Jackie Broon

Already been explained, but you never seem to listen to anyone. He and KSA are uninterested in NUFC, they don’t want to be involved and being subjected to the test will make them involved (and prove the PL’s point that they are involved). That would be an inconvenience to them and they and too much hassle for what is a very low level investment for them. What involvement is required after going through the test? You mean that if they’re put forward, and pass (you say it would) then they’re forced to start acting in that role? Weird f***ing logic man. The test is the involvement. As soon as PIF put him forward for the test, they’re accepting he is involved. How difficult is that to comprehend. And if it’s simply to pass the test, what’s the issue? You say it would pass, but they choose not to do it. The only reason they won’t put him forward for it is because they know it would fail. Because the they are beholden to the requirements of the test, it's not a one-off thing. Anyway, no one has said that it's MbS that is the issue. Masters said it's an entity and Staveley said KSA.

Everything that I've seen suggests that it's the Saudi state rather than MbS that the PL think should be included in the test (for all we know MbS has already been included, as you'd expect as the chairman of PIF). Staveley said that the PL wanted the KSA to be tested, Masters referred only to an 'entity' (although the rules of the test only referres to a 'person' so I'm not sure how they could legally apply it to an entity) so it seems to be the Saudi state that they want to include rather than MbS.

We need to point out where the PL have clearly broken their own rules in the O&D test process. All of that baseless stuff about corruption on twitter is easily brushed aside, we need specifically to focus on the fact that they have been ignoring their own rules in how they have dealt with the process.

From what Staveley and the PL have said it sounds like they wanted to actually apply the O&D test to the Saudi state She sounds like she's back tracking & lashing out. The PL's rules are really specific as to what the process should be, they require the PL to issue written notice of disqualification upon becoming aware of any disqualifying event (including not providing relevant information about any other individual who would qualify as a director but has not been disclosed). There is absolutely no provision or allowance in their rules for the back-and-forward they have been engaging in or for independent arbitration before a decision is issued. The rules are clear that upon becoming aware of any disqualifying event written notice of disqualification is issued. They clearly haven't carried out this process in accordance with their rules. In accordance with their rules they should have issued a written decision and the buyers would have had the right to appeal to a judicial panel.

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action? Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million). So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs. Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League. So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford? Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves? The PL have assets of around £400,000 and a turnover of around £3m (their acounts are freely available on Companies House). It could be that the clubs would be asked to step in to bail them out but the Premier League Ltd would not be likely to be able to afford to pay out much.

I won't say where, but it really isn't difficult to find and is public information.

Closer to what? I’m not going to be tedious and claim to be ‘in the know’, but I’m relatively confident this takeover will happen. Maybe not this week as others have suggested, but certainly within the next two. So where's the confidence coming from then? Positive noise, really. I may be proven completely wrong, but I’m more confident now then I have been through the whole takeover period. Happy to hold my hands up and say my ‘confidence’ is shit in a couple of weeks if it’s proven to be, but hopefully I’ll be right. Ask manorpark[/member] where the positive thoughts get you. Positive thinking (reality, as I always felt it was) will prove to be correct in the end. My goodness though . . it is taking its time happening!! Even a broken clock is right once a day. Twice a day... we are indeed drifting into the arena of the unwell.

I think you're putting too much weight on what a press statement represents, it has no actual real weight, it doesn't mean that they have formally withdrawn from any process and they certainly wouldn't need to retract it to continue. Completely different circumstance but if a developer going through the planning process put out a press statement that they were no longer planning to go ahead with the development the Council would still be required to make a decision unless the applicant directly requested in writing that it is withdrawn. This is a very different circumstance because the provision for that are set out in legislation but I think the PL would be in vary shaky ground making the assumption that they don't need to continue based on a press statement. We don't know what is actually going on behind the scenes, from what is dripping out it seems like discussions around the O&D test are still going on.

Private or not, you cannot change the agreed contractual obligations of either side after the process has begun, unless agreed by both sides. The PL, even as a private company, will have to have followed their own rules by the letter as this is contractually agreed between 2 parties. If the consortium feel there is any grey area in the PLs actions during this test which has prevented a purchase, caused financial loss, not just the deposit but the costs of an on going investigation and legal representation then they have a case to make. Happens all the time. Plus neither PIF nor Ashley had contracts with PL. Just with each other Firstly, how do you know that? Secondly, I would imagine that for the purposes of contract law the PL's rules are the terms of a contract between the club/proposed owners and the PL.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself. I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all. I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up. I just don't see this going legal. I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal). I bow to other people's knowledge of course but surely, seeing as though we are in week 18 (?), surely they would have gone down that route already? They probably thought that they could work with the PL to get a satisfactory conclusion and didn't want to antagonise them, but they finally reached deadlock with them and have clearly changed tactics. I would expect that they are being much more aggressive in terms of threatening legal action since that change.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself. I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all. I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up. I just don't see this going legal. I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal). So if it does go to court it will be so they can get the deposit/damages/costs back. Can't see it forcing them to approve I don't think it would be within the remit of a an English court to influence the actual decision (it would possibly be within the remit of the Court of Arbitration for Sport though). But, from my point of view, this is more about speculation of what might be going on behind the scenes and the pressure that might be put on the PL to make a decision. I think if it does get as far as legal action that would probably mean the deal is dead, because it could go on for years.

