Dr Jinx

I think Barclays will settle for a lesser amount if it isn’t shot down at the first hurdle. (which is what they are hoping for by contesting it)

 

Not sure what to make of this

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.

 

Saudi haven’t done anything worse than what most other nations have done historically, they were just stupid enough to get caught in the act where Khashoggi was concerned.

 

 

The number of countries who have murdered journalists is quite short - and the list of those who have dismembered journalists shorter still. Let's not p*ss on our legs and say it's raining.

 

I’d argue that the 2007 video that Wikileaks put out of the Americans killing several journalists and civilians and laughing about it was equally as chilling.

 

The USA and the UK for that matter have far more blood on their hands than Saudi do overall. So let’s not sit up on some moral high horse.

 

I’m not saying we should condone any of it by the way, we shouldn’t, but if you’re going to criticise one nation right now you should also be able to turn that  magnifying glass on others too.

 

Are any of those countries buying the club or what has this got to do with anything? I doubt many would want Trump owning us.

So does your moral conscience only kick in when it’s related to Newcastle United?

I personally don’t care who own the club as long as the right manager is in place and the club is showing ambition. Besides, we don’t get a choice in this.

 

Saudi haven’t done anything worse than what most other nations have done historically, they were just stupid enough to get caught in the act where Khashoggi was concerned.

 

 

The number of countries who have murdered journalists is quite short - and the list of those who have dismembered journalists shorter still. Let's not p*ss on our legs and say it's raining.

I’d argue that the 2007 video that Wikileaks put out of the Americans killing several journalists and civilians and laughing about it was equally as chilling.

The USA and the UK for that matter have far more blood on their hands than Saudi do overall. So let’s not sit up on some moral high horse.

I’m not saying we should condone any of it by the way, we shouldn’t, but if you’re going to criticise one nation right now you should also be able to turn that  magnifying glass on others too.

I love all the people who seem to be looking for hidden agenda's etc with Khasoggi's widow. Maybe they murdered the love of her life and she wants to f*** over Saudi Arabia as much as possible? Disagree with her as much as you like feels a fairly understandable and honest motivation to be honest.

The whole issue of hidden agendas has been talked through at length at this stage. We know Qatar have one.

What I’m questioning is why would you need a London based law firm to handle your correspondence? She could have sent the letter herself. What legal claim against the premier league could be possibly have? Surely that would open up all manner of cans/worms with all of PIF’s investments.

Nobody here is questioning her personal motive, she wants Saudi to be accountable.

But they won’t be. That’s life. Just like every other country who’s done fucked up shit in the past. It gets left there.

Saudi haven’t done anything worse than what most other nations have done historically, they were just stupid enough to get caught in the act where Khashoggi was concerned.

Even North Korea did a better job of assassinating that guy in the airport

I was just reading the bbc article about the response to the Khashoggi widow, and it occurred to me, like who is she that she can afford top legal representation based in London?

They don’t take on pro bono work from what I can see.

MBS casually throwing $10k at DOTA while he chills and waits for all this to blow over.

 

https://www.ginx.tv/en/dota-2/saudi-arabia-crown-prince-biggest-dota-2-battle-pass

I honestly had an easier time understanding the premier leagues owners and directors test than reading that. 

Look at the head on him

Why would the Public Investment Fund of Saudi be involved with tv piracy? The notion is mental.

The question is are the Premier League differentiating between PIF and the rest of the Kingdom?

I’m fairly certain Yasir Al-Rumayyan is squeaky clean. So his part in PIF isn’t in question.

It’s how they view MBS. Do the PL have the balls to label him as a criminal and thus putting all that trade they do with the UK into question? That is what’s at stake if they are embarrassed here.

I do wonder at what point these people will stop and think 'what am I deein'?' like Properly deranged

Nahh, things will get a lot weirder before reason prevails.

jesus f***ing christ I am sick of people saying that anything negative written about this potential takeover is an "agenda"

Absolute bullplop. Anything coming from Qatar directly or indirectly is an agenda. This includes, BeIN, Aljazeera and any journalists who have written pieces for local news there.

Journalists should be balanced in what they write, this is rarely the case though so how can you not accuse someone of having an agenda if they only write pieces from a pre determined conclusion?

It’s not comparable. Outrage culture hadn’t really kicked off at that stage. Nobody really used Twitter.

Certainly entities using the internet to manipulate a narrative wasn’t as sophisticated as it is now.

