Takeover (Covid-19/20)

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Geordieginola said:
The Defendant also considers it necessary to have sight of a confidential addendum filed by the Claimant with the Claim in order to finalise its Jurisdiction Application. The Defendant considers that it will suffer clear and obvious prejudice if required to submit its Jurisdiction Application and all of its supporting evidence by the 14-day deadline stipulated by Rule 34(4) of the Tribunal Rules and states that the Claimant has not identified prejudice to it by the requested extension.
3. Having considered the confidential addendum, I am not persuaded that the Defendant is unable to prepare its Jurisdiction Application without sight of that document which, as the Claimant submits, sets out the calculation (using commercially sensitive information) of the current estimated quantum of loss and damage on the basis articulated in the Claimant’s claim form. I also note the Claimant’s arguments that the Defendant was made aware of the Claim in December 2020 and had intimated since as early as February 2021 that it would challenge jurisdiction and that the Defendant will need to progress both procedural deadlines on the arbitration and work on the Jurisdiction Application in parallel.


“In order to finalise its jurisdiction appeal”.

Meaning the PL are going to file the JA for real.

And it has to be submitted today.

This will then be considered with all the evidence they submit to back up the appeal.

In other words we won’t hear if it’s been chucked out any time soon. But we will at least see why they are appealing it. Which is because it’s the same as the ARB.

The PL are going to take this all the way mate!
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761
Sheikh_of_Araby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Sheikh_of_Araby
Geordieginola said:
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.
Click to expand...


So we're hoping that they fail and are told it will be made public?
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761
Geordieginola said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761
Sheikh_of_Araby said:
We want the CAT case to go ahead.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheikh_of_Araby
Geordieginola said:
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.
Click to expand...

CAT goes ahead then I would expect the PL to settle out of Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Munson.
T
Sheikh_of_Araby said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761, DIY Matters, Schlem Boogerman and 1 other person
So basically the case will be kicked out and we're ****ed.

Right great how's the bacon did you say?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back