Jackie Broon

If it's true that they are meant to redo the checks on every club every 12 months then this is how they tackle this potential problem. Approve the deal then in 12 months, if there seems to have been influence from MBS, then do something about it. Not only every year, they can disqualify directors at any time 'upon becoming aware' of any disqualifying event. Agree 100% but that's assuming the PL wanted to find a solution. I'm sure they don't, they seem to be desperate to avoid actually making a decision, which suggests they are stuck between a rock and hard place of not wanting to approve the directors but not being confident enough of their reasons to disqualify them.

If it's true that they are meant to redo the checks on every club every 12 months then this is how they tackle this potential problem. Approve the deal then in 12 months, if there seems to have been influence from MBS, then do something about it. Not only every year, they can disqualify directors at any time 'upon becoming aware' of any disqualifying event.

Can't believe no one picked up on this. All this talk of suing the PL out of existence seems a bit silly; there is no way an organisation with the kind of liability exposure that the PL has doesn't have extensive legal insurance. The point that they may end up being the true wielders of power is an interesting one, and not to be discounted in my professional experience (although very different to this) insurers can have a significant influence over legal proceedings, and setting policy and procedures following legal proceedings, and they tend to be very risk averse.

Technically the only mechanism the PL have to resist the sale is by failing one or more of the prospective directors under rule F.1.1.1. If the PL have actually passed them there would be nothing to prevent the sale going through, so I think the Shields Gazette have probably misinterpreted that point.

In terms of the PIF being independent from the state, Mehrdad Ghodoussi liked a post from a lawyer on twitter saying that determination of that can only be a matter of Saudi law. If that is the case and the highest legal authority in SA has determined that PIF is independent of the Saudi state it seems unlikely to be possible for the PL to demonstrate that it is not.

The PL's legal insurers could potentially end up deciding this. I think there is a very good chance that they will take one look at this mess and require the PL resolve it out of court.

That’s hilarious. Thinner skin than his morbidly obese lover. And clearly wrong, as ever.

Oh. I'm astonished that she still has the cheek to be passing comment on this considering she and her melt boyfriend have embarassed themselves at every turn for the past 6 months. And I know I'm nutting a brick wall here but for the record, the WTO passed absolutely no comment on the relationship between the PIF and the government of KSA. So if someone is telling you otherwise (like this Shell clown), they're either consciously or unconsiously bullsitting you. Talking about a melt making a fool of himself, what happened to Redbird Capital and Henry Mauriss, eh?

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. You have a different opinion Luke, fine. The PL has a different opinion, fine. What is not fine is the PL holding the club and supporters in limbo by point blank refusing to make a formal decision on that basis.

There's no loophole as far as I can see, the process is really clearly drafted. 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? I can't be arsed to find all of the individual posts but heard a neat summary from a solicitor (whose partner is a barrister and, together with her, gave the same view in detail when the WTO report came out) https://twitter.com/RedRoseMichelle/status/1303807889019207680

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). Maybe, but it would be better than the limbo we're in. Also, every legal opinion I've seen on the matter has been that PIF are legally separate and independent from the Saudi state. The appeal process, whilst still a PL process, would at least have a legally qualified chairman. There must be a reason why the PL are so reluctant to make a formal decision. We as supporters should be doing everything we can to make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to avoid making that decision.

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.

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.

I can't help but think this was to draw the PL out into a public statement. We're still waiting for a decision and there's 100% grounds to reject it. It's clear the PL are willing to let this impasse go on indefinitely so the club needed to act. It's further evidence that they aren't acting apporiately, which is the point of the statement. Makes sense to me. Absolutely. Pure speculation, but it was possibility intended to force the PL into a position where they had to either: Accept that they had made a formal decision disqualifying PIF, which could be appealed, when they responded with their view that the KSA should be declared as a director. Or, publicly state that they had not made a formal decision disqualifying PIF, which is basically a clear admission of breach of contract (the contract being the rules of the O&D test process). Then possibly use the threat of legal action to force them to make a decision.

Any way they can, other than actually disqualifying PIF as a director.

This is pissing me right off now. Why is he saying (again) that they thought approval would come this week when from what I can see, the PL don't appear anywhere close to approving it. What information does he, the club, and the consortium have that have given them that impression ? I mean it's a hearsay atm so who knows what to believe. Maybe the consortium we're confident they had established clear separation between pif and state, but the PL stood firm with their legal standing on it? Whilst I'm pigging sick of it, I'm intrigued to see what/if anything comes of this shit slinging. The PL are clearly not that confident of their position, otherwise they wouldn't be so reticent to actually disqualify PIF on that basis. This increasingly looks like a play to try to force their hand to make a decision.

