B-more Mag

The issue quite simply is not whether the KSA and PIF are the same entity. We can assume they're not--just as corporations are not the same entities as their stockholders. But it would be an uphill battle to convince me that the PIF is not under the control of KSA when its board is composed of MSB and government ministers.

Can you link a few of these legal opinions? I know the guy the NUST hired to write to the Premier League attempted to make that argument, haven't seen any others? https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/newcastle-united-fc-takeover-and-the-premier-leagues-owners-and-directors-test That is the NUST guy. But all he offers is: "∆ On 2 June 2020 Qatari- and Saudi- based lawyers provided confirmation to this author that KSA PIF is a separate legal entity." Which is a) a worthless and vague piece of information and b) tells us nothing about the independence of the PIF, which is the crux of the matter. No-one who wasn't under the pay or the influence of the Saudis would ever try and make the argument that the PIF is operationally independent of the government of KSA. I'm not saying I agree with it.

We can assume PIF is a separate legal entity from KSA, but that does not necessarily mean KSA is not a Director. I guess I shouldn't say they'd "likely prevail" as there's information we don't know for sure. But, I think it's very likely that PIF would be a Parent Undertaking of the club, meaning that where the rules say "Club" you can read that as "PIF", such that a Director of PIF would be a Director of the Club, and I just don't see how you can say KSA is not a director of PIF.

Can you link a few of these legal opinions? I know the guy the NUST hired to write to the Premier League attempted to make that argument, haven't seen any others? https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/newcastle-united-fc-takeover-and-the-premier-leagues-owners-and-directors-test

Absolutely clear. The PL have been getting away with brushing this under the carpet, they are clearly not acting in accordance with their own rules. The vague calls for 'transparency' are easy for the PL to bat away and ignore, but this is something clear and unequivocal that the PL shouldn't be able to hide from. So why aren't any of the local journalists flagging this and pushing and pushing the PL to respond. There too busy regurgitating shit from twitter as its an easy living thats why! Exactly, the PL have been given far too much of an easy ride on this from journalists, supporters groups and MPs. What they have said about the process (not being able to make a decision until they've received a declaration from another entity) seems to have just been accepted without scrutiny or question. Anyone who actually takes the time to read through the rule on the O&D test could see that they've blatantly disregarded the proper process. True--the PL should have given the F.6 notice. Unfortunately, though, it wouldn't help the transaction go through, as the PL would very likely prevail on any appeal of that point (assuming KSA/MBS/etc. haven't given declarations).

This shit is 2020 as fuck.

Think he was anticipating getting bigger clubs coming in for him. It hasn't worked out that way though, as his progress at Lille slowed down. If there's one thing MA will always seemingly spend on, it is young, French talent, with resale value, especially with all those French agent contacts. Alternatively, a bid for ASM has been accepted and he will be leaving shortly. Where do you get the time to watch so much football pal?! He’s not your pal, buddy. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Pretty sure Man City's board are made up of similar signatories. Could well be. And if, for example, there are people that the PL could have legitimately said were/are Man City directors, but didn't require declarations of, etc., then maybe there's a case to be made that they've been wrongfully arbitrary and capricious in their application of the test.

I don't want to defend the PL, but the rules do say if you want to be a "Director" you've got to sign a declaration that A, B, C are true, x, y, and z aren't true, and you're going to play by the PL rules. I can't imagine the PIF were like "sure thing, let me just go get MBS's sig on that real quick". But he's the head of the board of the PIF and just about all of the other members of the board are government Ministers, so it's not like they aren't literally in control of the PIF. But, to be clear, fuck the PL.

Thread

Who the fuck knows if this is even true? Having said that, it would square with what the PL previously said, which was PIF pulled out and there's nothing to consider. And why reject it when the PL's perfect position is there's nothing to reject? But at this point, just what the fuck man?

Simply shocking!

What a shambles.

I suspect that this whole thing is getting bogged down with the nuances of words. It looks like the PL rejected the bid, saying that they needed more clarity over ownership. It could then either be stated that they rejected the bid, or that they were seeking more information, depending on the impression you are trying to make. It doesn't alter the reality, which is that the Saudis failed to establish a clear enough dividing line between the PIF and the Saudi Government, at least to the Premiership's satisfaction. There's no need to get into a debate about who is telling the truth. Unfortunately, that posture seems to be one the most defensible one for the PL, too.

It'll be interesting, for sure. My best guess is that the PL required a director's from somebody who wouldn't give it and disqualified the person on that basis. If that's the case, I think the club has an uphill battle, because the definitions of Director and Control are so broad. But, really, who the fuck knows? I also don't have any confidence that he's done a ton of consulting with legal counsel thus far. Dude bought a club without doing due diligence.

Below are relevant provisions of the appeal provisions: F.13. Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s) in accordance with the following Rules. However, for the avoidance of doubt, unless and until any such appeal is upheld, the disqualification notice(s) will remain in full effect. ... F.16. An appeal under the provisions of Rule F.13 shall lie to an appeal tribunal which shall hear the appeal as soon as reasonably practicable. The appeal tribunal shall be appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel and shall comprise three members of the Judicial Panel including a legally qualified member who shall sit as chairman of the tribunal. ... F.19. The appeal tribunal shall make its decision unanimously or by majority. No member of the appeal tribunal may abstain. F.20. The appeal tribunal shall give written reasons for its decision. ... F.22. The decision of the appeal tribunal shall be final and binding on the appellant Person and Club.

His 2003 season for the Ravens was amazing.

