That's all assuming that the panel are not bent. Something that I'm not particularly confident of tbh.
So how does this work? Do the PL have one of the panel arguing their case and the club the other? With Beloff supposedly a neutral?
As I see it - the PL is alleging that PIF and KSA are the same thing. The problem is, that would imply that anyone attached to KSA would be able to influence things at Newcastle, which I just don't buy. I'm not taking a pro or anti-takeover stance here, but look at this way. Say you run your own business and it has board members. Your family doesn't get a say in how the business is run just because they're related to you. Sure, you can appoint them, but then the O&D test would apply. The problem is, you can't just simply apply the O&D test to every family member on the chance of what might be because where do you stop? Does Man City's majority owner - Sheikh Mansour - need to have all of his family tested in the event he passes it on?
This. Are the PL seriously suggesting that MBS - the de facto ruler of KSA, is going to run or make decisions? As if MBS is going to interfere in little NUFC.
Nah that's why they never rejected it. They never had any grounds to so just chose to not give an answer. Typical behaviour of these types, if the rules don't permit them to do something, they just find a workaround or stall. I reckon the game is up.
Even in my sub-100 employee business, there are board members - but they advise, they have no say whatsoever in the day to day running of the company. The PL are so full of **** it's unbelievable, really affected how I look at football and whether I even bother with it at all.
The PL know they do not have a legal basis for stopping the takeover. They instead delay and delay hoping the buyers walk away. Their game is up.
@Sheikh_of_Araby you liked this post. So you are confirming that this is how the panel is to be set up? Because if it is, I'd say there's every chance we are going to get screwed. I was hoping it was simply going to be three members of a panel, with no allegiance to either side, simply having a discussion and coming to a joint decision.
Arbitration would not be members of the Panel taking a side and arguing a case for either party. The parties can essentially agree whichever format is most suitable for the particular dispute with the Panel giving their views on format and method of consideration usually with the Panels views prevailing. I would expect it would be a quasi type hearing with each party making submissions based on their evidence and responding to any questioning from the Panel with a possibility of witnesses being called to be cross examined on their evidence. Panel would then "retire" consider the evidence and make a decision.
Dyson is their nominated panel member. Neuberger is ours. Beloff is the agreed chair. I say agreed. He failed to declare a working relationship with the PL. That is why arbitration must be transparent. The decision won't go against NUFC. If it somehow does then thst panel will be in the firing line.
Correct. Arbitration is informal. The parties present evidence and submissions and take questions. The panel considers based on the evidence. There aren't sides on the panel, just those nominated by each side or agreed on based on experience, knowledge and expertise. Dyson - PL - expert in company law, international law and competition law. Neuberger - NUFC - expert in company law, international law, competition law, regulatory law. Beloff - Agreed chair - expert in Sports, Regulatory and company law. Dyson and Neuberger are legendary senior retired judges. Fair and with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law. The two most senior retired judges. You are not going to get bias.
That's reassuring to hear. So will the likes of De Marco and Shaeed Fatima be presenting evidence in person to the panel? Or will it all just be documents provided by them for the panel to read?
They are presenting in person or via video link. They will present the case and evidence. The only concern is the PL has the countries top sports law barrister representing them.
