Raconteur

When people talk about the power of the “Top 6”, it is in things like this that they can have outsized influence. You can bet they’ll all be lobbying to cancel replays going forward.

Very much the same - the only one that hit me in a similar way was Chris Cornell. Good blokes both, gone too soon.

Petri dish of protozoa, more like

I think it really does boil down to this. It's cynical and corrupt, but it's happening in front of us

You're saying this as fact, rather than opinion. Depends who you believe of course. Which deleted account were you btw? Godzilla? Both the PL and buyer have said this - it’s about the only thing they both agree on. Staveley through her various interviews and the PL through their propaganda session just before PIF ‘withdrew’ claiming there was an impasse due to the make up of the organisations. Plus it’s also what I’ve heard, unofficially, and makes the most sense as legally the PL couldn’t reject the takeover based on the piracy. Can you put a link to where the premier league said this please? I’ve literally told you what happened in my post, the articles were all posted in this thread - go and read it yourself and join the dots up. Why whenever I ask posters like you (you know, the ones who "KNOW THIS IS ON") you always refuse to post the links to your facts? Because I work a full time job and don’t have the time/can’t be arsed to pull up the 5 or 6 articles which were posted at the time. Here’s one, by example: www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/07/27/newcastle-united-takeover-gridlocked-saudi-led-consortium-struggles/amp/ Fwiw, I’ve never said ‘I know it’s on’ - I’ve just posted the information I have which may or may not be relevant or true. I’m confident it is on, but the only people who ‘know’ are sat in PL headquarters. Ahh, I misunderstood. I read your post as it being the PL who had said it, which is why you were so certain. But actually it's Luke Edwards. That makes things much clearer. So you're basing your facts (opinions) on a story from Luke Edwards and some information put out by Staveley. Cool. And the 5 other articles all written at exactly the same time? Did Luke Edwards tell them? Or was the information from a source distributed to multiple journalists at the same time? Not sure why Staveley would be the source - she was furious by it. Not sure why Ashley would be the source - he nearly lost much needed investment. Who else is left?... Then ask yourself - why is it important for the PL to have MBS added as a director if it's nothing relating to piracy? Accidentally deleted my post when trying to amend it... Because the PL believe MBS will have a significant influence on the club. Nothing to do with piracy but PL do not want him to have control of a PL club. The test would fail if he was appointed a director (due to a state owning a club, nothing to do with piracy), which is why PIF/Staveley refuse to do so. That's a really peculiar take. I feel like you're applying FIFA rules regarding government intervention to the FA O&D test. I haven't seen any reference to state ownership in the O&D test, but I confess I wasn't looking for it. I wanted to ask a few quick questions, as you are certain "piracy did nothing to hold up the deal" Do you accept that MBS is a board member of PIF? Do you accept that BeOutQ was a pirate organisation? Do you accept that BeOutQ was set up specifically by the KSA government to piss off Qatar/BeIn as part of their geopolitical bullshit? Is it thus impossible to suggest MBS was probably involved in piracy? Like, I don't know how you can say piracy didn't hold up the deal?

I must admit that I don’t know how BeOutQ is structured, but the nature of the service is inherently political in nature - it was clearly two fingers up at Qatar and BeIn (emphasised by their ads). Is the PL out of line to ask the question as part of their O&D test? Some would say yes, but I wouldn’t agree. And I also think you’re correct to say that no one in bringing MBS in front of the WTO or a British civil court. That’s why I believe that the PL and BeIn are bandying together for similar but different reasons - BeIn want to protect their rights, and the PL want to use the leverage made available to them to ask questions (hoping to fight piracy) while supporting their commercial partners.

pretty much - PiF arent' accused of anything and there's little to no chance of the state of KSA being found guilty of being behind the piracy so not sure why doing what you're saying would benefit bein for legal action could see how it helps the PL bounce the application if KSA had been found guilty of piracy, which they haven't, but not bein If the PL can force the link, then it simplifies future cases that BeIn might bring against any of the Saudi actors. It seems the PL tried to force PIF to include MBS in the O&D test. By doing so, the PL are acknowledging the PIF had nothing to do with piracy, and that they wanted to bring some pirates into the crosshairs. Because, whilst not everyone will acknowledge it, we all think MBS was behind the decision to buy a football team, and he was also behind the BeOutQ piracy. And even if you don’t believe that, it seems the PL believe it enough to not approve a £300-340 million takeover. You’re right to say PIF have never successfully been found guilty of piracy (do they even have a stake in BeOutQ or ArabSat?) but that’s partly because BeIn hasn’t been able to bring action in KSA, and both PL and BeIn action has been stymied in other jurisdictions as well. The O&D test says, to the effect, that anyone guilty of a crime or would reasonably be felt to have committed a crime can’t be a director - going by the above article (or even the single quote) where would you say the PL’s definition of “reasonable” lands? And again, I don’t think the strength of their legal case will be tested (re the takeover) - because the PL doesn’t want to fight BeIn. They both want to stop piracy.

