T O P

NUFC VS PL Legal Judgement

NUFC VS PL Legal Judgement

EddEdnEddie

Who needs a Netflix series when Newcastle have court?


L-3PO

Explain in cans terms?


Unique-Guide813

The judgement will be public


badgerseattadpoles

Just the final outcome, or the entire process?


Unique-Guide813

Reads like the outcome I.e the judgement like the example in the link so journalists and fans will be able to review the case and read the points in detail.


badgerseattadpoles

Cheers, I'm slightly hungover and couldn't make sense of it. Shame it's not the entire process, I could imagine a real-time blow-by-blow commentary in the press and online would make the Premier League very uncomfortable.


YorkyBar

Blimey. Where did you find this? Thanks for sharing. Edit - from the man himself. https://twitter.com/nickdemarco_/status/1418086372095692803?s=21


Unique-Guide813

Nick De Marco


Unique-Guide813

Summary of judgement In summary: i) There is a public interest in the publication of a judgment determining a s.24 application because there is a public interest in maintaining appropriate standards of fairness in the conduct of arbitrations. That is the interest that could (but does not necessarily) outweigh the importance of arbitral privacy; ii) There is no significant confidential information contained in the judgment other than the existence of the arbitration and the parties to it. PLL has not demonstrated with evidence any positive detriment that it will suffer if the judgment is published unredacted and un-anonymised and so is limited to relying on publication undermining its expectation that the existence of the arbitration and its subject matter would be confidential; iii) The desirability of preserving the confidentiality of the original arbitration and its subject matter has to be balanced in each case against the factors that suggest publication should be permitted; and iv) The outcome of that exercise in this case comes down in favour of publishing the judgment because PLL's expectation has been circumscribed by what is in the public domain already, which includes the names of all the relevant participants, because of the absence of any significant confidential information in the judgment and because there is a public interest in publication of judgments determining s.24 applications. In those circumstances, I consider redaction is not necessary because of the absence of any significant confidential information in the substantive judgment that is not already in the public domain. Anonymisation is not necessary either both for that reason and because the names of all the relevant parties affected by the dispute are in the public domain. Having heard the claim in private, I have come to the firm conclusion that the judgment can and should be published without either any redaction or anonymisation.


Joosh93

So, the reason the arbitration was delayed until next year was because it is being made public? I'm not sure what I'm reading tbh


ButtGardener

This isn't the arbitration, I think this is the legal case? There's two separate things going on.


EddEdnEddie

OP would you be interested in sharing this update on r/TheOther14? I would share it but I’ve done none of the hard work and certainly cannot explain what this means as well as yourself. PS Great work thanks for sharing.


Unique-Guide813

Done


ShotgunPete_

Some of this is doesn't exactly show the Consortium in a good light. I really think they screwed themselves. You can piece together some of what went on by reading these rulings. The PIF wanted/wants? to buy Newcastle. To do that they need to pass an owner and directors test. PIF is owned by Mohammed Bin Salman and is the property of the KSA Government. The PIF put forward a random PIF director, Yasir Al-Rumayyan, to be made Chairman, which is fine. The Premier League said that even though Yasir Al-Rumayyan would be chairman, he wouldn't 'own' the club as it would be the property of the PIF and essentially Yasir Al-Rumayyan just works there, he doesn't own it. So the Premier League wanted to do O&D tests on the owner, so essentially Mohammed Bin Salman and the KSA Government, who the Premier League thought would be the owners of the club should this sale go through. To be fucking honest I don't think this is unreasonable either, it's like Amazon wanting to buy a club and putting forward some mid level manager from their warehouse forward for the checks and not Jeff Bezos. The takeover attempt was the equivalent of the UK Treasury trying to buy a club and the UK Government denying it had anything to do with them, when you put it into context it seems quite ridiculous. Also something to note is the Premier League only wanted to run tests on them, they didn't say they would fail the tests. The Premier League do need to cover their backs, what would have happened if the deal was given the go-ahead with Yasir Al-Rumayyan as our sole owner, then MBS started turning up to matches whilst his country, under his rule, was literally pirating the same product he had a vested interest in. The Premier League could probably get sued out the wazoo for not doing their due diligence by the broadcasters and other clubs. Now, I do think that if the Premier League could have worked with us, instead of against us to help us get some sort of deal over the line and the whole Top 6 & Qatar stuff is too much of a coincidence and there is quite blatantly some sort of internal corruption. But, from what I know so far, the Premier Leagues objections are valid. I think there must be some sort of legal separation between the PIF and KSA, else this issue would not be going to court. Any idiot can see that MBS and KSA own the PIF, so I think we must be relying on some legal distinction to win this case else it would be pointless even going to court because from what I know so far, no reasonable person can rule that KSA and MBS are separate from PIF. Whilst I am hoping and praying this deal does go though, it does concern me that the potential new owners have been this completely and utterly incompetent and couldn't just make a watertight consortium that could withstand all scrutiny. Instead of making their own private Saudi company to do the deal they were arrogant (or stupid?) enough to literally try to buy an 80 percent stake in our club with what is essentially the private bank account of a War Criminal who owns a country who pirate the same product he is trying to buy into. Then you have Staveley on Talksport promising us that the deal will be done, even though they are in the middle of a court case where one side is arguing that a deal shouldn't be done. Unless she has a time machine she should not be making any promises to us at all, she did absolutely nothing to help that Simon Jordan narrative of her abusing a 'naive' fanbase. Staveley has no fucking clue if this deal will go through and 2 days after she said that it got delayed by at least 7 months. If Man City's owners can literally break FFP, take the issue to court and avoid all punishments. What does it say about our potential owners that they couldn't even structure a deal to buy the club in the first place. I am sick of blaming the Premier League for 'rejecting' the deal and sick of blaming Ashley for his lack of transfers when if the consortium had have done their jobs correctly in the first place they would have bought this club 2 years ago.


