Thread by @JacobsBen

A 🧵on #NUFC's failed High Court bid to remove Michael Beloff as chair of arbitration panel. Firstly, it's confirmed #NUFC trying to clear a path via arbitration to complete Saudi-led takeover. However, regardless of when hearing ends, PIF won't return until post-season/safety.

I am told this is due to a variety of (pretty obvious) factors. Firstly, should relegation occur the EFL would have to green-light the deal. But, more importantly, the terms would need to be renegotiated with a price drop (should Mike Ashley agree) of 85-100 million.

We now know the arbitration remit & panel. Terms of reference are broader than just separation alone. #NUFC maintain PIF are separate from Saudi State & thus gov. should not be listed (& tested) as a Director. But they are also challenging EPL's conduct & "lawfulness" of process.

The very semantics of what constitutes a Director will be debated. & Newcastle will reiterate arguments that PIF is a separate legal entity. But, as reported last year, they'll also question whether the Test was applied correctly & with integrity. EPL deny any wrongdoing here.

The panel consists of Lord Neuberger, Lord Dyson & their appointed chair, Michael Beloff. #NUFC originally approved Beloff in October only to question his neutrality two weeks later due to historical work undertaken for EPL, specifically around the O&D Test.

As previously reported, time taken thus far isn't down to EPL delays (albeit #NUFC may argue historical ones). Arbitration is lengthy (that's normal). & it's #NUFC who have needed reasonable time to i) prepare a more complex separation argument ii) appeal against Beloff as chair.

In (Twitter friendly) non-legal terms, Newcastle argue Beloff may be "biased" because he advised EPL on O&D Test rule changes in 2017, and that once a QC has acted for one party they can't undertake work of this nature.

Yet Beloff has also gone up directly against EPL. Now retired barrister was instructed by Blackstone Chambers on behalf of Fulham, alongside Nick De Marco, in 2007 arbitration against the EPL. Fulham & Sheffield United argued EPL were obligated to 'deregister' West Ham's Tevez.

Beloff is known as the "Godfather of sports law"... so the High Court judgement actually saw the "Messi of sports law" (De Marco) go up against his mentor & question his credentials to be an impartial chair. #NUFC lost but could still appeal.

Beloff has refused to recuse himself & #NUFC's decision to make public their concerns of "bias" certainly places scrutiny around his role as chair. This feels tactical even if the primary goal was simply to remove him.

Beloff may have helped EPL make O&D Test more robust in 2017, especially in relation to piracy. But that wasn't necessarily a Saudi-specific move. beoutQ was new, & (wrongly at time) not seen as major cause for concern until 2018. All this was long before PIF's #NUFC interest.

Plus, the arbitration remit is around conduct (outside influence, intentional delays etc.), lawfulness (application as per the legal wording) & separation. As an aside, Beloff has a strong background in human rights, too.

Key thing to note, even if #NUFC show some type of lack of conduct on the EPL's part, is club must still prove PIF are not gov. influenced, or PIF must return accepting the State will be a listed director. Latter is possible, but then piracy/human rights become a direct factor.

Although PIF maintain they're a separate legal entity, EPL argument in a practical lack of separation is logical. PIF's chair is MBS, finance/media ministers sit on board, Al Rumayyan is a close aide of MBS & they operate off a .gov website. This is a key section of Judgement:

PIF sources tell me legal separation evidence was facilitated by royal decree. Unclear what validity this holds in the UK if (as EPL believe) gov. can control courts & Supreme Judicial Council of Saudi Arabia has members appointed by King Salman. It's complicated.

PIF also sent me a graphic of some (not all) of their key Saudi/MENA-centric investments. Over half are gov. projects & almost all have gov. chairs or CEOs...

Other thing to note is the open invite for #NUFC to challenge "provisional conclusions" on separation. They may well do this. But I'm told club/consortium were presented, prior to the first offer of arbitration (specific to separation) with the same option & declined/withdrew.

As the Judgment states, the other important point is the EPL reached no point of determination prior to the consortium withdrawing. I remember being attacked for reporting no director/entity was ever failed (or approved). This has now been confirmed, too.

So what does all this mean? (The main tweet you probably want to read)...

1) PIF/consortium are still at the table ✅
2) Club case is trying to forge a pathway for approval 💪
3) Club are the ones who have needed (reasonable/expected) time as opposed to alleged 'EPL delays' ⏰

4) Notion panel not agreed at EPL end/FA would step in to appoint third member was incorrect ❌
5) Remit of arbitration is broad... giving #NUFC ability to make multiple/complicated arguments to try & make headway 👨‍⚖️
6) Still seems an easier case to settle than win for #NUFC🤝

Just to elaborate a little on 6)... consortium's decision to walk away probably won't help their argument unless they can show they had no other choice (due to EPL conduct), which is going to be difficult to prove, especially given public statement they made when they did so.

A final point: just because the two Judgements are now public, it doesn't mean a hearing will start imminently. This is progress (as was expected by mid-March), but #NUFC could still appeal prior to a hearing. &, as with lots of arbitration, case could also be settled, too.

So again, coming back to my first tweet (in a potentially world-record long thread... sorry about that): relegation uncertainty has changed the timescale. So whatever happens, nothing will resolved until the summer or #NUFC are safe. That's the case even if an award comes sooner.

Two closing side notes: PIF declined the chance to make a joint statement. They wish to distance themselves from arbitration. After all, if the club succeed they still have to work with EPL (Mike Ashley doesn't).

Secondly, I hope, whatever your viewpoint, it's now clear how fluid & complicated the takeover situation is. Think about that when you engage with journalists covering the story. We all do our best to report facts/balance... but there aren't always simple/absolute answers (yet).