Jackie Broon

The situation will develop as pif wont wait around forever. Also Ian Mearns MP made an interesting point last night, at what point does Ashley consider this a restraint of trade. Though there own rules don’t appear to have a set timescale for a decision, however a court could rule that this delay is not reasonable and does constitute a restraint of trade. Don’t think it will come to this though as I expect decision in next 2 weeks. There is a set timescale, 5 working days, the rules are silent on what happens if that isn't met but there is a timescale in there.

This looks like a potential step forward: https://www.saip.gov.sa/en/%d9%85%d8%ac%d9%84%d8%b3-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%88%d8%b2%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d9%8a%d9%88%d8%a7%d9%81%d9%82-%d8%b9%d9%84%d9%89-%d8%a7%d9%84%d9%86%d9%85%d9%88%d8%b0%d8%ac-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d8%b3%d8%aa%d8%b1/

Not 100% sure, but I think it was introduced after Abramovich bought the Chelsea. It doesn't seem to be a one-off thing, the PL rules require directors to be declared every season and they can be disqualified at that point if the PL becomes aware that they fail the O&D test. Abramovich has reportedly admitted in court to paying millions in bribes, which would clearly be an offence that in this country that would reasonable be considered to be dishonest.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184 Masters says in this clip "there is no timetable set as part of the rules", which is actually incorrect, the rules state that a decision will be made within 5 working days of submission. They seem to be silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met, which probably means it has no real weight. But technically he seems to have possibly committed contempt of Parliament with that statement. 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;

Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA. i disagree, a major part of the WTO finding was SA blocking legal redress in their own country for violations That doesn't seem to be what he was referring to, he didn't say 'enforce rights', it seems to me that he's referring to beIN not being able to broadcast in SA. "to take their rights" were the words he used, guess we interpret it differently I can see that it could be interpreted either way, although taking rights implies more to me the process of actually using those rights to broadcast. Notwithstanding that, I can't see how a government failing to take action could amount to an actual offence that could, within remit of the O&D test, result in disqualification of a director. The PL seem to be acting beyond the scope of the test purely due to their commercial interests.

Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA. i disagree, a major part of the WTO finding was SA blocking legal redress in their own country for violations That doesn't seem to be what he was referring to, he didn't say 'enforce rights', it seems to me that he's referring to beIN not being able to broadcast in SA.

Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA.

