Penn

That’s right lads - the UK government imposing sanctions upon the close friend of MBS who oversaw the murder of a journalist actually makes the takeover more likely to be approved.

Yet you're happy to disclose this politically sensitive information (and it is politically sensitive - a Saudi representative meeting with the British government to discuss a matter that should be the exclusive domain of the Premier League) on Twitter, under your real name? That's incredibly reckless of you!

No-one in government is holding face-to-face meetings with foreigners lads, sorry. It's a preposterous notion. More tall tales I'm afraid.

It's crazy that the Premier League's lawyers are incapable of understanding that the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is a "sEpArAte lEgAl eNtItY" and all this discussion about piracy is therefore completely irrelevant to their own owners and directors test! Really disappointing actually - if only they had the expertise present on this forum.

Genuinely, what expertise or knowledge do you have to make that sort of assessment? How can you be confident that it wasn't absolute drivel that immediately went into the shredder? Bear in mind you can get a solicitor to put forward the case that 2+2=5 as long as you pay them for it (and I can't imagine the NUST are swimming in cash so I'm sure it was a quickie job from the brief).

This still on lads?

Since I last posted in this thread, three days ago: He’s the forum twat. It works like Paedo Paed Pae Pa P Cunt Captain cuntychops gets my vote. I'll settle for Redbird. Escrow Wanker No-one deserves this. You won't find a single example of me personally attacking another forummer, yet I'm expected to suffer this level of personal abuse, vitriol and threats? It's not on. I'll tell you what, my posts in here up until this point have been purely factual, an attempt to educate and inform those members who are less able to understand the world. But when these Saudis are told where to go (and they will be), I'll crack a smile, I really will. You beasts deserve nothing less.

Greg is correct with regards to the FA, however, there’s a decision called Aga Khan which opened the scope on judicial review of bodies such as the premier league Aga Khan did the exact opposite of that: Every subsequent case has also reconfirmed that decisions made by sporting governmental bodies cannot be subject to judicial review. When the Saudis get knocked back, their recourse to the courts in private law is also going to be very limited. It's outlandish to think a British court would side with the KSA in favour of handicapping the Premier League's ability to govern its own association. Do yourselves a favour and ignore those junior solicitors. They know nothing. Penn will keep you right.

Disgusting for Edwards to promote an article from his own newspaper, written by respected British sports journalist Paul Hayward. He's a real sick fuck.

It's not a new development, and isn't presented as such within the Bloomberg article. Scare over - still on course for rejection.

Imagine you ran a TV network, and you bid for and won an exclusive contract to broadcast a particular franchise to, say, 200 million people. Then, after the fact, it turned out that you can actually only broadcast (and sell advertising) to 150 million people. Would that influence the amount of money you'd be willing to pay for those broadcast rights, do you think? That's the principle being invoked here.

Just reading the meat of the report. My god, it's even more damning than I thought. Thus the WTO concludes that the government of Saudi Arabia promoted illegal beoutQ broadcasts. It's over.

Can you doylems bother to at least read the conclusion. It's about 500 words and the histrionics about whether this tweet or that tweet is an accurate summary of the actual fucking summary is embarrassing. The Saudi state broke international law, as ruled by the governing body of that piece of international law. Not that this was ever in serious dispute. Given the violation centred on the IP rights of a Premier League broadcaster, it would obviously be wildly inappropriate to allow that state to then purchase a Premier League football club. That's why the takeover will be rejected.

Get writing lads. These bastards can't be allowed to get away with this!!

The importance of this distinction exists largely in the minds of Newcastle-Online.org members, and stems from a wild extrapolation of one of the Premier League’s early statements that referenced a “Saudi Arabian company”. No one involved in the deal on any side would have bothered discussing the distinction between the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, chaired by Mohammed bin Salman, and the state of Saudi Arabia, governed by Mohammed bin Salman. Because there isn’t a meaningful distinction. The idea that the Premier League is going to secure meaningful legal reform in Saudi Arabia is also fanciful.

I’m fairly sure BeIn let it be known that they would be seeking some sort of compensation if the deal goes through, possibly withholding future payments (if any) Richard Masters has probably been already assured that SA will take up the slack if this were to happen and would be acquiring the rights next time around. If BeIn had to let go of a hundred staff over the decline in revenue relating to BeoutQ, they might not be in a position to bid next time anyway. I love these imaginary best case scenarios that you all convince yourselves of.

Yeah they referred to them as a company a few weeks ago. You can't punish the whole country for someone else's crime. PIF is the sovereign cunting wealth fund of the state of Saudi Arabia. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia is the chairman. It's over. Accept it now and the heart-break will be less devastating when confirmation comes.

Are you still unsure about that one?

People are getting hung up on the 18th of October thing. As long as it doesn't impact a previously-published set of statutory accounts, you can date PSC notifications and the like as whatever the fuck you want. It seems overwhelmingly likely to me that this is related to the NUFC takeover and I would expect the rest of the Saudis listed as SUFC directors to be removed at some point as well (but it's anyone's guess as to when that is going to be reflected on Companies House).

What is it about Paul Smith, the “multi award-winning national sports journalist” that no-one has ever heard of or read anything by until 6 weeks ago, that makes you suspect he isn’t a legitimate source for inside information on the Saudi acquisition of NUFC? Don’t let scepticism become cynicism lads!

Offer still very much open lads.

If you had to guess, what would you say the driving force is?

Yup. Again, the PL are not a court of law, they can't just overturn this in contradiction to a previous court ruling without evidence that they'd be absolutely certain would hold up this time in court, as that's where they would ultimately end up. Rejecting this on the basis of PIF being involved directly in piracy would be a massive and damaging allegation on their behalf, I really can't see them going down that route. The Premier League - in performing their own 'fit and proper person' test - are not in any way constrained by rulings made in French courts. The Premier League is not privy to the evidence that was or was not submitted during the case in Paris. If evidence is submitted to the Premier League that they consider compelling, then they will and are entitled to judge it on its own merits.

Can you give some examples of things they've posted that have subsequently turned out to be "spot on"? Thanks.