Ankles Bennett

It would be ironic if the takeover was rejected because of the Reubens rather than the PIF.

I don't believe you when you say you have read the test. If you had, you would know the bolded part is immaterial. Firstly, this fixation that PIF need to be directly tied to piracy is fallacious. The O&D Director test applies to not just PIF/PCP/RB directorial nominees, it applies to anyone whom the PL believes can exert influence (direct or indirect) over the club. Like so: (from the PL handbook linked above) I can appreciate that is very dense legalese, but there's no way the separation between PIF and the Saudi government can survive that definition. And it doesn't even need to be proven - just "reasonable opinion". Sure, they need to provide written explanations, and certainly they can try their luck in civil courts and international tribunals. But, reading back, it seems that's what you're hanging your hat on. I can only shake my head in disbelief that you have any faith in those institutions. There's also the incredibly broad and nebulous disqualification clause that similarly requires only reasonable belief. So I come back to my belief that while the PL could (and probably should) reject it according to its own rules. That they haven't indicates to me that they want to approve it, but there's a lot of massaging their aggravated half-billion pound commercial partner before that can happen. Its all very well saying the PL only need "reasonable belief", but that opens another can of worms regarding the definition of "reasonable". I do know that certainly in the Health and Safety regulations in the UK, the courts have refused to define the term "reasonable", so any adverse decision by the PL based upon a "reasonable belief" is certainly open to a legal challenge.. What is "reasonable" to the PL will almost certainly not be "reasonable" to the consortium, accordingly I would think the PL would have to provide concrete evidence to support their "reasonable belief", which would probably have to be clear documented evidence that MBS has exerted an adverse influence over any of the other companies owned by PIF, and that may be exceedingly difficult for the PL to prove.

The Saudis could declare war on the U.K., use all he weapons they bought from us to destroy us. The Saudis ? Theyre only good at bombing defencless third world places like Yemen they couldnt fight their way out of a paper bag You do realise it's not just the Saudis bombing the Yemen. It's a coalition of most of the middle east countries including Egypt Jordan UAE and even Qatar.

I'm with you on this one. Once the PL season ends we will find out one way or the other.

I draft legal submissions to High Court Judges on a daily basis so its a nice change to forego drafting in easily digested paragraphs.

Just because BEin have bought the rights to broadcast the EPL in MENA doesn't mean those countries have to screen the games BEin broadcast, in much the same way we in the UK don't have to subscribe to Sky if we don't want to watch the EPL. I assume if random viewers in MENA want to pay a subscription fee to BEin to watch EPL games then they are free to do so, but its not compulsory to have to subscribe if you don't want to watch the EPL. KSA clearly think that banning BEin from broadcasting in the KSA will weaken their ability to generate funding. Not that they were generating funding in KSA beforehand due to the piracy from BEoutQ. However I imagine not everyone in the KSA was into piracy and there may well have been a substantial number of viewers in the KSA who did pay a subscription fee to BEin in order to watch the EPL. However, shutting down the piracy meant that the KSA footballing fans would then have to pay a subscription fee to BEin for the right to watch the EPL in the KSA. Clearly the Saudi government don't want to allow BEin to benefit financially from the KSA due to BEin previously having them over a barrel in terms of monopolistic behaviour. BEin paid £500m for the rights to broadcast to the whole of MENA. In banning BEin from broadcasting in the KSA, the broadcasting region as a whole has now been dramatically reduced in size, which in turn, drastically reduces the revenue that can be generated by BEin. In effect BEin were losing subscription fees due to piracy. The KSA has now banned piracy in the KSA but has then ensured that BEin will not profit from banning the piracy by banning broadcasting in the KSA. So by asking the EPL to block the PIF takeover until the piracy was eradicated, BEin will continue to lose the subscription fees from the KSA that was previously down to piracy, but crucially they have also lost any subscriptions that they were receiving from the KSA. Hoisted by their own petard springs to mind!

That's assuming the Saudis buy us x

Okay let's forget all this takeover bollocks and who do we we sign for each position money and wages no problem. Quite like the prospect of Messi and Ronaldo.

I'm not in favour of Pochatino. He had mega bucks at spurs plus two class strikers and still couldn't win anything. Much prefer Benitez.

Seems to me that BEin have opened a can of Lambton worms that have turned on them.

So KSA buy the rights to broadcast the EPL throughout the KSA. BEin go to the EPL asking for compensation for the loss of the right to broadcast in the KSA, The EPL compensates BEin by paying them what the KSA paid for the broadcast rights in the KSA. Effectively the KSA has compensated BEin through a third party, piracy in the region is wiped out and the EPL has two countries ready to go to war in terms of outbidding the other in order to buy the TV rights to broadcast the EPL in the region.

