SJHL holdings has agreed to be bound by PL rules meaning the CAT case is irrelevant. The contract that was signed had an error which he is exploiting!
OK so this guy needs to get this spot on or it is indeed game over. Has SJHL entered into an agreement with the PL and thus FA rules and thus have to be following the same rules as the club. If so then the CAT claimant cannot be deemed separate to the club and thus the ARB is a mirror of this CAT claim (albeit it different case content). I am afraid we might lose this on a technicality!
The PL have actually got lucky with this i am afraid. The Judge may however say that by proxy, the CAT case is still in the public interest due to the accusations even though SJHL and the club are one and the same entity (in the eyes of the PL).
Not been watching it but surely the Arbitration is on the one point and this covers more than that one point. Or are PL arguing that We should have started separate arbitration proceedings for anything not covered by the existing Arbitration? And we are arguing that We are not bound by the Agreement which has been mentioned in the posts?
