Jackie Broon

The PL have to give written reasons for disqualifying a director anyway, and that is likely to be confidential. I interpret that as meaning that the the PL will feel the need to explain how long it has taken.

I'd say that "subject to" means reliant upon somthing that may or may not happen and "pending" means waiting for something that is going to happen.

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence. where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country. Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case PL Handbook: F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction: F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed; F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); 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; Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3) Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297 Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9 Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1 Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166 right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described" wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest But it has to actually amount to something that would be an offence, failure of the government to act to prevent piracy would not be an offence in this country as far as I'm aware. This is a £300m deal, they’re not going to just refuse it without sound legal justification for doing so, PIF and/or Ashley would have the option of pursuing financial redress from the PL through the courts, possibly for loss of income and/or reputational damage.

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence. where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country. Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case PL Handbook: F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if: F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction: F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed; F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); 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; Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3) Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297 Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9 Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1 Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence. where have you got this from? the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country. Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this. IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

Not at all on my part, I've said all along that it's probably open for interpretation either way to some extent (although, I feel that a decision that any of the proposed directors are demonstrably guilty of an actual criminal offence is would be very shaky).

And would also potentially be a matter for the Serious Fraud Office if that were happening. All the PL can legally consider is whether the proposed directors have committed a criminal offence (and their rules say they will give a decision within 5 working days). If they were to have come to the conclusion that they have, or not able to make up their mind, but were negotiating some kind of financial settlement to resolve it, that's potentially a case of extortion.

The test is simply whether the proposed directors have been convicted of any of the offences specified by the test, or would be in this country. If this were to end up in court the burden of proof would be on the PL to prove that the proposed director has or would be convicted of such an offence, rather than the proposed director having to prove that they have not.

I think the government will step in more forcefully behind the scenes eventually. There's just too much political influence involved in this with the Rubens and Saudis involved for the government to allow this to continue, or for the PL to be allowed to effectively decide that the ruler of Saudi Arabia is a criminal. I was involved in something where a government minister intervened seemingly just because someone wrote them a letter saying they'd once met Margaret Thatcher FFS. There's no way that this government will just stand back and let that happen.

It's all looking increasingly dodgy from the PL's point of view. They have one decision to make, whether or not any of the proposed directors have been convicted (or would be likely to be convicted in this country, whether or not there has been an actual conviction) of an offence that would carry a sentence of over 12 months, or involves dishonesty, or is a specified offence (including copyright theft). I'm sure there is probably some room for interpretation either way, but the test is simply whether a convictable offence has been committed. From the outside what appears to be happening is that the PL have raised concerned about the piracy issues and are refusing to make a decision until they have assurances that it will be resolved in some way. However, if they believe such an offence has been committed by the directors the only option available to them is for them to fail the test, retrospectively resolving the matter wouldn't make that offence go away.

This discussion makes me feel nostalgic for those naive days when I was convinced it would be announced on my birthday in mid may.

No doubt about it. It's more of a problem than many people realize. Would you say its centred in particular demographics or completely widespread? I've been fortunate that from the age of 11 I was brought up in a rural area (village just outside Hexham) and apart from 6 years in Liverpool have spent my adult years in rural parts of Wales / a small town. Yes there are the occasional ignorant idiots but in general I haven't encountered any real racism. Of course I know its out there, but have I just been lucky/blind to it or is it concentrated in cities (for example)? In my experience racism towards Asian people, particularly of Pakistani origin, is absolutely endemic in this country.

Ironically had Labour been in power the deal would likely be dead and massive potential investment in our area along with it. Labour would do exactly the same. In fact Blair's government discontinued a criminal investigation into BAE Systems' slush fund for bribing Saudi officials on grounds that it was not in the public interest, and was later found to have acted unlawfully.

From that FootballLaw article: If Qatar are basing the opinion on this report it certainly is desperate The opinion of a slik > a solicitor on twitter, although I'm sure PIF have Queen's Counsel giving exactly the opposite opinion. It's not from Twitter, it's from the FootballLaw website, its written by a Barrister with experience in sports law. I'm sure other opinions can be found, I'm just saying that reading him go through the report in that article it's hard to see what in their is against the tests. Case of mistaken identity. Anyway, my point was more about law being grey rather than black and white.

From that FootballLaw article: If Qatar are basing the opinion on this report it certainly is desperate The opinion of a slik > a solicitor on twitter, although I'm sure PIF have Queen's Counsel giving exactly the opposite opinion.

It's Saudi Arabia who are blocking access to Qatar's services, which is part of a wider diplomatic conflict over Qatar's ties to Iran.

