Jump to content

Takeover Thread


Can the Saudi's get the deal 'over the line'? (Reset 27/02/21)  

711 members have voted

  1. 1. Can the Saudi's get the deal 'over the line'? (Reset 27/02/21)

    • Yes - and want it to.
    • No - but want it to.
    • Yes - and don't want them as NUFC Owners
    • No - and don't want the as NUFC Owners


Recommended Posts

At what point does this become too much aggro for the Saudis? I’m guessing this issue they have with Qatar is bigger than the deposit they’ve paid to buy us. I’m guessing they’ll only bend so far to appease the Premier League.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest chopey

At what point does this become too much aggro for the Saudis? I’m guessing this issue they have with Qatar is bigger than the deposit they’ve paid to buy us. I’m guessing they’ll only bend so far to appease the Premier League.

 

Qatar are panicking, its shaping up to be them versus the MENA region, only one winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Chief Executive of PL is a fool because he sided with one of their biggest broadcasting partners over a country that is blocking it's population from watching the same league. Cool cool cool...

 

To be fair Masters got involved with it long before Saudi banned Bein, what the Qataris want should have absolutely no bearing on the takeover, they should have no input whatsoever in the O&D test.  He shouldn't be 'siding' with fucking anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is clearly going to drag on until PIF can give something to the PL that will satisfy them, clearly nothing has so far and tbh the longer it goes on the less likely they will be satisfied. I don't mean to be negative but the idea that PIF have given everything they need to and the PL are just endlessly dragging their heels for no reason doesnt make much sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to give it a rest with the "there will be a legal battle if it fails" bollocks. There will be no legal repercussions. All parties will say nothing and try to pretend that the whole farce never happened, allowing it to fizzle out with barely a murmur of complant. Meanwhile we will be left to pick up the pieces once again.

 

I get why people keep peddling the legal action line. Its because they feel that someone, somewhere needs to pay a price for making us fans suffer like this. But its not going to happen. Unfortunately we are the ones who will be in bits about this and all of the other parties will just walk away with a shrug.

 

They need to give it a rest because you don't agree?, how about no.

 

Seriously we'll see what happens IF its rejected, but I doubt the need for some fans to wallow in self pity will come into the decision on whether to challenge the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes I have thank you. Read my answer again explaining that the premier League can be taken to court by the consortium (once the appeal process has been undertaken) if they feel that they have been disqualified due to events outside of the D&O test, which is what I was stating that they can. They could do this even with events within the D&O test if they feel they have the evidence to support this and that the decision was made incorrectly. That's what the courts are there for (civil as not criminal offence), and as mentioned above was administered recently by the Court of Sport Arbitration between Man City and UEFA.

 

Let's entertain you though about the piracy, please show me one bit of evidence (including the WTO Report) where it states that either the state of KSA or PIF are directly responsible for the transmission of the piracy streams. They were concluded by the same report as being responsible for not doing enough to stop the streams, but that is a totally different to being directly responsible. The WTO Report also concluded that it was the states right to do this under TRIPS. KSA Minister of Sport has now taken steps to address this by the statements made a couple of weeks ago. Obvious has nothing to do with anything you need evidence to back that up.

 

The issue now which is being reported as the problem is due to KSA banning beIN from providing network coverage within Saudi Arabia. This is NOT part of the D&O test and as such is an event outside of the remit.

 

I don't believe you when you say you have read the test.

 

If you had, you would know the bolded part is immaterial.

 

Firstly, this fixation that PIF need to be directly tied to piracy is fallacious. The O&D Director test applies to not just PIF/PCP/RB directorial nominees, it applies to anyone whom the PL believes can exert influence (direct or indirect) over the club. Like so:

 

 

“Control” means  the  power  of  a  Person  to  exercise,  or  to  be  able  to  exercise  or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without  prejudice  to  the  generality  of  the  foregoing,  Control  shall  be  deemed  to include:

 

(a)the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

 

(b)the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to  exercise  the  voting  rights  applicable  to,  Shares  in  the  Club  (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of  an  Associate  of  any  Person  or  of  a  Connected  Person  to  any  Person  shall  be attributed to that Person;

 

 

(from the PL handbook linked above)

 

I can appreciate that is very dense legalese, but there's no way the separation between PIF and the Saudi government can survive that definition. And it doesn't even need to be proven - just "reasonable opinion". Sure, they need to provide written explanations, and certainly they can try their luck in civil courts and international tribunals. But, reading back, it seems that's what you're hanging your hat on. I can only shake my head in disbelief that you have any faith in those institutions.

 

 

There's also the incredibly broad and nebulous disqualification clause that similarly requires only reasonable belief.

 

 

F.1.6 in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in  Rules  F.1.5.2  or  F.1.5.3,  if  such  conduct  had  taken  place  in  the  United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

F. 1 . 5 . 2 .in  respect  of  any  offence  involving  any  act  which  could reasonably  be  considered  to  be  dishonest  (and,  for  the avoidance  of  doubt,  irrespective  of  the  actual  sentence imposed); or

F. 1 . 5 . 3 .in  respect  of  an  offence  set  out  in  Appendix  1  (Schedule  of Offences)  or  a  directly  analogous  offence  in  a  foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

 

 

So I come back to my belief that while the PL could (and probably should) reject it according to its own rules. That they haven't indicates to me that they want to approve it, but there's a lot of massaging their aggravated half-billion pound commercial partner before that can happen.