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are. It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now. Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might. I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection. There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS. As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days. My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along. Well I hope you're right, of course. But I don't see that. The French court case recently ruled that Arabsat, whose main shareholder is Saudi Arabia, were distributing BeOUTQ. https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019/06/14/arabsat-is-distributing-beoutq-french-court-rules/ The WTO report said that the Saudis didn't do enough to prevent piracy. Apparently the PL tried what, 7, 9 times to contact the Saudis? And were just rebuffed every time. Legal recourse has clearly and deliberately been denied to rights holders by the Saudis. Personally, I don't know where the line is for "reasonable belief" in an offence because I'm not that up on all the relevant international legislation. But for anyone to say with certainty that there's not enough evidence that we couldn't possibly be over that line seems incredibly optimistic, as the only people who could potentially say for certain are employed in such incredibly niche positions that I doubt they're posting on here, and even if they were, they'd have to do months worth of reading and have access to information likely not in the public domain to make an accurate judgement. We have to trust that the PL are looking at this correctly, and that the relevant lawyers interpret it correctly. And that we get the result we want. But I go back to my initial point - People screaming that it's taking too long or they deserve to be informed or that they PL are being unprofessional just come across as whiny children who haven't got their sweets yet. I'm as frustrated as anyone, but I'm fully aware that the grown-ups are still doing their shopping and the sweets only come at the end. Hopefully we get sweets, but screaming for them and having a tantrum in the middle of aisle 8 seldom works. Is a government putting in place an environment that denied legal recourse tantamount to a specific offence by the government? I think probably not. Arabsat is owned by 21 states, including the UAE (and Qatar), if MbS fails the test on the basis that the Saudi state owns part of Arabsat so would Sheik Mansour because of the UAE's ownership interest. The Saudis plus Kuwait, their closest regional allies, have a controlling stake of 51%. Yes, the Qataris own 9.8% and the UAE 4.7% but that's very different to having a controlling stake in the company and what it does. And of course other countries have stakes too but 12 of them have less than 2% each. I own more than that in shares of an Australian mining company but I'm fucked if I'll be held accountable for their actions if they start doing dodgy shit. I've never even been to Australia or spoken to anyone at the company, I'm just in it for the ride and hopefully some £s at the end. Ultimately though, my point isn't that they HAVE committed an act that is in the "reasonable opinion" of the PL likely to disqualify them. My point is that nobody (at least none of us) can be sure that they have not. The very fact that the actual lawyers in this with the evidence in front of them still haven't signed it off is surely proof of that? I had to let people have their "Oh, it'll be fine" moment what, 6 weeks ago, but now it looks rather like I had a point then because look where we are now - NOT signed off as we rampage into week 13 of a 4-week process. For people to still be talking in such absolutes despite this, that the Saudis have DEFINITELY NOT done anything that could render them liable for disqualification and the PL cannot stop this going through, is frankly bonkers because it seems the PL's lawyers who are actually working on the case aren't as sure as all you google experts. That seems a bit a of a stretch. I work in an job that involves a lot of interpretation of law and often work with solicitors and barristers, although a very different area of law to this. I'm well aware that law is grey rather than black and white and I've made that point in this thread. However, putting my armchair barrister hat on, I just can't see a strong case for the directors of PIF being disqualified as directors on those grounds. And actual barristers have also given that opinion. I feel that it has gone on for so long because the PL know they can't disqualify the directors but want to use the opportunity to get Saudi Arabia to act on the piracy issue, the only hand they can play is to bluff and not make a decision.

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are. It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now. Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might. I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection. There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS. As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days. My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along. Well I hope you're right, of course. But I don't see that. The French court case recently ruled that Arabsat, whose main shareholder is Saudi Arabia, were distributing BeOUTQ. https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019/06/14/arabsat-is-distributing-beoutq-french-court-rules/ The WTO report said that the Saudis didn't do enough to prevent piracy. Apparently the PL tried what, 7, 9 times to contact the Saudis? And were just rebuffed every time. Legal recourse has clearly and deliberately been denied to rights holders by the Saudis. Personally, I don't know where the line is for "reasonable belief" in an offence because I'm not that up on all the relevant international legislation. But for anyone to say with certainty that there's not enough evidence that we couldn't possibly be over that line seems incredibly optimistic, as the only people who could potentially say for certain are employed in such incredibly niche positions that I doubt they're posting on here, and even if they were, they'd have to do months worth of reading and have access to information likely not in the public domain to make an accurate judgement. We have to trust that the PL are looking at this correctly, and that the relevant lawyers interpret it correctly. And that we get the result we want. But I go back to my initial point - People screaming that it's taking too long or they deserve to be informed or that they PL are being unprofessional just come across as whiny children who haven't got their sweets yet. I'm as frustrated as anyone, but I'm fully aware that the grown-ups are still doing their shopping and the sweets only come at the end. Hopefully we get sweets, but screaming for them and having a tantrum in the middle of aisle 8 seldom works. Is a government putting in place an environment that denied legal recourse tantamount to a specific offence by the government? I think probably not. Arabsat is owned by 21 states, including the UAE (and Qatar), if MbS fails the test on the basis that the Saudi state owns part of Arabsat so would Sheik Mansour because of the UAE's ownership interest.

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are. It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now. Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might. I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection. There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS. As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days. My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along.

But the prospective directors need to have demonstrably done something equivalent to an offence in this country to fail the test. The government not doing enough to prevent piracy is not likely to equate to an offence. I think it's probably quite the opposite, that PIF are happy to go along with what the PL are asking for now, but both they and the PL know that there is no way that a disqualification of the directors would be likely to stand up to legal scrutiny.

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.