It's actually a very interesting article (for an interview with a lawyer), and there is a whole section on BeOutQ (bolded because it makes HTT's work look like limericks)

Not sure I follow your logic here, how does linking PiF/KSA help bein with future legal battles considering neither have been held directly responsible for the piracy? If you mean banning their licence still don't see how linking PiF to it has any impact whatsoever. You're right, that is poorly expressed. I guess what I mean is that the PL want to have "everything Saudi" in one box (or one list of owners, directors, and controlling interests), so that they can say that *this* action and *this* action and *this* one all comes from the same place. BeIn and the PL have been unsuccessful in making meaningful progress on resolving the issue of rights in KSA, and PIF gifted them an opportunity to "do something" when they made their bid for NUFC. Unless I mistake your meaning, in that no one has been convicted of anything yet, so linking them doesn't matter? It certainly makes KSA's refusal to accede to those conditions more reasonable. That presupposes the PL is more interested in trying to resolve the issue with MENA rights that they themselves created than they are in approving the sale. (I have no problem with this argument.) It also contradicts indications that the deal had been given a sly nod, but was that before or after the WTO report? My memory says before, but I could be wrong. Montey[/member] argues the PL sold MENA rights "as is" and the PL has no responsibility towards BeIn because of geopolitical considerations outside their control, that my argument they have been sold a bill of goods is unsound. I'd argue that BeIn has suggested, quite forcefully, that it paid hundreds of millions of pounds for rights that it cannot exercise, and suggested, just as forcefully, that BeIn and the PL work together to combat piracy. That is a completely shit legal argument. But it's also what soft power truly buys. Here's an article from February, talking about the years-long collaboration between BeIn and the PL against BeOutQ (as Montey says, pre-dating the current rights deal). BeIn praise the PL as "outstanding rights holder", and here's a PL suit admitting to jumping to the whip: https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/premier-league-piracy-bein-beoutq-illegal-streaming-singapore-interview

I don’t know why this appeared in my FB feed, but it’s a decent read. Poyet’s obviously very fond of the mackems, but he doesn’t hold back on highlighting problems. Anyone who gives Niall Quinn a good kicking is worth a few moments, too... https://rokerreport.sbnation.com/2020/8/10/21354169/gustavo-poyet-goes-in-depth-on-the-problems-he-discovered-at-sunderland-when-he-was-manager

That’s fair, and most of my responses would be quibbling at the edges. My understanding was that the WTO action was motivated because BeIn could not execute the rights they had purchased, and that that action was inconclusive at best. Essentially, they’re arguing that Saudi sanctions are unfair, that it’s not BeIn’s fault they can’t exercise their rights. I don’t know you can so easily say that BeIn should have bid for the rights knowing they’d be unable to exercise them. I can’t easily find a quotable number, but from memory, KSA made up about a third of MENA viewers? By that logic, BeIn are expected to bid for 100% of the rights, but can only expect 66% of the revenue? (Again, numbers are suspect). Would that also mean that Saudi companies would bid for the MENA rights, knowing they couldn’t broadcast into Qatar and Iran? (I don’t even know if those countries have sanctions currently, but it seems no one is playing). Besides, I think BeIn is just threatening the PL rather than actually wanting to take their partners to the cleaners. It would put future rights bids is jeopardy.

