Jackie Broon

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.

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.

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?

This is another cause for concern. The WTO report carries a lot of weight and the PL's hands will be clean if they base their decision on it. I realise I'm spreading negativity like fuck today but from browsing through similar WTO reports it seems that the panel's decision will be based not solely on juridical (technological in this case) evidence but on political findings too. This is something that lacks in previous third-party analyses against beoutQ and can further incriminate Saudi officials. If there's evidence of course. The Guardian claimed that it'll contain categorical evidence of government involvement. The report will be published here: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds567_e.htm There's a similar report summary (understandably not very favourable to SA at all) on the trade-related aspects of the blockade here - https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds528_e.htm As I said a few pages back, I'm sure that the political fallout of that decision would be too great for the government to allow to happen (I know they don't have any direct influence over the decision, but there will definitely be behind the scenes influence). Our government's diplomatic and financial interests are too tied up with Saudi Arabia to allow that to happen.

The UK has deep diplomatic and financial ties with Saudi Arabia, our government has turned a blind eye to bribery, human rights abuses, support of terrorism and so on for decades to keep their money flowing into our arms industry etc. The diplomatic consequences of the Premier League ruling that the nation's de facto head of state is too dishonest to own a Premier League club would be vast, I can't believe that it would be allowed to happen (although the Saudi state has done many things that could, by any reasonable definition, be considered to be dishonest). I'm sure it will go through.

How ? That letter gives absolutely nothing away. I'm very used to writing letters like that, trust me, it says get to fuck in no uncertain terms.

It's 'precedent' Stiffy, and it seems pretty likely that the WTO report has had some influence on the delay in the FA's decision.

And that is probably off the back of Newcastle supporters making "pointless", "embarrassing" posts about the effect of the limbo the PL has put the club in on the club and its supporters. If enough people post on social media / write to the PL about it, we do have the power to affect the narrative and at least make it more uncomfortable for the PL to keep the club in limbo.

Does this WTO report carry any clout in terms of whether they can reject the takeover based on what is said in it? Have a look at the twitter link I posted previous page as it gives an insight to this Just this second read it. I take it as the WTO report is nothing to worry about? You can only really go off what he was saying and he worked there 15 years so obviously knows the 'ins and out'. Thought this part was particularly interesting: Still a bit confusing as to what he's saying but I take it the WTO report means f*** all. If so, what the hell are they waiting for it for? Exactly, but more to the point in question can the Premier League use this report 'legally' anyway to knock back the takeover. 'Legally' there doesn't seem to be any requirement in the OD test for there to be an actual conviction or other ruling with legal status. In theory the PL could take into account any evidence that they deem to be appropriate, however, they'd have to be sure it's robust enough to stand up to legal challenge if they were to reject on that basis.

Imagine ever thinking that wouldn't be a waste of your time. Maybe, but it seems pretty clear that the PL have bowed to external pressure opposing the deal in their handling of the OD test. I don't think there's any harm in Newcastle supporters putting whatever pressure they can on the PL to get a decision made.

Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS. FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then. The Saudi state is reported to be directly implicated, MbS is the head of the Saudi state. So the queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom, does that mean that anything attributed to the United Kingdom, is attributed to the Queen? So basically you are saying anything implicated illegal or anything else for that matter in the vast country of Saudi Arabia go back to MBS and by association PIF. Bit of a stretch! It's a bit of a stretch to compare a constitutional monarchy to an absolute monarchy.

If it were a big issue I wouldn't be surprised to see some sudden arrests of the ‘people responsible for BeoutQ’ in Saudi Arabia, à la the people arrested for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. I'm still confident it will eventually go through.

Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS. FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then. The Saudi state is reported to be directly implicated, MbS is the head of the Saudi state.

See F.4. "including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club".

Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS.

Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! The actual wording is: 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; That's a pretty wide scope and the piracy issue is clearly incredibly complex.

So we have to wait for that report ? No as it's not a court with the ability to give a legal ruling. Legally its no different to you or I doing a report from what I can understand. It is, but the jurisdiction is limited trade disputes among members. If the panel were to determine that there has been wrongdoing on the part of the Saudi government the outcome would be likely to be a requirement for them to pay compensation. But I agree it seems likely that, if the panel finds against the Saudi Government, it wouldn't necessary represent conviction of a crime for the purposes of the Premier League owners and directors test. No, the WTO is not a criminal court and can’t convict anyone. That's actually what I said. However, piracy is a crime in this country and the PL have to assess whether anything that would be a crime in this country has been committed in any other country whether or not a the prospective owner has been convicted. The burden of proof in that process would be likely to be on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think this will affect the outcome of the PL OD test, but it definitely could.

Any report by a committee within the WTO would still have to be tested in a court of law should the PL use the conclusions as a basis to block the takeover. Unless you're referring to the inevitable judicial challenge should the owners and directors test be failed on that basis (or possibly form other parties should it be passed), no they don't. According to the PL rules it entirely the judgement of the PL whether something that would be a crime in this country has been committed in another country, whether or not there has been a conviction.

So we have to wait for that report ? No as it's not a court with the ability to give a legal ruling. Legally its no different to you or I doing a report from what I can understand. It is, but the jurisdiction is limited to trade disputes among members. If the panel were to determine that there has been wrongdoing on the part of the Saudi government the outcome would be likely to be a requirement for them to pay compensation. But I agree it seems likely that, if the panel finds against the Saudi Government, it wouldn't necessary represent conviction of a crime for the purposes of the Premier League owners and directors test.

The point of it was clearly a 'fuck you' to Qatar, who I think had done their own 'fuck you' by not broadcasting the Premier League in Saudi Arabia.

Not that it's a surprise, but my wife vaguely knows a well known BBC sports commentator who told her that he's always been considered to be a deeply unpleasant person in the industry. According to them it was his mistreatment of a runner, who then rose to a senior position, that led to microphones being left on and the tapes leaking out, ending his career at sky.

13 years to the day he bought the club.

Simon Adebisi ? Not. Simon Adearbisi?

Penn making what appears to be a positive comment in relation to the takeover... I don't need any more confirmation, it's definitely on!

A helicopter landed near Ripon an hour or so ago and it's just taken off again. Could be picking up Wor Mandy. Another gulfstream which has taken off from just south of Luton is hot on the heels of the Newcastle one. That must be the Reubans too then. The Prince has called "Directors Assseeemmbblleeeee" https://www.flightradar24.com/GLF4/2489e053 They appear to both be heading straight for #Cannes