Broadsword

Are we really saying MBS won’t have the ability to make any decision he wants to should he feel the need? Also, was he legally charged with head lopping and piracy? Edit to say, exactly that Tiresias. That’s why he should rightly be in the owners test.

But if he takes the test and passes the problem goes away. The independence thing then won’t matter. Why won’t he do that? Why is no one asking that question? Why would he fail?

It’s not an exam, it’s a few boxes on a form. It would take an hour at best to do. The refusal to do so is the weird part. If he were to buy it personally would he also refuse to take the test?

More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. I suppose its a bit like having a limited company over here. I am the sole director and shareholder of my company, i earn its money, i spend it, i have complete control over the business, its direction and its finances. But legally, its separate to me. That's where a problem arises though surely. As the owners and directors test has to find the parties who are have control over said company. With PIF describing themselves as the sovereign wealth fund of the state then the state surely has control over PIF. So it doesn't really matter if it's a separate legal entity in itself in that respect. Exactly this. The Saudi state could turn round after the takeover and dissolve PIF and take over control of all the enterprises PIF entered into including control of NUFC! Lol. Righto. And you REALLY don’t think in that instance that the PL might have something to say, and invoke the yearly O&D Test again to throw the club out of the league? So Isn’t that why they are wanting to test the people who have the power to do that before the takeover happens, I.e MBS. The real question is why won’t he take the test?

Shit this is grim.

This is bullshit like, if things are progressing why send a letter like this? Suggests nothing is progressing to me.

It’s not that they’ve got something to hide, they just can’t ask their head of state with a divine right to submit himself to a private organisations governance and checking processes. Imagine the uproar for example in this country if a private organisation in Italy asked to vet the integrity of the Queen. Of course they can. Would would they not? Why would the queen not do the same if she wanted to buy a club too? It’s bullshit. This guy hires and fires the directors of the PIF. He will be the owner and he needs to be tested. It is really simple and I find it quite unbelievable they thought they would get away with not doing this.

Nothing wrong with the structure of this deal but for some reason PIF are unwilling to agree that MBS is the ultimate controlling party. Which is bonkers when he obviously is. They are hiding something, whether that something is piracy or barbaric tendencies who knows.

Would or wouldn't?

If MBS wanted us sold we would be sold. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. Very good point. What % of NUFC does Justin own? What % would MBS own? Well he’s chairman of the company who were aiming to buy us, no? A chairman isn’t an owner. So MBS would own 0% of NUFC, PIF would own 80% of NUFC. Being a chairman doesn’t necessarily indicate full control, it’s a strategic role at board level. PIFs comment is that the PIF board wouldn’t have any control over day-to-day NUFC matters, which makes sense because they’re an investment vehicle and not intending to be in control. Barnes isn’t a listed owner or director of NUFC but has control over the decision making in the club - something the PL ‘fears’ MBS would. Yet why is Barnes allowed to have any say in the club without these thorough checks which are apparently routinely applied and re-applied every season? This is also ignoring the ridiculous conclusion the PL have drawn that it is acceptable to take 3 months to decide ‘who is who’ and then offer a potential 18-month process as a resolution. They’re not concerned mbs will have influence. They want to bring him in as a reason to fail the test. If that wasn’t the case the consortium would simply agree. As I keep telling you, this is about piracy, not control. What makes you think they have grounds to fail it because of the piracy? There is a scenario where the PL are just doing their job correctly and identifying the ultimate controlling party and undergoing the tests on them. Thats what the test is for.

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.