcome for us is. CAT objection rejected and claim goes ahead. PL approach MA pre ARB and negotiate a deal which includes the CAT case be dropped. Ashley sells his club. If CAT goes ahead and ARB goes ahead. That’s a difficult one. If this happens it means the PL are going the whole hog.
T hat is correct. And it really is a test subject to absolute misdemeanour. I mean they didn’t even apply the test. They questioned who should be tested. Off the back of a ahem recommendation from Bein. It should be a case of. This is who the owners and directors are. In legal standing. Test them. Not hmm, we don’t want to test them legally appointed people we want a different outcome. So we will test the state instead. Which gives us our piracy angle (now removed off) and bang. Failed test!
I’m not sure mate. If CAT goes ahead and ARB does too. They are digging their heals in and they believe they are right. The overweighting risk of evidence coming out to them somehow seems to be less than the case outcome itself?
Nooooooo I’m sorry to everyone I didn’t link. I just spammed a couple of names to get some likes. There I said it!
I would be surprised if it’s kicked out. But there is a possibility. But yes if that’s kicked out. Then ARB will be basically behind closed doors and PL win.