MaryBerrysDanglyBean

Really good points. I guess what the consortium and PIF would argue (although I have no real idea of how any of this works) is that the PIF, KSA and MBS although are linked together, are seperate legal entities. In your example of Amazon, although Bezos is the owner of Amazon. If a worker dies at an Amazon warehouse, Bezos wouldn't be legally responsible. The entity of Amazon would be. Bezos wouldn't be taken to court for it, and his money won't be used to pay compensation. Same if Bezos commits a crime, the company Amazon shares no responsibility. Despite owning the majority of shares and therefore being the owner, Amazon is a seperate legal entity to Jeff Bezos.


ShotgunPete_

I agree with you and your arguments are probably what we are using in court. But Mike Ashley and Sports Direct are legally separate, so if "Sports Direct" tried to buy a club, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to ask Mike Ashley to submit himself to the O&D test, I mean he does own the company. MBS is the head of the PIF and the PIF is literally the investment fund of the Saudi Government and Royal Family. It might be a separate legal entity, but it's common sense that if the PIF buy Newcastle that it will be owned by KSA, even if it might be legally separate. We just need to hope that the legal separation is solid enough to hold in court and they rule in our favour. Because I know for sure that if I had to make a judgement based on common sense with no knowledge of the law and the specifics around PIF, I would say that MBS would be the owner of the club should it be bought by PIF thus he should submit to an O&D tests.


MaryBerrysDanglyBean

Yeah that does make sense. But from my very limited experience in court cases, things that would appear to be common sense don't always pan out the way you think they would do. I would love to hear someone's view on this that works in law. u/bornslippy1994 used to break things down really well but haven't seen him post much lately.


ShotgunPete_

Indeed, I do believe we have got a case that is winnable in theory otherwise I don't see us spending resources on an unwinnable court case. My main issue is that this should never have happened in the first place. They should have presented the deal in a way which would pass the test.


MaryBerrysDanglyBean

Yeah true, you would think there some other way around it...


[deleted]

[удалено]


AntiObnoxiousBot

Hey /u/GenderNeutralBot I want to let you know that you are being very obnoxious and everyone is annoyed by your presence. ^(I am a bot. Downvotes won't remove this comment. If you want more information on gender-neutral language, just know that nobody associates the "corrected" language with sexism.) _^(People who get offended by the pettiest things will only alienate themselves.)_


BTECGolfManagement

Hello my name is Terry and I love brass and snout


VideoAssistantRef2

fuck off you PC cunt


GenderNeutralBot

No need to be abusive 😊


AntiObnoxiousBot

Hey /u/GenderNeutralBot I want to let you know that you are being very obnoxious and everyone is annoyed by your presence. ^(I am a bot. Downvotes won't remove this comment. If you want more information on gender-neutral language, just know that nobody associates the "corrected" language with sexism.) _^(People who get offended by the pettiest things will only alienate themselves.)_


AlexBucks93

Said this bot. Ok


[deleted]

[удалено]


GenderNeutralBot

No. What a strange allegation. I will not be silenced.


AntiObnoxiousBot

Hey /u/GenderNeutralBot I want to let you know that you are being very obnoxious and everyone is annoyed by your presence. ^(I am a bot. Downvotes won't remove this comment. If you want more information on gender-neutral language, just know that nobody associates the "corrected" language with sexism.) _^(People who get offended by the pettiest things will only alienate themselves.)_


ShotgunPete_

Yes, Sir.


ShotgunPete_

This ruling was made on the 5th March. Something feels off here. Why were Ashley/Staveley making such a big fuss a few weeks ago about getting arbitration made public when the Judge already agreed that it should be public 4 months ago and made a ruling making it so. So here is a timeline: Early 2021 - NUFCL make a request for the arbitration judgement to be made public. citing public interest. 5th March 2021 - Judge rules in our favour and agrees that the judgement should be made public without redactions or anonymized names. July 2021 - Ashley and Staveley criticise the Premier League for not agreeing to go public? July 22nd 2021 - This ruling is made public. I don't understand what going on here. The only thing I can think of is that the Premier League made a successful appeal and the judge did a 180 and decided to make it private again. But according to this document the process, or at least the final judgement, has been allowed to go public since the 5th March.


Unique-Guide813

You're missing the Feb date from your timeline, the link is in the chat it's very interesting and doesn't read too well, this has been made available for a while now but has just been referenced in city's case so has come to the surface


ShotgunPete_

Yes, that Feb judgement makes for some horrible reading. I mean just at the very top of your document you have; "The current owners of the shares in NUFC wished to sell their shares to PZ Newco Limited, which is ultimately owned by the Public Investment Fund, a Saudi Arabian **sovereign** wealth fund ("PIF"). PLL contends, **but NUFC does not accept, that PIF is controlled by the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia** ("KSA")." I mean who the fuck else is going to own the sovereign wealth fund? It is either owned by the Government or the Royal Family aka Mohammed Bin Salman.


Unique-Guide813

Also to add here is the judgement from Feb https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/349.html


Snoringdog83

I think it an only go public after arbitration concludes