This is all new as far as a club takeover goes. It also doesn’t get much bigger which is why everyone seems to have an opinion on it and why there are so many obstacles to overcome.

At the end of the day, the people with objections are not wrong morally. Their motives are a different story however. All we can do is hope that the PL can differentiate and decide they won’t be used as a puppet in a geopolitical situation.

 

Honestly man it's getting beyond a joke now 

Absolute bullshit. The city fans if anything have been the least salty about it.

It won’t go to a replay in any case.

He’s a right smug looking cunt

Equally Ashley could be investing that money in to rescuing businesses and potentially saving jobs

You lost me there

Explanation would be appreciated

I’m sure there is a backup that it can be restored from?

That Twitter account is about the thing that will be missed from the whole Ashley era.

 

And those few months of HBA magic, I suppose

 

Ring by a certain off RTG

I heard that, fair played though. Poked as much fun at the media as the nufc supporters.

Although, you’d have to be obsessed with our club to see an account like that through for a few years.

Can’t say I disagreed with anything he said there. Like he mentioned, without naming names that some journalists have been stringing us along creating an anticipation that turns to anxiety rather quickly.

I’m firmly in the camp now that the checks have only just started. Which is a good thing, all the Khashoggi widows letters, all the objections by Qatar in the various forms, it’s all been said now. No spiders in the closet.

We just have to be hopeful that Saudi have enough evidence that points to them not being a direct part of the BeoutQ thing.

Or providing the detail in how they tried to shut it down.

I think overall that’s where this will live or die. The PL will come at an angle of assuming involvement. Saudi have to change their minds.

I have nothing to back it up but my opinion on this is that they either haven’t started the test yet or have only begun it in the last few days.

Far too busy with the legal implications of either voiding or restarting the season. And they are hardly going to admit that they don’t have the resource to do both at the same time.

Maybe the preliminary financial checks have been done but the serious stuff hasn’t been looked at yet.

His wording in interviews is the giveaway. “I can’t make any comment that would prejudice the process”

If the process had been concluded, how could he prejudice it?

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly?

 

You think that's such a reach? This thread is littered with people saying "They probably were involved in the piracy, but nobody can prove it lol". In the reasonable opinion of a great number of people on this board, the Saudi government have been behind the piracy.

 

Now I'm not a solicitor or lawyer, so I cannot speculate on what level of proof, if any, is required to have a "reasonable opinion" on anything. All I'm saying is that it's preposterous to suggest that this cannot fail.

Oh they could reject it alright but it would be a diplomatic shit show. It would be like someone telling the Queen that she couldn’t own horses because her family have a few known diddlers

 

The directors' test criteria are copy and pasted literally on this very page for you

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;

 

There is NO requirement for anything to be proven. None. It's "in the reasonable opinion of the board". That's it. No conviction is required, no "hard evidence" needed, the board just have to decide, in their own opinion, that if they'd done this in the UK then it would be "on offence". That is all that is required to fail this test.

Yes. I posted it.

In the reasonable opinion of the board have they 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.

F.1.5.2.

in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

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 (comparable) offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

So the board have to reasonably come to a conclusion that MBS or YAR have been involved in any act which could be considered dishonest.

So a crown prince or the head or PIF and Aramco will be deemed to have acted dishonestly? It’s a cluster fuck if they were to do that.

So has either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan been convinced of any crime? No.

Are they skint? No.

Have they conducted any sort of dishonest act that would be deemed prosecutorial in the United Kingdom? Well, certainly not that could be proven. So the answer again is no. You would have to have evidence that either MBS or Yasir Al-Rumayyan had direct involvement in BeoutQ, say for example a photo of him holding the box giving a massive thumbs up..

Being the head of a state does not make you responsible for every crime committed within it. In the case of BeoutQ, if it’s proven that they have used Arabsat to steal BeIn’s IP, that’s more of a corporate crime and can always be passed off as someone within the organisation taking a bung to allow it. It’s impossible to track it back to MBS.

Unless they have devised a whole new test just for us and nobody else, I can’t see any reason why this can be stopped, according to their own rules.

Seeming as we have nothing but time, let’s pull this apart and see where in the rules exactly that could scupper us??

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.1.1. 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.

F.1.1.2.