If PIF are categorically not interested, which is a fair assumption to make, then the deals dead and there's therefore nothing to discuss. Ashley is notoriously short on patience so what talks could possibly be going on with Ashley and the people who only want 20% of the club? What's the alternative reality to PIF actually still being in discussions which makes the narrative above make sense? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. My point is I don't see any reason to believe any real or productive "talks" are happening. Talks are either on or off. There's no middle ground here that makes sense imo. So the notion of non productive talks taking place makes no sense. Either they're all in or they're not. Got it: you're being pedantic. Cool. People can signal to the press that they'd still be "interested". They can tell each other they'd still do a deal if any of x, y, or z happen. I guess you'd call that talks, since you're operating on an I/O basis. But the reality is there's no there there. Crikey. Salty much? I'm the pedant whilst you redefine and stretch what the reported "talks" could mean? How about they mean negoiations are still ongoing? That is far less convoluted than what you're offering. Because if as you say the most likely situation is that PIF are out, then the other 2 parties expressing "interest" means precisely f*** all and certainly don't constitute "talks" in the manner you are inferring. There's a big f*** off £280m gap to fill ffs. It just doesn't make sense, what's hard to understand about that? I don't mean to be salty, but I don't know if you misread my initial post or what. I do not think negotiations are happening. I think I pretty expressly indicated that there's no basis for people to infer that the PIF's statement was a mastermind's red herring to throw those meddling kids off track and that double-secret negotiations are really going on. Maybe writing "not 100% dead for all time" was misleading? That wasn't meant to suggest that I think there's anything going on--I've just seen a very, very few deals peter out then get closed after circumstances change, and it's dumb to use absolutes. Aye! That is what confused me, because it seemed clear to me you were saying PIF were out but the deal was "100% not dead", that didn't make sense to me, but neither does the assertion that you can't talk in absolutes in regards to this. You're essentially saying I think it's definitely off, but I can't rule out it not being on. I've probably totally got the wrong end of the stick here. All good. That's it. And your point about absolutes is well taken. Apologies for being a bit of a dick.

If PIF are categorically not interested, which is a fair assumption to make, then the deals dead and there's therefore nothing to discuss. Ashley is notoriously short on patience so what talks could possibly be going on with Ashley and the people who only want 20% of the club? What's the alternative reality to PIF actually still being in discussions which makes the narrative above make sense? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. My point is I don't see any reason to believe any real or productive "talks" are happening. Talks are either on or off. There's no middle ground here that makes sense imo. So the notion of non productive talks taking place makes no sense. Either they're all in or they're not. Got it: you're being pedantic. Cool. People can signal to the press that they'd still be "interested". They can tell each other they'd still do a deal if any of x, y, or z happen. I guess you'd call that talks, since you're operating on an I/O basis. But the reality is there's no there there. Crikey. Salty much? I'm the pedant whilst you redefine and stretch what the reported "talks" could mean? How about they mean negoiations are still ongoing? That is far less convoluted than what you're offering. Because if as you say the most likely situation is that PIF are out, then the other 2 parties expressing "interest" means precisely f*** all and certainly don't constitute "talks" in the manner you are inferring. There's a big f*** off £280m gap to fill ffs. It just doesn't make sense, what's hard to understand about that? I don't mean to be salty, but I don't know if you misread my initial post or what. I do not think negotiations are happening. I think I pretty expressly indicated that there's no basis for people to infer that the PIF's statement was a mastermind's red herring to throw those meddling kids off track and that double-secret negotiations are really going on. Maybe writing "not 100% dead for all time" was misleading? That wasn't meant to suggest that I think there's anything going on--I've just seen a very, very few deals peter out then get closed after circumstances change, and it's dumb to use absolutes.

If PIF are categorically not interested, which is a fair assumption to make, then the deals dead and there's therefore nothing to discuss. Ashley is notoriously short on patience so what talks could possibly be going on with Ashley and the people who only want 20% of the club? What's the alternative reality to PIF actually still being in discussions which makes the narrative above make sense? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. My point is I don't see any reason to believe any real or productive "talks" are happening. Talks are either on or off. There's no middle ground here that makes sense imo. So the notion of non productive talks taking place makes no sense. Either they're all in or they're not. Got it: you're being pedantic. Cool. People can signal to the press that they'd still be "interested". They can tell each other they'd still do a deal if any of x, y, or z happen. I guess you'd call that talks, since you're operating on an I/O basis. But the reality is there's no there there.

If PIF are categorically not interested, which is a fair assumption to make, then the deals dead and there's therefore nothing to discuss. Ashley is notoriously short on patience so what talks could possibly be going on with Ashley and the people who only want 20% of the club? What's the alternative reality to PIF actually still being in discussions which makes the narrative above make sense? I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. My point is I don't see any reason to believe any real or productive "talks" are happening.

I really don't think there's any 4D chess going on here. The most likely scenario is exactly what it appears to be: PL asked for information PIF/SA didn't want to give, PIF got fed up and pulled out, Ashley upset, Stavely upset, parties still "interested" (except maybe PIF), deal not 100% dead for all eternity, but no legitimate reason to have any particular hope.

Jesus. The fucker could have just spent 15 min. on Google before regurgitatiing the nonsense he'd been fed. Order of the Texas Security Board to cease publication of false and misleading statements in connection with offer and sale of securities: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ssb.texas.gov/sites/default/files/files/news/1608.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwibnoaDkP3qAhXTmHIEHYnnBcQQFjAKegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0PXUBHvyLE_QcalsYA9kIS

To be honest what more can NUST do, if they attack the league they wont get an audience with them. By engaging they can keep shining a light on the issue and hope the politicians investigate the PLs actions during the takeover saga. I think NUST' actions to date is more to keep the story in the media so others I.e politicians run with it rather than they to land a knockout punch. Sorry, I was actually talking about the Wor Fund announcement that they're going to assert an appeal against the PL in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. I should have quoted it:

Trying to catch the the PL entirely on guard, I see. Ingenious stategery.