B-more Mag

Not sure why it wouldn't have been released on letterhead and with identification of the signer (or, for that matter, why it's an extract and not the whole thing, as sent).

Customers are able to engage in legal action if it affects their costs or the quality of the product. The letter isn't persuasive in that regard, then, as it doesn't establish either of those. They clearly talk about it read it again I did read it. Page 7. Not persuasive that the supporters group is being harmed.

Customers are able to engage in legal action if it affects their costs or the quality of the product. The letter isn't persuasive in that regard, then, as it doesn't establish either of those.

It's a nice P.R. piece, if nothing else. Substantively, though, I have doubts that a supporters group would be found to have standing to pursue an anti-trust case here (i.e., how has the Consortium Supporters group been harmed?). And somebody else being behind it wouldn't solve that problem if they're not going to step up and be a party. Not hating on it, though--somebody has put some effort and money into it, so hopefully it helps.

Just passing along what I've found.

Something something, something something something.

I mean, what even is Carabao anyway?

Couldn't take more than 5 min. of watching that.

Obviously, still, fuck the PL. They ought to at least have the balls to give the disqualification notice rather than keeping things in never-never-land.

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.