Not entirely, the PL's position before was that PIF had withdrawn and so it was done with.

The PL have taken a very risky line because their rules are absolutely clear that a formal decision should be issued in that circumstance. It's one thing making a decision that they can then potentially reasonably defend, but their actions seem completely indefensible.

Aye, the declaration of a proposed director is submitted by the club, it's probably only the club who can withdraw the declaration and stop the process. If the PL have made the assumption that PIF have withdrawn, without the club withdrawing the declaration, it sounds like they're probably on very shaky ground.

From what I recall you've spent a the past month and a half shouting down anyone who dared to suggest that the deal might not be completely dead and that talks were possibly happening in the background. Yesterday's statement proves that was actually happening, that it clearly wasn't dead. What's it going to take for you to admit that you were wrong? PIF hadn't really gone away last time, so what makes you so sure they have this time? Well it actually doesn't prove it at all. It's a Mike Ashley statement which doesn't mention ongoing talks. But still, what I've actually been "shouting" about is the fact that the PL would reject it, so technically I'm spot on. So what's it going to take for you to admit it's over? The club being sold to someone else or a CAS case being lost. Staveley, the Ruben Brothers and PIF don't strike me as the type of people / organisations to just give up. I think it's highly likely that they will continue to work towards a solution. Even if they don't, I think the club is likely to appeal the decision with or without them. Without them though the takeover can't happen, so what would the club be appealing? Have to be clear here, I really don't want to be right. I hope I'm completely wrong and the takeover happens. The club have the right of appeal against the PL's decision to disqualify PIF. Ahh sorry, I misunderstood your "with or without them" line. So what would the overall goal be of that? To convince PIF to actually come back in (thus removing the "without them" part)? Yes. If Ashley does want to pursue legal action it'll probably severely weaken his case if he hasn't pursued an appeal, which makes me think he is likely to whether or not PIF are involved. If he wins that appeal independently it seems likely that PIF would come back.

From what I recall you've spent a the past month and a half shouting down anyone who dared to suggest that the deal might not be completely dead and that talks were possibly happening in the background. Yesterday's statement proves that was actually happening, that it clearly wasn't dead. What's it going to take for you to admit that you were wrong? PIF hadn't really gone away last time, so what makes you so sure they have this time? Well it actually doesn't prove it at all. It's a Mike Ashley statement which doesn't mention ongoing talks. But still, what I've actually been "shouting" about is the fact that the PL would reject it, so technically I'm spot on. So what's it going to take for you to admit it's over? The club being sold to someone else or a CAS case being lost. Staveley, the Ruben Brothers and PIF don't strike me as the type of people / organisations to just give up. I think it's highly likely that they will continue to work towards a solution. Even if they don't, I think the club is likely to appeal the decision with or without them. Without them though the takeover can't happen, so what would the club be appealing? Have to be clear here, I really don't want to be right. I hope I'm completely wrong and the takeover happens. The club have the right of appeal against the PL's decision to disqualify PIF.

From what I recall you've spent a the past month and a half shouting down anyone who dared to suggest that the deal might not be completely dead and that talks were possibly happening in the background. Yesterday's statement proves that was actually happening, that it clearly wasn't dead. What's it going to take for you to admit that you were wrong? PIF hadn't really gone away last time, so what makes you so sure they have this time? Well it actually doesn't prove it at all. It's a Mike Ashley statement which doesn't mention ongoing talks. But still, what I've actually been "shouting" about is the fact that the PL would reject it, so technically I'm spot on. So what's it going to take for you to admit it's over? The club being sold to someone else or a CAS case being lost. Staveley, the Ruben Brothers and PIF don't strike me as the type of people / organisations to just give up. I think it's highly likely that they will continue to work towards a solution. Even if they don't, I think the club is likely to appeal the decision with or without them.

There wasn't an appeal to the PL, the proposed owner had his conviction overturned.

From what I recall you've spent a the past month and a half shouting down anyone who dared to suggest that the deal might not be completely dead and that talks were possibly happening in the background. Yesterday's statement proves that was actually happening, that it clearly wasn't dead. What's it going to take for you to admit that you were wrong? PIF hadn't really gone away last time, so what makes you so sure they have this time?