Jackie Broon

I think your feeding yourself more false hope honesty. The premier league didn’t force them to pull out. Ultimately it was a decision made by the consortium. Probably, but I prefer the feeling of false hope to no hope. The consortium are very deliberately making the point that they could not wait any longer. Also the ball is in the PL's court, it seems from what has been said the process has been left open, if they still don't make a decision they can't claim that the consortium didn't wait long enough.

Torturing myself with false hope maybe, but the more I think about this the more I think it could be a final play to force the PL to make a decision. As it stands, by not making any decision the PL have demonstrably cost the buyers £17m. If the PL had refused the test they would've got the deposit back and if they had approved it it would've been their choice whether to go ahead or not. The PL are now in a position where not making a decision leaves them potentially liable to legal action likely to cost them at least £17m plus legal costs, because they have directly caused the loss of the deposit by not making a decision. Also, if they do make a decision now only an approval could potentially head off that risk, because then the buyers would still have the ability to decide to go ahead. This puts the PL in the position that their best chance of avoiding very costly legal action is to issue an approval as soon as possible.

As I said earlier in the week this could be very significant! O&D test grounds for appeal: F.15.5. the Disqualifying Event is a Conviction which is the subject of an appeal which has not yet been determined and in all the circumstances it would be unreasonable for the individual to be disqualified as a Director pending the determination of that appeal.

Wednesday's WTO meeting could be very significant. There's a caveat in there O&D test for a circumstance where the conviction of an offence is appealed and it would not be reasonable to wait for the outcome of the appeal. The WTO appeal process is currently in limbo so I would clearly be unreasonable to await the outcome. If the PL's issue is that they are taking the WTO report to be conviction of an offence and it is appealed at Wednesday's meeting they will have no legitimate reason not to pass the O&D test.

? I was replying to the The Brittle Waster asking who is on the PL board.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02719699/officers

Pretty serious allegation. Any evidence behind it or just a random thought? Random thought . These are states we are dealing with now not just dodgy businessmen . They will stoop as low as possible and then some - especially given the circumstances of the proxy war between Qatar and Saudi . It be pedantic I believe the proxy war is actually between Iran and Saudi Arabia / Shia and Sunni Islam. Qatar are caught up in it due to their ties to Iran (despite Qatar being majority Sunni). Saudi Arabia probably have far more capacity for espionage than Qatar, hacking Jeff Bezos's phone and email account for example. Yes but the Qataris got into football first the saudis are latecomers But in terms of your random thought, Richard Masters doesn't make the decision the PL board do, he's just one member of that board. I think it's more likely that the PL are just unhappy with Saudi Arabia for allowing their product to be stolen, rather than there being any significant Qatari influence on the process.

Pretty serious allegation. Any evidence behind it or just a random thought? Random thought . These are states we are dealing with now not just dodgy businessmen . They will stoop as low as possible and then some - especially given the circumstances of the proxy war between Qatar and Saudi . It be pedantic I believe the proxy war is actually between Iran and Saudi Arabia / Shia and Sunni Islam. Qatar are caught up in it due to their ties to Iran (despite Qatar being majority Sunni). Saudi Arabia probably have far more capacity for espionage than Qatar, hacking Jeff Bezos's phone and email account for example.

Because they have no legally sound grounds to reject it on / rejection of it would be too politically sensitive. Their only option, if they don't want to approve it, is to delay until it goes away.

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial. You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial. Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity. I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them). F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction; That is the important part, none of the issues raised in the WTO report would result in anything equivalent to an actual offence in this country.

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does) What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ? Would there even be grounds for taking it to court? It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough shit isn't it ? I think they could possibly take it to the Court for Arbitration for Sport. Pure speculation but I suspect what may be happening is that the decision has been put before the PL board with a recommendation to approve at least once but the board hasn't agreed, due to their concerns over the piracy issue for which there is most likely no legally sound basis for refusal based on. That could explain the times when it was confidently reported that a positive decision was about to be made. If the board were to actually refuse the O&D test they could appeal. The appeal would be heard by an appeal panel which would be appointed by a legally qualified chairman, rather than the PL board who make the initial decision and, whilst I'm not sure of the make-up of the board, may not be in any way qualified to be making decisions on points of law.