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); or

provided false, misleading or inaccurate information;

F.1.2. either directly or indirectly he is involved in or has any power to determine or influence the management or administration of another Club or Football League club;

F.1.3. either directly or indirectly he holds or acquires any Significant Interest in a Club while he either directly or indirectly holds any interest in any class of Shares of another Club;

F.1.4. he becomes prohibited by law from being a director (including without limitation as a result of being subject to a disqualification order as a director under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (as amended or any equivalent provisions in any jurisdiction which has a substantially similar effect) (“the CDDA”), or being subject to the terms of an undertaking given to the Secretary of State under the CDDA unless a court of competent jurisdiction makes an order under the CDDA permitting an appointment as a Director);

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. F.1.5.2.

F.1.5.3.

in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

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

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;

F.1.7. he becomes the subject of:

F.1.7.1. an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (including any fast track voluntary arrangement);

F.1.7.2. a debt relief order (in accordance with the provisions of Part 7A of the 1986 Act);

F.1.7.3. an administration order (in accordance with Part 6 of the County Courts Act 1984);

F.1.7.4. an enforcement restriction order (in accordance with the provisions of Part 6A of the County Courts Act 1984);

F.1.7.5. a debt management scheme or debt repayment plan (in accordance with provisions of Chapter 4 of Part 5 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007),

or any equivalent provision in any other jurisdiction which has a substantially similar effect, and in each case as may be amended from time to time;

F.1.8. he becomes the subject of an Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order, a Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Order (or any equivalent provisions in any jurisdiction which has a substantially similar effect);

F.1.9. he is or has been a Director of a Club which, while he has been a Director of it, has suffered two or more unconnected Events of Insolvency in respect of each of which a deduction of points was imposed (and for the purposes of this Rule F.1.9 and Rule F.1.10 a Person shall be deemed to have been a Director of a Club which has suffered an Event of Insolvency if such Event of Insolvency occurred in the 30 days immediately following his having resigned as a Director of that Club);

F.1.10. he has been a Director of two or more Clubs (or clubs) each of which, while he has been a Director of them, has suffered an Event of Insolvency in respect of each of which a deduction of points was imposed;

F.1.11. he is subject to a suspension or ban from involvement in the administration of a sport by any ruling body of a sport that is recognised by the International Olympic Committee, UK Sport, or Sport England, another of the home country sports councils, or any other national or international sporting association or governing body, whether such suspension or ban is direct or indirect (for example a direction to Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the ruling body that they should not employ, contract with or otherwise engage or retain the services of an individual);

F.1.12. he is subject to any form of suspension, disqualification or striking-off by a professional body including, without limitation, the Law Society, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority, the Bar Council or the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales or any equivalent body in any jurisdiction outside England and Wales, whether such suspension, disqualification or striking-off is direct or indirect (for example a direction to Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the professional body that they should not employ, contract with or otherwise engage or retain the services of an individual);

F.1.13. he is required to notify personal information pursuant to Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; or

F.1.14. he is found to have breached (irrespective of any sanction actually imposed), or has admitted breaching (irrespective of whether disciplinary proceedings were brought or not):

F.1.14.1. Rule J.6; or

F.1.14.2. any other rules in force from time to time in relation to the prohibition on betting on football (whether in England or Wales or elsewhere);

F.1.15. he is an Intermediary and/or is registered as an intermediary or agent pursuant to the regulations of any national member association of FIFA.

F.2.

Not later than 14 days before the commencement of each Season each Club shall submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of each of its Directors signed by the Director to which it refers and by an Authorised Signatory, who shall not be the same Person.

F.3.

Within 21 days of becoming a member of the League each Club promoted from The Football League shall likewise submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of each of its Directors signed as aforesaid.

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; and

F.4.3. he shall not become a Director until the Club has received confirmation from the Board pursuant to Rule F.4.2 above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1.

F.5.

Upon the happening of an event which affects any statement contained in a submitted Declaration:

F.5.1. the Director in respect of whom the Declaration has been made shall forthwith give full written particulars thereof to his Club; and

F.5.2. the Club shall thereupon give such particulars in writing to the Board.

F.6.

Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the circumstances referred to in Rule F.5 or by any other means that a Person is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1, the Board will:

F.6.1. give written notice to the Person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and

F.6.2. give written notice to the relevant Club that the Person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in the case of a Person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from his office as such.

F.7.

Any Club which fails to comply with its obligations under the foregoing provisions of this Section of these Rules or which submits a Declaration which is false in any particular shall be in breach of these Rules and will be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section W of these Rules (Disciplinary).

F.8.

