Broadsword

Well they'll not do that because we all know how that ends - PIF say "Fine, MBS is a shadow director" and the PL say "OK, he's disqualified for piracy". The Saudis would rather walk away than let that happen, which they've demonstrated already by walking away. No one has been found guilty of piracy. So how can he be disqualified for something he hasn't been found guilty of? Same goes for beheading people or whatever else. So what are they afraid of putting him forward because I can't work that out. I've said repeatedly, and since day 1, that there doesn't have to be any conviction of anything. Just reasonable belief it happened, and we all reasonably believe it! And here we are. Thats bullshit though. Complete bollocks mate. Well maybe you're right and I missed the deal going through. But from what I can tell it's collapsed, and for exactly the reasons I said it would, except PIF have pulled out rather than allow it to actually fail. If you want to keep saying I'm wrong then it's completely at odds with literally everything that's known about why the takeover is no longer happening. This could never pass because of MBS's involvement in piracy, and the inability to separate MBS from PIF because he basically owns it. This thread is full of nonesense like this. Making it up in your own head.

Well they'll not do that because we all know how that ends - PIF say "Fine, MBS is a shadow director" and the PL say "OK, he's disqualified for piracy". The Saudis would rather walk away than let that happen, which they've demonstrated already by walking away. No one has been found guilty of piracy. So how can he be disqualified for something he hasn't been found guilty of? Same goes for beheading people or whatever else. So what are they afraid of putting him forward because I can't work that out. I've said repeatedly, and since day 1, that there doesn't have to be any conviction of anything. Just reasonable belief it happened, and we all reasonably believe it! And here we are. Thats bullshit though. Complete bollocks mate.

Well they'll not do that because we all know how that ends - PIF say "Fine, MBS is a shadow director" and the PL say "OK, he's disqualified for piracy". The Saudis would rather walk away than let that happen, which they've demonstrated already by walking away. No one has been found guilty of piracy. So how can he be disqualified for something he hasn't been found guilty of? Same goes for beheading people or whatever else. So what are they afraid of putting him forward because I can't work that out.

I think the PL would have passed this, which is why they gave assurances it would. Then the shit show started and they realised it may be best if they found a way to stop it being passed. Hence requiring MBS to be tested. They are in their right to require this but I think they were influenced by BeIN to go down that road. PIF either are too proud to have MBS go through the test or he is just that dodgy they know he wouldn’t pass anyway.

Bahrain has fewer pointy bits.

FFS lol, just when you think you’re out....

There is no similar test for normal companies. This test is the PL only. So if the BBC bought a club then yes it would be the same situation.

Don't understand this at all. The owners test is all about making sure people who control a club match up to the leagues standards how can they do that by ignoring directors. They clearly feel mbs is in a position of authority over PIF and this the consortium and do should be named on it. You may disagree with that but it's completely within their remit Subjecting him to the test Is within the remit. Dictating who is on the board of directors isn’t. If they want to subject him to the test that’s fine, if he fails said test that’s also fine. But that isn’t what’s happening here. That is exactly what is happening, MBS will not be on the board, PIF are claiming he has no influence but the PL are saying he has. He needs to be part of the owners test because obviously he is going to be the decision maker if he so wishes to be. He may never get involved but he has the power to do so. For some reason he is not being put forward for the test and the PL quite rightly are saying he should. I think Samuels price is on the money except for the paragraph about the Saudis winning, I think he has that but wrong. Samuel is assuming if the arbitration sides with the PL then MBS will take the test and fail it due to piracy. I can’t see why that would happen though.

We all know that MBS needs to be part of the O & D test. It's obvious, he needs to be tested. Its telling that this is not happening as it would solve the problem easily. Unless of course he will fail it. I would love to know why though, legally speaking that is. That article is worrying to be honest. The premier league is not going to write any assurances, why would they.

They are the directors but not the owners.