In all fairness the positive articles about with any real substance were written by Caulkin and he’s been slated for it because it hasn’t happened yet. All the other articles were just capitalising on the clickbait. Now it’s far easier for them to generate negative stories. Caulkin has shown himself to know absolutely nothing recently, he's been drip-fed vague updates by Staveley but seems to have no real understanding of or insight into the process and makes out like he's some dumb layman that couldn't be expected to understand anything when called out on it.

Yep. Allowing PIF to work with the gov to handle the piracy and tv rights issues without a takeover going about in the background. There's no guarantee that the Saudis won't fail the O&D test (although it seems very unlikely) and that would involve them upping the amount they're putting in from £60m to £300m. In the case of Staveley she probably doesn't have that kind of money and I don't think the Rubens are interested in being anything other than minority partners, they seem to have been involved only on that basis since the first attempt to by the club. That's not even considering the potential cost of investing in the club to turn back the rot of Ashley's neglect on top of the purchase price.

The situation will develop as pif wont wait around forever. Also Ian Mearns MP made an interesting point last night, at what point does Ashley consider this a restraint of trade. Though there own rules don’t appear to have a set timescale for a decision, however a court could rule that this delay is not reasonable and does constitute a restraint of trade. Don’t think it will come to this though as I expect decision in next 2 weeks. There is a set timescale, 5 working days, the rules are silent on what happens if that isn't met but there is a timescale in there.

This looks like a potential step forward: https://www.saip.gov.sa/en/%d9%85%d8%ac%d9%84%d8%b3-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%88%d8%b2%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d9%8a%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%82-%d8%b9%d9%84%d9%89-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%86%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b0%d8%ac-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%aa%d8%b1/

Not 100% sure, but I think it was introduced after Abramovich bought the Chelsea. It doesn't seem to be a one-off thing, the PL rules require directors to be declared every season and they can be disqualified at that point if the PL becomes aware that they fail the O&D test. Abramovich has reportedly admitted in court to paying millions in bribes, which would clearly be an offence that in this country that would reasonable be considered to be dishonest.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184 Masters says in this clip "there is no timetable set as part of the rules", which is actually incorrect, the rules state that a decision will be made within 5 working days of submission. They seem to be silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met, which probably means it has no real weight. But technically he seems to have possibly committed contempt of Parliament with that statement. 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;

Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA. i disagree, a major part of the WTO finding was SA blocking legal redress in their own country for violations That doesn't seem to be what he was referring to, he didn't say 'enforce rights', it seems to me that he's referring to beIN not being able to broadcast in SA. "to take their rights" were the words he used, guess we interpret it differently I can see that it could be interpreted either way, although taking rights implies more to me the process of actually using those rights to broadcast. Notwithstanding that, I can't see how a government failing to take action could amount to an actual offence that could, within remit of the O&D test, result in disqualification of a director. The PL seem to be acting beyond the scope of the test purely due to their commercial interests.

Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA. i disagree, a major part of the WTO finding was SA blocking legal redress in their own country for violations That doesn't seem to be what he was referring to, he didn't say 'enforce rights', it seems to me that he's referring to beIN not being able to broadcast in SA.

Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA.