Any Director who fails to comply with his obligations under the foregoing provisions of this Section of these Rules or who fails to complete and sign a Declaration and any Director or Authorised Signatory who signs a Declaration which is false in any particular shall likewise be in breach of these Rules and liable to be dealt with as aforesaid.

F.9.

If a Director who receives a notice under the provisions of Rule F.6.1 fails to resign and his Club fails to procure his removal from office as required, or if a Club proceeds with the appointment as a Director of a Person to whom Rule F.4 applies despite having received a notice under the provisions of Rule F.6.2, the Board shall have power to suspend the Club by giving to it notice in writing to that effect.

F.10.

A suspended Club shall not play in:

F.10.1. any League Match;

F.10.2. any matches organised as part of the Games Programmes or matches in the Professional Development Leagues (as those terms are defined in the Youth Development Rules);

F.10.3. any of the competitions set out in Rule L.9; or

F.10.4. any other match.

F.11.

For the purposes of the League competition, the Board shall have power to determine how the cancellation of a League Match caused by the suspension of one of the Clubs which should have participated in it shall be treated.

F.12.

Upon being reasonably satisfied that the Director of the suspended Club has resigned or has been removed from office, the Board shall have power to withdraw the suspension by giving to it notice in writing to that effect.

F.13.

Any Person or Club who receives notice under Rule

F.6 has a right to appeal the disqualification notice(s) in accordance with the following Rules. However, for the avoidance of doubt, unless and until any such appeal is upheld, the disqualification notice(s) will remain in full effect.

F.14.

Any Person or Club wishing to appeal a disqualification notice must, within 21 days of the date of that notice, send or deliver to the Board a notice of appeal, setting out full details of the grounds of appeal of that Person or Club, together with a deposit of £1,000.

F.15.

The only grounds upon which a Person or Club may appeal a disqualification notice are:

F.15.1. none of the Disqualifying Events set out in Rule F.1 apply;

F.15.2. in respect of a Conviction of a court of foreign jurisdiction under Rule F.1.5, or a finding of the conduct referred to in Rule F.1.6, or a suspension or ban by a sport ruling body under Rule F.1.11, or a suspension, disqualification or striking-off by a professional body under Rule F.1.12, or a finding of a breach of rule by a ruling body of football pursuant to Rule F.1.14.2, there are compelling reasons why that particular Conviction, suspension, ban, finding, disqualification or striking-off, should not lead to disqualification;

F.15.3. it can be proven that the Disqualifying Event has, or will within 21 days of the notice of appeal, cease to exist;

F.15.4. the Disqualifying Event is a Conviction imposed between 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; or

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.

F.16.

An appeal under the provisions of Rule F.13 shall lie to an appeal tribunal which shall hear the appeal as soon as reasonably practicable. The appeal tribunal shall be appointed by the Chair of the Judicial Panel and shall comprise three members of the Judicial Panel including a legally qualified member who shall sit as chairman of the tribunal.

F.17.

The chairman of the appeal tribunal shall have regard to the procedures governing the proceedings of Commissions and Appeal Boards set out in Section W of these Rules (Disciplinary) but, subject as aforesaid, shall have an overriding discretion as to the manner in which the appeal is conducted.

F.18.

The Person or Club advancing the appeal shall have the burden of proving the complaint. The standard of proof shall be the balance of probabilities.

F.19.

The appeal tribunal shall make its decision unanimously or by majority. No member of the appeal tribunal may abstain.

F.20.

The appeal tribunal shall give written reasons for its decision.

F.21.

The appeal tribunal shall have the following powers:

F.21.1. to allow the appeal in full;

F.21.2. to reject the appeal;

F.21.3. if it determines that a Disqualifying Event exists, to determine that the individual concerned should not be banned for that period during which they will remain subject to it and substitute such period as it shall reasonably determine, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case;

F.21.4. to declare that no Disqualifying Event ever existed or that any Disqualifying Event has ceased to exist;

F.21.5. to order the deposit to be forfeited to the League or to be repaid to the appellant person or Club; and

F.21.6. to order the appellant Person or Club to pay or contribute to the costs of the appeal including the fees and expenses of members of the appeal tribunal.

F.22.

The decision of the appeal tribunal shall be final and binding on the appellant Person and Club.

Persons Prohibited by Law from entering the United Kingdom etc

F.23.

