Jackie Broon

As much as I dislike Keys I don't see what is so scandalous about what he said, he was just stating the obvious at a time when it was becoming clear that there was a hold-up with the O&D test due to concerns over piracy of beIN. The fact that the Chairman of the Premier League is friends with someone who opposes the takeover is not a conflict of interests in itself.

The buyers could be harder with them though. They could say: we've provided all the information we need to, you have five days to issue a decision, we will be taking control of the club then, if you issue a disqualification after that date we will see you in court for the full purchase price of the club.

The PL can't "kick us out", they can only suspend us from playing matches until the disqualified director/s leave the club. They don't need to take us to court to do that but they would need to actually make a decision disqualifying the director/s, which could be appealed.

The PL could suspend us from playing matches until the director/s resign, they couldn't actually expel us. But to do that the PL actually has to issue a decision disqualifying the director/s first. Which is why it would've been a good idea to try that while we were still playing but safe.

It would've been better to do that when we were still playing but safe, that would have really put pressure on the PL to show their hand.

The test is only for the PL, at least the PL have a test unlike many european leagues. PIF should just buy us regardless of PL approval, then apply to join one of those European leagues instead. The Scots would welcome us with open arms. I think PIF should buy us and see if the PL stop us from playing in their competition. We can always apply to play in the Scottish league in the meantime if they say no. English football would be a miss, but at the same time it wouldn't exactly be the worst thing either. Think I'd prefer to compete in the Scots league rather than continue to be used as bog roll to clean the arses of the established top 6. Oh and I would like to think that losing Newcastle from the Premier might hurt that competition too. They should, the PL can't suspend the club unless they actually make a decision. Although the rules state that a director should not be appointed until they have received confirmation that they are not liable to be disqualified, the rules on suspension of a club under the O&D test require that confirmation of liability for disqualification of the directors is issued before the club can actually be suspended. In theory Ashley could just appoint all of the proposed directors while he still owns the club and force the PL to make a decision.

And if they had rejected it at that point they might have had legitimate grounds to do so (albeit weak given that the WTO report isn't really equivalent to a conviction of an offence by a court). Now that the WTO report has been appealed, and there is no reasonable prospect of that appeal being determined in the foreseeable future, that 'conviction' is no longer an applicable disqualifying event: 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.

By the letter of the rules the exclusion of old offences only applies to the period of 19th August 2004 and 5 June 2009 for an offence which would not have led to disqualification as a Director under the Rules of the League as they applied during that period. The rules allow for a director to be disqualified at any time should a disqualifying event happen or come to light. So they possibly could be applied retrospectively to Roman Abramovich for example (who took control of Chelsea in 2003) if he, as reported, has admitted in court to committing bribery.

No, they would be at risk of having litigation brought against them for the financial damage caused if they don't have a sound legal basis for their actions (or lack of action).

It really isn't. It's riddled with errors, inaccuracies and unsubstantiated hearsay. For a start there is no "Appendix 3" to the Owners' and Directors' test (Appendix 3 of the PL handbook actually relates to camera positions) and the test clearly allows consideration of more than the "applicants' financial standing".

It has been tried and rejected on the grounds that it's not within the government's remit to intervene in the O&D test.

Yes, though staveley did confirm he did ask for a new price which I think they were happy with. However, the 'withdrawal' could also have been partly a negotiation tactic aimed at Ashley, to expose the Mauriuss bid as having no substance and stop Ashley playing games with them without antagonising him.

I have followed this argument closely, and you've come very close to convincing me. However, I would suggest that the PL have a strong argument has kept to the rules - because you didn't include the whole of rule F.4: So, what the PL appears to have done is bounce between F4.1 and F4.2 - telling the club we can't satisfactorily resolve F4.2 until the would-be directors complete F4.1 to our satisfaction. A case could even be made that the consortium, if they failed to accept the PL's request to include Saudi government officials to the O&D test, that they never successfully completed F4.1 and therefore all those mad Geordies should pipe down. (Not saying that's my opinion. Just the case could be made) That circumstance is covered by Rule F.1.1.1. F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football Association) at any time, he has: F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person); By the letter of their rules they still should have issued a decision within five working days. I'm not saying that holds much weight, other than them acting unreasonably by ignoring it (there's no rule that says it will be automatically approved after five days for example) but the rule does give a specific timescale and Richard Masters told the Select Committee that there is no timetable in the rules. That potentially brings this within the government's remit.

No one else seems to be picking up that this could be useful point to raise but Richard Masters may have mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee, and in doing so avoided scrutiny of the Premier League's indecision. When asked about how long the process has taken by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee he said "there is no timetable set as part of the rules". The video of this can be seen here, the specific question is at 1:28 https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184 In relation to the Owner's and Director's test rule F.4.2 in the Premier League Handbook states that “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”. https://www.premierleague.com/publications The rule is explicit that a decision will be confirmed within five working days of receipt of the declaration of intention to appoint a new director / a new owner taking control. The Premier League appear to have breached the letter of their own rules by not issuing a decision within that timescale. The stock answer coming from government is that it is not for them to intervene in the O&D process, but the misleading of a Parliamentary Select Committee is a matter for government. It's easy for government and the PL to bat away unsubstantiated claims of corruption or concerns about lack of transparency in what is a confidential process, but this is an actual demonstrable case of the PL not acting in accordance with their own rules and possibly misleading a Parliamentary Select Committee about that.