It's the legal battles where I feel you may be misleading yourself. I think we all want to believe that if it gets rejected, PIF will spend millions taking them to the cleaners but i've yet to hear anyone put forward anything that suggests that they'd have any kind of strong case, if any case at all. I think someone yesterday suggested only MA would have a legal angle, if he felt compelled to go down that route. Whether that's right I don't know but in basic terms, if feels like if it gets rejected because of the PL's own test, rather any kind of UK law, then they'll be able to back that up. I just don't see this going legal. I may be completely wrong but I would imagine that the matter falls under the remit of contract law. The O&D test unequivocally states that confirmation will be given within five working days, the PL is in breach of that element of the rules and that has caused the consortium to lose its £17m deposit (which would have been refunded if the PL had issued a refusal).

Unless it's that it was ready to be passed subject to them agreeing to include MbS and/or the KSA as a director.

You’re perfectly correct to say that the rules say they should do this, and should do that. In fact, if that idiot above was paying attention, he’d notice that my arguments are generally fact-based, and when I’m presented with facts that are inconsistent, I adjust my opinion accordingly. You, yourself, convinced me of f.1.3 about ten pages ago - because I asked for your argument and you provided it. However, the string of facts I presented above are true, even if Wandy[/member] denies it. As you said, JB, the PL does have to provide an answer within five days. If they ask for more information from the consortium, it has to be provided within ten days - and then the five days starts again. The PL have not adhered to those rules. Wandy[/member] suggests that is not a fact. To which I say “How then do you reconcile rule F.1.2 and rule F.1.3 with the facts as we know them?” The consortium has not challenged the failure of the PL to make a decision. This is indeed an opinion - based on the information available. These pages are filled with people suggesting the consortium should sue the PL, Ashley should sue the PL, the Trust, even that goose with his private letter. And I ask you, what legal basis is there to challenge in this case? Who could bring action, and what type of action, and in which jurisdiction? And if someone can give an actual answer to that, I’d love to hear it. I’m actually hoping that all the optimists/fantasists are right, and that MBS is signing the cheque for Mbappe before the new season starts. So please, some real hope would actually be really appreciated. Not some fluffy, hopeful bullshit. I am not a lawyer, nor is this anything like the area of law I have professional experience of, but I think it's highly likely that there would be legal avenues for, at very least, the consortium to sue the PL to for the £17m deposit they lost because the PL did not make a decision. Staveley is suing Barkleys for £1.6 billion, they're not going to just write off that £17m that the PL have caused them to lose. But that's a matter between the consortium and the PL. I think the more pressing issue for us, as supporters trying to make it as uncomfortable for the PL to continue not making a decision, is to raise the fact that there is a timescale in their rules and the PL have broken their own rules by not meeting it. Also that Richard Masters either doesn't know the PL's rules on the O&D test or mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee when he said "there is no timetable set out as part of the rules".

Why do I need to prove anything to you? It’s self evident. The PL doesn’t have to do anything. Why do they? Sure, the rules say they need to have an answer in five days (or ten, I can’t remember). They haven’t. Why not? Because there’s nothing to make them. From the reporting I’ve read, the impasse seems to be that the PL has requested that the consortium make amendments to their directors before they will approve the sale. PIF/KSA have declined to do so. If that scenario is correct, what exactly are they doing “wrong” by giving the consortium more time to make the required adjustments. In fact, you could even argue that the PL has done more than they needed to in giving them the opportunity to change their application. They should have rejected it, but they haven’t - see how fair they are being? (Just getting people ready for next week’s press) The PL has lots of rules it doesn’t enforce. Because no one makes them. Except, occasionally, commercial partners who ask for rules to be sort-of enforced. Maybe it’s just the first time some people have been victims of Qatari corruption. Me, I remember when the English FA... chose to vote for Qatar 2022 instead of Australia (despite private assurances). Because there is a rule that allows them to disqualify the proposed directors on that basis (F.1.1.1). The rules explicitly state that a decision shall be made within five working days, whilst it would be perfectly reasonable for the PL to allow the consortium to respond to any concerns they raise (although their O&D test rules don't actually allow for that), if an impasse has been reached and the consortium have made it clear they want a decision to be made, it is not reasonable for the PL to continue to delay making a decision when, by the letter of their rules, they should have made a decision within five working days. In other areas the PL appear to have doggedly stuck to the letter of their rules, such as correspondence being via the club rather than with the consortium, seemingly because rule F.4. is worded referring to the club submitting the declaration and being informed of the decision, rather than the person that proposes to be the director. They seem to be less concerned about sticking to their rules when it comes to the specific, unequivocal timescale set out in them that the PL are in breach of.