The PL tests were not applied with such rigour back then I am guessing, perhaps because there wasn't really a clique of nationally approved top clubs. Liverpool were struggling so the door had to be left open for them to be taken over by a state backed owner if one came along. Also I would reckon CL money has probably widened the gap since City took over, so the current PL top clubs won't want anyone else joining the party. Mansoor set up a company and installed a minion as the owner of the company and then transferred ownership of man city to that company so he isn't even a director of that company. Can't understand why Amanda didn't do the same here with PIF, although that's probably what they intended doing once they had bought Newcastle. However, the PL have put a roadblock on that by not allowing the purchase to proceed to that stage, if indeed that was the intention. I mean Mansoor is the deputy Prime Minister of the UAE, as is MBS in the KSA so there is no real difference between them as far as I can see. One is allowed to buy a PL club, but to then effectively sever all ties to that club while, PIF are not allowed to do the same. Perhaps that would be the answer. Set up a company with Amanda/Reuben Bros as the joint owners and tell the PL if the sale is allowed the club will be transferred to that company and put under the sole ownership of that company, with PIF representation on the board, and all 3 parties only having joint voting rights. I think mansours involvement was a personal one, nothing to do with the state.

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it I think if pushed by Staveley et al, then they would fail it on that basis. I can’t see why they wouldn’t do that unless they have not as yet been put in that position. If it really has got to the stage that PIF were awaiting a decision then yes it’s not good that it hasn’t come yet. I just keep picking holes in what Staveley has said and it don’t make sense to me. Seems fishy imo.

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners? I see what you mean, however I feel the problem is that the league are disagreeing as to who the owners are and who they should be testing.

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant.

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club): F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules; F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6; That’s for a newly elected director, nothing to do with this. Different things.

So it does beg the question, as I originally posted, why aren’t they putting up the relevant people for this test, what are they trying to hide? Do the PL know that they will fail? Do the Saudis know they will fail. All a bit strange. Maybe the premier league are corrupt and are being influenced but all they can do is test the relevant people. If those people are not put forward then they can refuse to pass it.

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director. step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director. I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable. As I said all parties except PL are saying this is the case. PL is silenced. Go ahead. You are wasting my time. Some things make sense and somethings don’t make sense. That doesn’t make sense and when there are solicitors involved they will know what can and cannot be done. So while those words came out of her mouth, they were said for impact. The only thing that makes sense is that they want the SA government to be the owners. What you you are suggesting doesn’t make sense. So you can continue to believe the misinformation at face value or try to make some sense out of the nonsense that is said about this deal.

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director. I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable.

Nicely put, I think that is correct but I do believe the PL have told them what needs to happen.

The UK Government have just invested in OneWeb, would thy have acquiesced if the regulators wanted to to investigate the Queen and her personal business before they approved the deal? If there was an owners and directors test required for the purchase of one web then yes she would. If she had the power to make the decisions of course. Does she? You're mental if you actually believe that. The US govt can't even go after Prince Nonce-a-lot. So she would just bypass the rules? That’s a whole different ball game there though.

The UK Government have just invested in OneWeb, would thy have acquiesced if the regulators wanted to to investigate the Queen and her personal business before they approved the deal? If there was an owners and directors test required for the purchase of one web then yes she would. If she had the power to make the decisions of course. Does she?

More precisely it’s the whole SA that is subject to the test. Now let’s think, how to prove that “a country” can pass all the requirements? A country? Everyone in SA? No, it’s just the owners of the PIF, the whole country doesn’t own the PIF. There will be trustees that PIF are putting forward but in reality the rulers will own the PIF. So who is it? And why are these people not prepared to take the test. I just don’t know why it took so long to get to that single question. Staveley said PL request to put SA as the director, not just the owner of the PIF. That means SA is subject to the test. You got it wrong Staveley is talking bullshit there though. That’s not possible. She means the government not the whole of SA. That would be and easy win if that is indeed what they said, which they wouldn’t. The directors of the PIF are not the controllers, the SA public are not the controllers. Who pulls the strings? They’ve maintained all along that PIF are a separate entity. As soon as others are brought in to the test it goes against that stance. However, the PL are not in a position to decide who is classed a director or not. Nope they are not but the test is owners and directors. They have an obligation to identify the owners. Very complicated as everything will be in trust for the good of SA as a whole, but, someone will be the ultimate decision maker. If the PL are not convinced by what they are being told and PIF are not putting forward the names of the controlling party then it’s stalemate. This won’t go through unless MBS takes the test or the whole deal is restructured. I believe they had reassurance that the current structure would be good enough but incorrectly so. I don’t understand why would you assume PIF not putting forward the names of the controlling party? And in fact why would you assume BSA could not pass the test? Yeah, that was my first point, why aren’t they and why wouldn’t he pass it.

