Jackie Broon

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.

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.