I don't think the issue is necessarily the Premier League being worried about pissing off beIN, ultimately the Premier League is the No.1 football league in the world in terms of viewing demand, beIN need the Premier League more than the Premier League need beIN and beIN are not going to cut off their nose to spite their face. I don't think the Premier League are likely to be caught in the middle as is being suggested, the Premier League are just as likely to be pissed off that their product has been pirated in an a large scale in Saudi Arabia, without consequences, and they are making the process as difficult as possible for the Saudis as a consequence.

The consortium haven't given anyone a legal basis to go on unfortunately, just "this isn't fair". Doesn't give anyone much to go off really. What legal basis could they give? Only the consortium, possibly together with businesses that had investment tied to the deal, could take legal action... and they've set out the potential basis for that pretty clearly with their statements in the past week.

Aye, very naive of The Mag to publish it.

Others may disagree, but I think that is an excellent letter, and (at last) someone has stopped "pussyfooting around" these EPL London and Top Six obsessed ("we are invulnerable") types. He will need to follow it up with the actual legal action of course, and if he needs financial assistance to do so, I'm sure that we and/or NUST, will be able to help him. I really enjoyed reading that letter !! Never make a threat you won't follow up. If they do, great, if they don't then...... And if you are going to threaten legal action, get some legal advice first or at very least have a look at the guidance on how to go about doing it.

Exactly my thoughts too, this is about making it as uncomfortable as possible for the PL to continue delaying a decision. It's also telling that the costs of the PL's indecision have been very clearly set out e.g. the details of the deposit conditions, the statements from Newcastle City Council (who would be bound by confidentiality so must have had agreement / encouragement) and Newcastle Racecourse about millions of pounds in investments tied to the deal. It's all about ramping up pressure on the PL to actually make a decision, whether that be positive or negative (I imagine that they're confident of winning an appeal if it's the latter).

I said someone should do that a week back and was laughed at. It won’t result in damages, but hopefully it puts the Premier League under intense pressure. It'll just be laughed off by the PL. If they 'have the funds' they should have engaged legal representation to prepare a formal pre-action letter which actually set out the grounds on which the claim would be brought. Although, I can't see that there would be likely to be any grounds for someone without a direct financial interest in the deal to take legal action against the PL.

thing that can't be ignored is the piracy stuff as its perceived as a threat to future tv income from the MENA region for all 20 clubs they can't just ignore it and wave it through as they'll have 19 other clubs, bein and hell probably a few other rights holders hammering at their door wondering what the fuck they're playing at on one hand taking various efforts to stop the piracy and getting nowhere and on the other just letting the crowd who have been letting the piracy happen just waltz in. Saudi Arabia has shown 0 signs of doing anything to think they're going to crack down on it and indeed seem to be doing the exact opposite by appealing the WTO judgement and banning bein But the test only take into account behavior that is an offence that has resulted in a conviction, or would be equivalent to an offence in this country whether or not there has been an actual conviction. In this case the PL my be equating the WTO report to a conviction of an offence (although that seems to be really pushing the boundaries of their definition) but the O&D test rules also have an exception for circumstances where there is an appeal against the conviction of an offence and it would not be reasonable to await its outcome, as is clearly the case hear because the WTO appeal process is in limbo. That appeal has probably killed any case the PL could have to resist the takeover on the basis of piracy.

But it's not to difficult to imagine the passage of information between EPL and Bein on a so called "private and confidential process" wether deliberately or not It may not be difficult to imagine, but any actual evidence of it? Keys doesn't seem to have had any accurate information. No direct evidence, but if you were in a position to influence this and were opinionated enough to act on it I would say you probably would. Throw enough s*** and some sticks He'd love that, the dorty bassa.

But it's not to difficult to imagine the passage of information between EPL and Bein on a so called "private and confidential process" wether deliberately or not It may not be difficult to imagine, but any actual evidence of it? Keys doesn't seem to have had any accurate information. Genuine question. Has anybody? No, which suggests that the PL have actually been very tight-lipped.

But it's not to difficult to imagine the passage of information between EPL and Bein on a so called "private and confidential process" wether deliberately or not It may not be difficult to imagine, but any actual evidence of it? Keys doesn't seem to have had any accurate information.