More precisely it’s the whole SA that is subject to the test. Now let’s think, how to prove that “a country” can pass all the requirements? A country? Everyone in SA? No, it’s just the owners of the PIF, the whole country doesn’t own the PIF. There will be trustees that PIF are putting forward but in reality the rulers will own the PIF. So who is it? And why are these people not prepared to take the test. I just don’t know why it took so long to get to that single question. Staveley said PL request to put SA as the director, not just the owner of the PIF. That means SA is subject to the test. You got it wrong Staveley is talking bullshit there though. That’s not possible. She means the government not the whole of SA. That would be an easy win for Staveley if that is indeed what they said, which they wouldn’t of said. The directors of the PIF are not the controllers, the SA public are not the controllers. Who pulls the strings? How do you know she is bullshitting? Now all parties involved say this is the case (Staveley Ashley Reuben) and PL is silenced. Unless PL makes a statement and explained what happened and why they did not make any decisions for 4 months how do you know Staveley is bullshiting? Yea that’s why it is fucking ridiculous that SA is the director. And I can tell you even if it’s SA government it’s also idiotic. So ALL SA gov individuals need to disclose details and subject to checking? Instead of those who really got the power? So say a street cleaner employed by the SA gov also need to be tested? Are you for real? Haha you are so missing the point dude. A country cannot be a director, that’s why I know it’s bullshit. Does the street cleaner own any part of the PIF? Nope of course not. It’s about like John Lewis, who owns them? All of the staff have shares and there is no one owner but there is a board of elected directors. The directors don’t own John Lewis. So there’s no point the directors taking the owners part of the test is there? The staff are the owners right? But for the PIF who owns that? Who are the shareholders of the PIF? And who elects the directors for the PIF. I suspect it is MBS. I don’t know if the public get to vote on that like the staff of John Lewis likely do.

More precisely it’s the whole SA that is subject to the test. Now let’s think, how to prove that “a country” can pass all the requirements? A country? Everyone in SA? No, it’s just the owners of the PIF, the whole country doesn’t own the PIF. There will be trustees that PIF are putting forward but in reality the rulers will own the PIF. So who is it? And why are these people not prepared to take the test. I just don’t know why it took so long to get to that single question. Staveley said PL request to put SA as the director, not just the owner of the PIF. That means SA is subject to the test. You got it wrong Staveley is talking bullshit there though. That’s not possible. She means the government not the whole of SA. That would be and easy win if that is indeed what they said, which they wouldn’t. The directors of the PIF are not the controllers, the SA public are not the controllers. Who pulls the strings? They’ve maintained all along that PIF are a separate entity. As soon as others are brought in to the test it goes against that stance. However, the PL are not in a position to decide who is classed a director or not. Nope they are not but the test is owners and directors. They have an obligation to identify the owners. Very complicated as everything will be in trust for the good of SA as a whole, but, someone will be the ultimate decision maker. If the PL are not convinced by what they are being told and PIF are not putting forward the names of the controlling party then it’s stalemate. This won’t go through unless MBS takes the test or the whole deal is restructured. I believe they had reassurance that the current structure would be good enough but incorrectly so.

More precisely it’s the whole SA that is subject to the test. Now let’s think, how to prove that “a country” can pass all the requirements? A country? Everyone in SA? No, it’s just the owners of the PIF, the whole country doesn’t own the PIF. There will be trustees that PIF are putting forward but in reality the rulers will own the PIF. So who is it? And why are these people not prepared to take the test. I just don’t know why it took so long to get to that single question. Staveley said PL request to put SA as the director, not just the owner of the PIF. That means SA is subject to the test. You got it wrong Staveley is talking bullshit there though. That’s not possible. She means the government not the whole of SA. That would be an easy win for Staveley if that is indeed what they said, which they wouldn’t of said. The directors of the PIF are not the controllers, the SA public are not the controllers. Who pulls the strings?