I fully expect this takeover to be rejected by the PL, but I believe the PL are waiting until the current season has ended so there are no games left where fans can turn up outside SJP to demonstrate against their decision. We won't be given an adequate explanation either, it will simply be a case of the EPL saying "no comment, our decision is based upon a confidential process" when asked for an explanation. Is my glass half empty or half full?

It took the EPL 8 months to agree the Souhthampton takeover after they initially failed the O&D test, so it appears we may have to wait quite a bit longer for any word from the EPL on our takeover.

Said it before and I'll say it again, it's the fellow EPL clubs that want this takeover stopped. It's nothing to do with Saudi, that's just a red herring to cover the EPL bowing to the will of the top ten in the EPL who know they won't be able to cope with a Newcastle side with the financial backing of the KSA !!!

I think the EPL are deliberately deferring their decision in the hope that PIF will get fed up waiting for a decision and withdraw their takeover offer that's the only reason I can see for taking 12 weeks and more to decide whether they pass the O&D test.

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. This ruling simply states that the KSA breached international law prima facie That means on the face of it. In other words they have stopped short of saying the KSA conclusively breeched international law so I would say it's not particularly damning.

Question, is MBS classed as a head of state, if so isn't there an international law that states a head of state cannot be prosecuted or found guilty for actions carried out as the head of state. In which case can MBS be found to be culpable of any act that would provide an obstacle to passing the O&D tests?

Surely its easy enough for MBS to resign his position as chairman of the PIF if indeed that is the only obstacle to the takeover going ahead. As for MBS being chairman it doesn't necessarily mean he has or indeed wants the powers to radically influence decisions taken by PIF, otherwise what is the point of having Al Rumayan? as the managing director to handle the decision making processes of the PIF. It may be that as Chairman, MBS gets to sign off decisions taken by the PIF hierarchy, but that could very well be a one way street. I imagine MBS has far more important issues of State to deal with rather than interfering in the running of a football club. However, quite apart from that, if they do reject the takeover, it doesn't strike me as anything remotely like an incentive for the KSA to address the piracy issue, far from it in fact. It seems to me that the most sensible and acceptable course of action is for the EPL to approve the takeover, but only on the basis that they receive concrete assurances from the KSA that legal action against piracy will be allowed in the KSA courts, where previously it has been denied. Given the refusal to allow this in the past it may all hinge on that, and the KSA/PIF may decide to walk away rather than allow damaging and expensive court cases to proceed in the Kingdom.

It seems pointless to block the takeover due to piracy as that will just ensure it continues which means Bein will reduce their bid for TV rights. If its passed then MBS may be inclined to put a stop to it .

Surely the EPLshould be investigating why BoutQ are stealing Bein's football. I'm sure I read somewhere that because of the political tension between KSA and QATAR that Bein had blocked the KSA from watching the EPL on their stream thus creating the soccer vacuum in KSA. It seems to me that if KSA wins the bidding war for the EPL tv rights and blocks Qatar then they would presumably resort to stealing footie matches from the KSA. The only course is for KSA and Qatar to make a joint bid but that ain't going to happen is it.

This simply isn't true though. The French court case ruled that Arabsat was indeed carrying the signal, and they're headquartered in Riyadh. The bit you're citing is that they said that because Arabsat doesn't really have much impact in France, they couldn't award damages because in France there wasn't "clear and illegal disruption" to French revenues and broadcasts. It's not like Arabsat were found innocent, quite the reverse. They just couldn't be sued in Saudi because they were blocked from doing so by the Saudi government, so they tried to sue in France. And although the French court was happy that Arabsat were carrying a pirate signal, the reach of the satellite signal wasn't strong enough for it to impact French revenues. People need to stop painting this like the French court looked into Arabsat and found it was absolutely fine. Yes but everyone seems to be overlooking that Arabsat is owned by about 25 middle east countries including Egypt, SA and Qatar to name just a few. SA has something like a 38% share of the business and is the major shareholder, but Qatar are also a shareholder of Arabsat with something like an 18% shareholding. I would have thought that as a shareholder surely they would also be judged culpable if Arabsat was providing a platform for a pirate signal?

The Epl needs to draw a line under this. Set a deadline for objections, investigate, and if objections are groundless, ratify the takeover. End of!!!

They wont come to uk as they would have to quarantine for 2 weeks.

I would guess this takeover is going to be confirmed when Eid is proclaimed. So that's either saturday or sunday depending on the sighting of the crescent moon following the full moon.

It can only happen to NUFC. We become the richest club in the world and competitive football goes down the pan because of this pandemic.