 

Its all very well saying the PL only need "reasonable belief", but that opens another can of worms regarding the definition of "reasonable". 

 

I do know that certainly in the Health and Safety regulations in the UK, the courts have refused to define the term "reasonable", so any adverse decision by the PL based upon a "reasonable belief" is certainly open to a legal challenge..

 

What is "reasonable" to the PL will almost certainly not be "reasonable" to the consortium, accordingly I would think the PL would have to provide concrete evidence to support their "reasonable belief", which would probably have to be clear documented evidence that MBS has exerted an adverse influence over any of the other companies owned by PIF, and that may be exceedingly difficult for the PL to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On here face of it it does seem mad to ban BeIn from SA thereby eliminating legal viewing of the PL in the country. I’ve lost track of all the details though. Now I’m feeling like this won’t go through but that only because I’ve been swayed by recent headlines many of which might be total bullshit and there may be plans in place to see this through in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's clutching at straws. It's clearly written to give the premier league leeway to block bids with controversial figures attached to it. Arguing that the chairman of PIF would not exert influence over PIF is a stretch to say the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reasonable opinion has to be based on evidence for a start. The bit you put in bold which is evidence and was requested in part by the Premier League and you're saying it's immaterial  :lol: Then you go on about PIF and control when I clearly put in my answer either the state of KSA or PIF  :lol:

 

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. :thup:

 

You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial.

 

You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial.

 

Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity.

 

I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m on team manor park.

 

Welcome to the team young fella.

 

That makes two of us !!!

 

Three, I've been 100% in from day one. (the rest of them just don't want to get their hopes up in case they get let down, must have had a lot of disappointment in their lives)

 

 

We should form a band . . . "The Manorparkians".

 

We Manorparkians know that our owners are (already) Staveley/PIF/Reubens.

 

Here's to our great future !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest awaymag

 

Reasonable opinion has to be based on evidence for a start. The bit you put in bold which is evidence and was requested in part by the Premier League and you're saying it's immaterial  :lol: Then you go on about PIF and control when I clearly put in my answer either the state of KSA or PIF  :lol:

 

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. :thup:

 

You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial.

 

You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial.

 

Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity.

 

I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

 

So its going to fail.  When do we form blockades at St James and not allow journalists or Sky into the stadium..........revolution brothers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reasonable opinion has to be based on evidence for a start. The bit you put in bold which is evidence and was requested in part by the Premier League and you're saying it's immaterial  :lol: Then you go on about PIF and control when I clearly put in my answer either the state of KSA or PIF  :lol:

 

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. :thup:

 

You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial.

 

You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial.

 

Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity.

 

I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

 

So its going to fail.  When do we form blockades at St James and not allow journalists or Sky into the stadium..........revolution brothers!

 

What I've said, and what I've said for a while, is that the PL have grounds to fail the test.

 

The fact that they haven't tells me they don't want to fail it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Reasonable opinion has to be based on evidence for a start. The bit you put in bold which is evidence and was requested in part by the Premier League and you're saying it's immaterial  :lol: Then you go on about PIF and control when I clearly put in my answer either the state of KSA or PIF  :lol:

 

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. :thup:

 

You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial.

 

You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial.

 

Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity.

 

I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside

the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described

in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United

Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

That is the important part, none of the issues raised in the WTO report would result in anything equivalent to an actual offence in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The same points that were debated to death on the last 1000 page thread on this are being debated again. Please stop.

 

It will be approved, it quite possibly has already. It’s a totally confidential process and no journalist has an up to the minute update to give us. They haven’t had one from a source in months. Yet look at all the bollocks written.

 

Also, do not get upset by other journos and politicians linked to Qatar. They will write their lies regardless.

 

Just wait until the season is over and there will be movement then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m on team manor park.

 

I’m on team manor park.

I’m on team manor park.

 

Welcome to the team young fella.

 

That makes two of us !!!

 

Three, I've been 100% in from day one. (the rest of them just don't want to get their hopes up in case they get let down, must have had a lot of disappointment in their lives)

 

 

We should form a band . . . "The Manorparkians".

 

We Manorparkians know that our owners are (already) Staveley/PIF/Reubens.

 

Here's to our great future !!!

 

Must be very blissful living in your world :lol:

 

OUR world, there are three of us now, so watch out we're gonna takeover (to use that well known word!)

 

By the way, our world is also the REAL world.

 

Approval is inevitable, say the Manorparkians !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've said, and what I've said for a while, is that the PL have grounds to fail the test.

The fact that they haven't tells me they don't want to fail it.

That's my take on it too.

 

Yes but equally what they have received so far hasn't convinced them, at a certain point is there any chance PIF can convince them? What more can they do to get it passed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I've said, and what I've said for a while, is that the PL have grounds to fail the test.

The fact that they haven't tells me they don't want to fail it.

That's my take on it too.

Yes but equally what they have received so far hasn't convinced them, at a certain point is there any chance PIF can convince them? What more can they do to get it passed?

I should have added to my post that I am falling on the side of eventual failure now.

I think the fact it has dragged on for so long, suggests to me that they are giving it every opportunity to pass. It feels like if they wanted to fail it, they could possibly have done it after week 7 or 8 given that that is way after the normally expected time frame anyway.

I agree though, eventually, the PL will have to draw a line if the correct information/evidence can't be provided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Yorkie changed the title to Takeover Thread [ph]

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...