They can and will just say its a confidential process and they are unable to be transparent. What we really should be demanding is that they make a decision, whether approval or refusal, just a decision.

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners? I see what you mean, however I feel the problem is that the league are disagreeing as to who the owners are and who they should be testing. Yes, but then there is a provision for the PL to disqualify the proposed directors/owners on that basis (F.1.1.1). My point is that it is unreasonable for the PL to refuse to make a decision when an impasse has been reached and they've been requested to, more so when their rules explicitly state that a decision will be made within five working days.

Well it’s the test itself isn’t it. And has been said there is no time limits on it. If Ashley were to appoint a director you post is relevant, if he sells the club the owners test is relevant. That is the test itself, there is no separate rule for those two circumstances. F4 applies to all new directors, including new owners. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it but please could you point me to the separate section of the rules you are say relates to new owners?

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club): F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules; 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; That’s for a newly elected director, nothing to do with this. Different things. Then point me to the provision that relates to this? F4. relates to any person proposing to become a director of a club, including a new owner, there is no other provisions that would apply as far as I can see.

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process. So, that was my question. Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen anyone else say it https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/07/24/70ec483e-7207-42cd-89d9-576e53befedd/2019-20-PL-Handbook-240720.pdf F.4. If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club): F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules; 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;

You said something similar in response to my comment, and it just doesn't make sense to me. Why was the PL obliged to reject the decision? The argument that they were giving the consortium time to resolve their application is legally sound. There's someone here who clings to the notion that a decision was mandated to be made within five business days, and your response makes me wonder if it's you? If so, could you please provide a source for this notion? I've been trying to get across the legal aspects of the takeover, and I haven't been able to find that... Because it's clear that they had reached an impasse, from what Staveley has said it seems that they requested that a decision be made and the PL refused to make a decision or even give a timescale. The timescale in the PL's rules is five working days. The rules are silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met (I know of at least one similar situation in acts of government I work with in my professional life, and that makes the the timescale meaningless to some extent) so it probably holds little weight, but there is a timescale of five working days. Set against that I could see a case being made that the PL have acted unreasonable in not making a decision when requested to do so, particularly as it has denied access to the appeal process.

step 2 is wrong. According to Staveley it’s the PL request to put SA as director. I will bow down to a more knowledgable person who can show me in company law where a country can be a director. You are hanging on to this as if it’s gospel when it is so clearly not right it’s laughable. Irrespective of that, the issue is ultimately that the PL have refused to make a decision. If they believe that people with influence over the club have not been disclosed they should have refused the test on that basis.

More precisely it’s the whole SA that is subject to the test. Now let’s think, how to prove that “a country” can pass all the requirements? A country? Everyone in SA? No, it’s just the owners of the PIF, the whole country doesn’t own the PIF. There will be trustees that PIF are putting forward but in reality the rulers will own the PIF. So who is it? And why are these people not prepared to take the test. I just don’t know why it took so long to get to that single question. Staveley said PL request to put SA as the director, not just the owner of the PIF. That means SA is subject to the test. You got it wrong Staveley is talking bullshit there though. That’s not possible. She means the government not the whole of SA. That would be and easy win if that is indeed what they said, which they wouldn’t. The directors of the PIF are not the controllers, the SA public are not the controllers. Who pulls the strings? They’ve maintained all along that PIF are a separate entity. As soon as others are brought in to the test it goes against that stance. However, the PL are not in a position to decide who is classed a director or not. But they *are* entitled to test everyone they believe exerts control over the club. And if they feel that a controlling agent has greater powers than a director, then they can request that agent be appointed a director. They can also retaliate if that request is not granted. I don't think they can insist that someone is named as a director as such, but they can disqualify the proposed directors on the basis that they have failed to provide relevant information relating to an individual who they believe would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed (rule F.1.1.1.) However, they appear to be refusing to actually make that decision.

It's telling that Staveley specifically mentioned that they would have got the deposit back if the O&D test had been refused, and now this from the Ruben's side. They're setting out the claims that the PL will face if it doesn't approve the O&D test. The PL itself is not a rich organisation, it has assets of less than £0.5m and a turnover of about £3m, the costs of a case alone could bankrupt them.

Aye, purposefully done. Another potentially huge legal claim against the PL. Is it though? Would they even have a case. Putting my armchair barrister's wig on I think they probably would. PL have refused to make a decision, or even give a timescale for one, for a process that their rules indicate will take five working days, that is clearly unreasonable. Those unreasonable actions have caused multi-million pound investments to collapse and a £17m deposit to be lost, there must be a case there. That's notwithstanding the fact that they seem to have been considering things outside of the remit of the O&D test as set out in their rules. The people that have lost out on this are not going to just let it lie, Staveley is suing Barclays for £1.6 billion ffs, there's no way this doesn't end up in court.

Aye, purposefully done. Another potentially huge legal claim against the PL.