Meaning if it is still in force the arbitration has not ended or been lost. Neither has it been won. But the way she said it suggests she will be able to speak in time.
Yup. The arbitration is still in play. 100%. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised that it can’t in fact start officially until the end of the season.
It will start at the end of May. Staveley cannot speak do I am surprised that some are slating her for it.
They're morons that's why. They're the type of people that violently assault someone and stand there explaining to a judge that the victim made them do it.
Eurgh, another day, another flip flop. So it appears that the club are pursuing the CAT case ahead of arbitration, which makes no sense in terms of pushing for a takeover and instead leans towards the theory that our glorious fat **** of an owner is after compo from the PL. Maybe someone who speaks legalese can tell me why this is the wrong conclusion, but to my mind the arbitration is the obvious route to proving separation and therefore removing the barrier to a takeover - the CAT claim is almost entirely about money, and that would be money for Mike Ashley, as that particular claim is his, not Newcastle United's. It would seem on this conclusion that these NCSL people have effectively helped Mike trouser some cash. That's got to be a ****ing sickening blow....
The Court case is independent of the PL. The club can prove separation, can show that the PL's application of Company Law was wrong, that they acted unfairly in breach of competition law so ask for the takeover to be approved and enforced by a court of law. That is why. The owners test should be independent of the PL and given to a legal body to assess it based on law. Nothing else should come into it.
You could be right and to a layman that’s how it seems however they wouldn’t be taking it to court if it was that simple so who knows.
PIF created by Royal Decree. They are a quasi company who manage the sovereign wealth fund on behalf of KSA. Under UK Company Law (Companies Act specifically) the issue is one of control. Is MBS a person who should be named director because as chairman and head of state, he exercises a sufficient level of control? The PL say yes. PIF/ KSA are indistinct and a state cannot be a director under UK law. NUFC say no. There is legal separation. MBS may be chairman but he does not exercise control over PIF in terms of investment and day to day decision making. The UK Government recognises the difference. They trade with both KSA and PIF as separate entities. As do the USA.
I don't think there's any chance of that, tbh. It's going to continue to be tortuous, particularly with that cabbage heed ****wit in charge. Christ, even Ashley seems to have read the room and releases statements saying he's at least trying to bugger off.