He didn't say anything of the sort. He was interviewing Roberto Azevêdo from the WTO who said there would be a ruling, but wouldn't be drawn on when or if it had already been made, and said it would be between the two countries to come to a resolution.

hadn't realised Ashley had killed a man or ran an illegal streaming service. Neither have the PIF directors, the Reubens, or Staveley. Although Amanada is up in court so count vouch 100% for her, but I don't think she has. PIF directors have absolutely killed thousands of people If that's the case, then surely the PL officials would have ruled them unsuitable owners and directors straight off the bat. Well it is the case, but the PL probably don't really care about that, they clearly do care that Saudi Arabia has been stealing their product from them.

hadn't realised Ashley had killed a man or ran an illegal streaming service. Neither have the PIF directors, the Reubens, or Staveley. Although Amanada is up in court so count vouch 100% for her, but I don't think she has. MbS is the chairman of PIF, he's the de facto head of state in what is one of the few remaining absolute monarchies in the world.

All boils down to the question, are PIF a separate legal entity; and if they are, then are they directly part in anyway with BeoutQ If that were all it boils down to it wouldn't have taken this long to reach a conclusion.

But they will care about potentially pissing off our arms industry's biggest customer.

Didn't he get into bother a few months back for something he put on Twitter. He got caught on camera saying derogatory stuff about Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha in the wake of his death.

The moral authority of a guy who posted about the odour of a strippers fanny. Also "playing the upper card", I think that's a mixture of at least two, maybe three, different idioms. None of which are applicable to what you seem to be trying to say Stiffy.

Money talks but Qatar have arguably more. Certainly they are capable to offer more to the PL. According to a colleague, you can watch BeIN legally from KSA through their app or other 3rd party apps. Apparently loads of people watch it this way. Last year, I spent few days in Abu Dhabi and Bahrain - they are also part of the blockade - but BeIN's channels (and Al-Jazeera) were widely available in hotels and bars and it certainly wasn't beoutQ signal Just interested, how do Qatar have arguably more financial power when Saudi Arabia's economy appears to be roughly three to four times larger by every measure? Not every measure though.. The universally accepted one for economic efficiency - GDP PPP is twice the amount of Saudi's and ranks them 1st worldwide. KSA definitely have more historical trade significance and potential though but very little foreign expertise in anything apart from oil, construction and warfare. The main difference is that Qatar is designed to be an investor's heaven. It's the most developed, most open to western influence of all Muslim countries. The reforms MBS is attempting to push now were done in Qatar in the 90s. KSA, on the other hand is still a near-complete black box. They simply don't allow any form of foreign independent monitoring on any topic - juridical system, human rights, oil reserves, piracy accusations. In other words - an investor's hell. Wikipedia, I know, but these lists of GPD PPP don't put Qatar anywhere near first, around 50th actually, with Saudi Arabia around 15th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)#:~:text=GDP%20comparisons%20using%20PPP%20are,which%20may%20distort%20the%20real Surely what is being discussed is the power of the state of Saudi Arabia to purchase something rather than to attract inward investment. Per capita, of course. Qatar is a dwarf territory compared to KSA, after all. GPD PPP per capita is not really a measure of a nation's overall purchasing power. Depending on whether the data is coming from Luxembourg and Lichtenstein are above Qatar in terms of GPD PPP per capita, that doesn't mean that they'd have the ability to compete financially with Qatar, or Saudi Arabia, as a nation. It's not simply a question of purchase power though - even the poorest countries are rich enough to afford the PL rights, if they had to. You're picking on just a tiny bit of what I said. Al-Jazeera (BeIN) is a mastodon media empire in worldwide terms. Saudi Arabia can't create a product to rival this from scratch, if they could - they would have done it a long time ago. It's simply unrealistic, to expect Riyadh to become a media hub, while foreign journalists are not allowed access to the country. I doubt that would be part of the consideration for the sale of broadcasting rights, only how much money a buyer is prepared/able to offer for them. Btw, I'm not trying to be argumentative, I've just been comforting myself with the idea that Saudi Arabia are so wealthy and influential that it's very likely that the issues will be resolved one way or another. I've seen a few people saying that Qatar are now as or more influential and wealthy than Saudi Arabia, but I can't see any real evidence of that. From what I can tell Qatar seem have isolated themselves to some extent within the region and internationally due to the extent of their ties with Iran. Saudi Arabia seems to be far more influential politically and financially, internationally, regionally and particularly in the UK.