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are. It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now. Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might. I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection. There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS. As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days. My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along. Well I hope you're right, of course. But I don't see that. The French court case recently ruled that Arabsat, whose main shareholder is Saudi Arabia, were distributing BeOUTQ. https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019/06/14/arabsat-is-distributing-beoutq-french-court-rules/ The WTO report said that the Saudis didn't do enough to prevent piracy. Apparently the PL tried what, 7, 9 times to contact the Saudis? And were just rebuffed every time. Legal recourse has clearly and deliberately been denied to rights holders by the Saudis. Personally, I don't know where the line is for "reasonable belief" in an offence because I'm not that up on all the relevant international legislation. But for anyone to say with certainty that there's not enough evidence that we couldn't possibly be over that line seems incredibly optimistic, as the only people who could potentially say for certain are employed in such incredibly niche positions that I doubt they're posting on here, and even if they were, they'd have to do months worth of reading and have access to information likely not in the public domain to make an accurate judgement. We have to trust that the PL are looking at this correctly, and that the relevant lawyers interpret it correctly. And that we get the result we want. But I go back to my initial point - People screaming that it's taking too long or they deserve to be informed or that they PL are being unprofessional just come across as whiny children who haven't got their sweets yet. I'm as frustrated as anyone, but I'm fully aware that the grown-ups are still doing their shopping and the sweets only come at the end. Hopefully we get sweets, but screaming for them and having a tantrum in the middle of aisle 8 seldom works. Is a government putting in place an environment that denied legal recourse tantamount to a specific offence by the government? I think probably not. Arabsat is owned by 21 states, including the UAE (and Qatar), if MbS fails the test on the basis that the Saudi state owns part of Arabsat so would Sheik Mansour because of the UAE's ownership interest. The Saudis plus Kuwait, their closest regional allies, have a controlling stake of 51%. Yes, the Qataris own 9.8% and the UAE 4.7% but that's very different to having a controlling stake in the company and what it does. And of course other countries have stakes too but 12 of them have less than 2% each. I own more than that in shares of an Australian mining company but I'm fucked if I'll be held accountable for their actions if they start doing dodgy shit. I've never even been to Australia or spoken to anyone at the company, I'm just in it for the ride and hopefully some £s at the end. Ultimately though, my point isn't that they HAVE committed an act that is in the "reasonable opinion" of the PL likely to disqualify them. My point is that nobody (at least none of us) can be sure that they have not. The very fact that the actual lawyers in this with the evidence in front of them still haven't signed it off is surely proof of that? I had to let people have their "Oh, it'll be fine" moment what, 6 weeks ago, but now it looks rather like I had a point then because look where we are now - NOT signed off as we rampage into week 13 of a 4-week process. For people to still be talking in such absolutes despite this, that the Saudis have DEFINITELY NOT done anything that could render them liable for disqualification and the PL cannot stop this going through, is frankly bonkers because it seems the PL's lawyers who are actually working on the case aren't as sure as all you google experts. That seems a bit a of a stretch. I work in an job that involves a lot of interpretation of law and often work with solicitors and barristers, although a very different area of law to this. I'm well aware that law is grey rather than black and white and I've made that point in this thread. However, putting my armchair barrister hat on, I just can't see a strong case for the directors of PIF being disqualified as directors on those grounds. And actual barristers have also given that opinion. I feel that it has gone on for so long because the PL know they can't disqualify the directors but want to use the opportunity to get Saudi Arabia to act on the piracy issue, the only hand they can play is to bluff and not make a decision.

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are. It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now. Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might. I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection. There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS. As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days. My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along. Well I hope you're right, of course. But I don't see that. The French court case recently ruled that Arabsat, whose main shareholder is Saudi Arabia, were distributing BeOUTQ. https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019/06/14/arabsat-is-distributing-beoutq-french-court-rules/ The WTO report said that the Saudis didn't do enough to prevent piracy. Apparently the PL tried what, 7, 9 times to contact the Saudis? And were just rebuffed every time. Legal recourse has clearly and deliberately been denied to rights holders by the Saudis. Personally, I don't know where the line is for "reasonable belief" in an offence because I'm not that up on all the relevant international legislation. But for anyone to say with certainty that there's not enough evidence that we couldn't possibly be over that line seems incredibly optimistic, as the only people who could potentially say for certain are employed in such incredibly niche positions that I doubt they're posting on here, and even if they were, they'd have to do months worth of reading and have access to information likely not in the public domain to make an accurate judgement. We have to trust that the PL are looking at this correctly, and that the relevant lawyers interpret it correctly. And that we get the result we want. But I go back to my initial point - People screaming that it's taking too long or they deserve to be informed or that they PL are being unprofessional just come across as whiny children who haven't got their sweets yet. I'm as frustrated as anyone, but I'm fully aware that the grown-ups are still doing their shopping and the sweets only come at the end. Hopefully we get sweets, but screaming for them and having a tantrum in the middle of aisle 8 seldom works. Is a government putting in place an environment that denied legal recourse tantamount to a specific offence by the government? I think probably not. Arabsat is owned by 21 states, including the UAE (and Qatar), if MbS fails the test on the basis that the Saudi state owns part of Arabsat so would Sheik Mansour because of the UAE's ownership interest.

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are. It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now. Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might. I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection. There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS. As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days. My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along.

But the prospective directors need to have demonstrably done something equivalent to an offence in this country to fail the test. The government not doing enough to prevent piracy is not likely to equate to an offence. I think it's probably quite the opposite, that PIF are happy to go along with what the PL are asking for now, but both they and the PL know that there is no way that a disqualification of the directors would be likely to stand up to legal scrutiny.