Newcastle United fans have been left baffled after the club’s latest statement about the ongoing takeover saga.
Newcastle asked the High Court for the chairman of the Arbitration Panel to be removed because he has an existing relationship with the Premier League's legal team.
Arbitration is yet to get under way, but it will eventually adjudicate on the reasons behind the failed takeover of Amanda Staveley's Saudi-backed consortium last year.
Newcastle have argued that the chairman, Michael Beloff QC, should be removed from the arbitration process because he advised the Premier League on introducing the rule which the prospective owners are falling in the director's test.
The bone of contention concerns alleged broadcast piracy and whether an owner associated with it can pass the Owners and Directors Test.
The root of the problem is BeIN Sports’ ongoing dispute with Saudi Arabia over beoutQ, a pirate operation which ripped off official rights, including Premier League matches.
Newcastle lost their appeal against the chairman of the arbitration panel being removed on Friday. However, Chronicle Live have learned that Mike Ashley still believes he has a solid case against the Premier League.
The Magpies owner will fight the court battle tooth and nail to sell the club to Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, Amanda Staveley and the Reuben brothers.
Here is what fans made of Newcastle’s wordy and confusing statement on the ruling.
Newcastle argued that Mr Beloff’s position in advising on the Premier League's owner's and director's test format "gave rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality".
Today’s ruling is seen as a minor blow to Ashley’s attempts to sell up.
At a private hearing in January United claimed "the fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility" that Mr Beloff was biased.
On Friday, Judge Mark Pelling QC said: "The fact that (Mr Beloff) had been instructed on behalf of the Premier League and the English Football League to give advice… in excess of three years prior to his appointment would not cause the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, to conclude that there was a real possibility that (Mr Beloff) was biased."
The judge added: "The fair-minded and informed observer having considered the facts… would have concluded that there was no real risk of bias".