No Person may acquire any Holding in a Club if, pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom or the European Union:

F.23.1. he is prohibited from entering the United Kingdom; or

F.23.2. no funds or economic resources may be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for his benefit.

Disclosure of Ownership and Other Interests

G.1.

A Club shall forthwith give notice in Form 6 to the Board if any Person either directly or indirectly:

G.1.1. holds;

G.1.2. acquires; or

G.1.3. having held or acquired, ceases to hold,

any Significant Interest in the Club.

G.2.

A Club shall forthwith give notice to the Board if it either directly or indirectly:

G.2.1. holds;

G.2.2. acquires; or

G.2.3. having held or acquired, ceases to hold,

any Significant Interest in any other Club (or club) and in this Rule G.2, the definition of Significant Interest shall be deemed to apply to clubs in the same way as to Clubs.

G.3.

A Club shall forthwith give notice to the Board if it is aware or if it becomes aware that any holder of a Significant Interest in it either directly or indirectly:

G.3.1. holds;

G.3.2. acquires; or

G.3.3. having held or acquired, ceases to hold,

any Significant Interest in any other Club (or club) and in this Rule G.3, the definition of Significant Interest shall be deemed to apply to clubs in the same way as to Clubs.

G.4.

A notice given pursuant to the provisions of Rule G.1, G.2 and G.3 shall:

G.4.1. identify the Person holding, acquiring or ceasing to hold the Significant Interest in question;

G.4.2. set out all relevant details of the Significant Interest including without limitation the number of Shares, their description and the nature of the interest; and

G.4.3. set out where appropriate the proportion (expressed in percentage terms) which the relevant Shares in respect of which the Significant Interest exists bear to the total number of Shares of that class in issue and of the total issued Shares.

G.5.

Each Club shall publish the identities of the ultimate owner of each Significant Interest in the Club.

G.6.

The Board shall maintain a register which shall include the particulars set out in Rule G.4 and the said register shall be available for inspection by any Club by prior appointment.

G.7.

Each Club shall forthwith give notice in writing to the Board if any Person identified in a notice given in accordance with Rule G.1.1 or Rule G.1.2 either directly or indirectly holds acquires or ceases to hold any Holding in the Club.

F.18.

The Person or Club advancing the appeal shall have the burden of proving the complaint. The standard of proof shall be the balance of probabilities.

F.19.

The appeal tribunal shall make its decision unanimously or by majority. No member of the appeal tribunal may abstain.

F.20.

The appeal tribunal shall give written reasons for its decision.

F.21.

The appeal tribunal shall have the following powers:

F.21.1. to allow the appeal in full;

F.21.2. to reject the appeal;

F.21.3. if it determines that a Disqualifying Event exists, to determine that the individual concerned should not be banned for that period during which they will remain subject to it and substitute such period as it shall reasonably determine, having regard to all of the circumstances of the case;

F.21.4. to declare that no Disqualifying Event ever existed or that any Disqualifying Event has ceased to exist;

F.21.5. to order the deposit to be forfeited to the League or to be repaid to the appellant person or Club; and

F.21.6. to order the appellant Person or Club to pay or contribute to the costs of the appeal including the fees and expenses of members of the appeal tribunal.

F.22.

The decision of the appeal tribunal shall be final and binding on the appellant Person and Club.

Persons Prohibited by Law from entering the United Kingdom etc

F.23.

No Person may acquire any Holding in a Club if, pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom or the European Union:

F.23.1. he is prohibited from entering the United Kingdom; or

F.23.2. no funds or economic resources may be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for his benefit.

Aye good post, the fact remains however that they have denied some clubs in the owners and directors, or at least delayed it.

There is nothing to suggest from the companies house that the deal has progressed any further since the 9th April. In fact, there’s nothing to suggest that the PL had even begun the checks up until that Masters chap started speaking about it in the last few days.

The trusted Journalists have come up with diddly squat over the last month, let’s face it, even Caulkin has come up short here.

But I see this as a good thing. Those BZG wankers couldn’t shut up about this last year. Silence is golden as far as I’m concerned. Some professionalism is never a bad thing.

The Saudis are a problem though. They need to keep their powder dry until this deal gets done. All this showing football games without the right to do so if just stupid. Piracy is the only issue that can derail this thing. They need to do better, they have the money. Pay for the rights.

I will say one thing though.. after all this opposition from Qatar, they will mean business if and when this deal goes through. Just to rub salt if anything.

Why always us? It can never be easy, never straight forward ?