That’s a thoughtful argument (probably more so than mine will be), but I think it understates the significance of Saudi actions of the past - or more correctly, throughout the period of the current rights deal. It seems universally accepted that the PL tried to make PIF and KSA (and the actions of BeOutQ) as the same thing for the purposes of the O&D test, and I would suggest that the PL did this, with the encouragement of BeIn, for the purposes of future legal battles. KSA’s sanctions against Qatar during the current rights period means that BeIn has already suffered losses - and I have to say that I’m not sure I agree that it is BeIn’s responsibility to enforce their broadcasting rights. The WTO action was one of those attempts to establish liability, and I’m sure I read that the PL attempted some action prior to that. It’s what gives BeIn leverage to say “If you approve the deal, we’ll sue you for the money we’ve lost when you sold us rights to a country we weren’t allowed to broadcast into.”

Would pay a large sum for that poster

Can’t be easy for Beckham to put a team together in Florida in the time of corona. Can see it going tits up for him, unfortunately.

Quality punnage

Aren’t there qualifiers for CL 20/21 running at the same time the 19/20 competition is being finalised?

Sorry to bore you all - I’m bored.

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that. Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool Are you a lawyer? I am not a lawyer. I have worked as a junior in a law firm - which is nothing close to an expert. But I have some training and experience. Enough to know there’s a lot of wheat, a lot of chaff and not a lot of it is obvious. It’s why I get mad when obviously spurious bullshit is spouted, and why I take most everything else I read with a grain of salt. You worked as a junior, so you don’t have the training or knowledge. You’re legal opinion has as much veracity as everybody else’s. let them have their opinion My legal opinion has very little veracity, you’re right. It’s even worse than you think - because my experience is in Australia. But some people have zero. My response was as much to the blasé offering from that story - maybe restraint of trade, perhaps. Again, I have nothing approaching the legal knowledge to say “There is no case”. I know enough that if someone says “There is a case”, then I can respond with “And how do you support that?” I would love opinions - if they have merit. Truth is, I’m fucking devastated by the collapse of the deal. I see people with hope - but it seems every scrap of hope I see people cling to seems, well, hopeless. If anyone has genuine hope that PIF will own NUFC, then I want to be convinced by them.

Thank you for your response. I don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore. The PL is corrupt and actively stymied a bid by PIF as a favour to BeIn - that’s my opinion. It’s also my opinion that absolutely nothing anyone can and will change enough to enable PIF to take part in a consortium to buy NUFC. I’d love to be presented with strong arguments to change than opinion. Do you have them? And yeah, if you think that somehow Boris and Chi and Amanda and James and the Trust can make Richard Masters rubber stamp a PIF deal, then I comfortable with using the term fantasist.

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that. Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool Are you a lawyer? I am not a lawyer. I have worked as a junior in a law firm - which is nothing close to an expert. But I have some training and experience. Enough to know there’s a lot of wheat, a lot of chaff and not a lot of it is obvious. It’s why I get mad when obviously spurious bullshit is spouted, and why I take most everything else I read with a grain of salt.

My bad - I’m an avid reader of the BBC rumours page and always get a laugh when the Toon is mentioned. Simply because 1. as if we’re buying at the moment, and 2. who would leak our targets to the press?

A journalist is guessing that Ashley might have a restraint of trade case. I’d really like to hear how they argue that. Mind, same journalist in the same article says the PL have to say something other than generic, meaningless bullshit. Sure thing, from your lips to God’s ears, you blessedly ignorant fool

I think it’s important to note Staveley’s case against Barclays, because it’s an insight into how litigious she is. And following the case, I thought her argument was far from iron clad, which made me think that she’d throw the dice again if she thought she had a case. But she hasn’t. And while it’s been less than two weeks (and she may yet start action), it’s also informative to note how long it took Staveley to bring her action to court (admittedly in a different jurisdiction, but still).

I’ll keep playing, because I’m bored. I’m glad you noticed I’m being condescending - in fact, I was aiming for patronising as fuck, because I’ve selected you as representative of the fantasists on this board. Once again, no response to the argument. Or the facts. True to form, good on you Let’s do this slowly. You have accepted the rules I’m talking about. They should have made a decision according to those rules. Are we still together? They haven’t made a decision. Is that fact in doubt? No one has sued the PL (as yet). Unless that is not a fact, and you know something no one else does? No one has offered any legal argument of any strength that suggests there are grounds for anyone to sue the PL. I’m actually seeking facts in this case, because if they exist, I’d like to change my opinion. Now, are you going to play properly, or are you going to sook?

It was nice of Staveley to thank the Trust and fans with such eloquent verbosity. A shame she ran out of words to tell us “what’s next”...