Whitley mag

I don’t even think they’ve asked for MBS to be named, it’s that they want the state to be named as a director. The question is would they want the state to be named if they didn’t want to link the piracy. If it was the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund would they be asking for the govt to be named as a director. My personal opinion is I don’t think so.

The football law piece suggests they would be classed as a separate legal entity. So your take is that won’t be sufficient and the govt will be classed as having control by PL rules ? Writing on Football Law, Norton explained: "It is this author’s opinion that, unless it is demonstrated that the KSA PIF itself has facilitated or funded beoutQ, the degree of separation between the KSA’s system of government and the KSA PIF that is seemingly apparent – that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se – would be sufficient for the KSA PIF to avoid disqualification as a Director pursuant to the ODT." If your interpretation is correct, then the Man City ownership model would surely be called into question. Regardless of a further sporting ownership vehicle being set up, surely the Abhu Dhabi govt would have ultimate control in that scenario also ?

To be fair Joey I’m still waiting for you to answer my question earlier. Go on put an opinion out there with some substance, instead of just trashing others and liking your mate Fanny’s posts.

I thought you’d had enough of this thread GDM, I’d hate to see you when fully engaged again.

I’ve offered plenty of opinion over last 12 months to back up why I believe takeover will happen. I’m sensible enough to reappraise that if something significant happens to change that point of view. However, nothing in my opinion has happened yet to change my point of view this will eventually go through. For clarity, I think arbitration will fall our way based on what the PL are requesting in relation to the state being named a director as being nothing more than a delaying tactic and completely unreasonable. The point in relation to what is deemed ‘control’ will come down to semantics and I think Saudi law will support them being separate. It’s worth noting that even Qatar accepted PIF is separate to the state and the football law also did an excellent article supporting this. On top of that we have Shaheed Fatima an expert in Middle East affairs to argue our case. I accept Beloff is a worry, however ultimately his decision will have to be supported with evidence so I’m not overly concerned. Finally on arbitration if the PL we’re happy they we’re correct, they would have just rejected the deal as their rule book dictates. They weren’t offering arbitration out of the goodness of their hearts. By going this route they thought they could kick the can down the road and it would go away. They also believed it would keep it out of the courts as arbitration is difficult to appeal. On anti competition I think PBP and the ESL shows what shady dealings have gone on behind the scenes. The fact the top 6 have met 40 odd times separately with the PL board, know one can tell me our takeover wasn’t discussed. Way back last year I put up articles on here that showed Liverpool and Man U had used their position to reject Don Howe’s son being elected PL CEO and hand picked Masters for the job. Paranoia and embarrassing some claimed on here, why would the PL not want us competing to make it a top 7. Respected journalists including Henry Winter are all aware that Liverpool and Spurs amongst others heavily lobbied against our takeover. Richard Masters even met with Bein but it was denied our takeover was even discussed. I am of the firm belief that disclosure will out collective lobbying under the guise that the PL should block the takeover to protect the Bein contract. This as a leading QC has intimated is illegal and I firmly believe if the CAT case is given the go ahead, we may see a settlement reached. Legal precedent dictates a lot of these anti competition cases are settled out of the courtroom due to uncertainty in the defences position. A final and perhaps wild card scenario is that Bein is restored and everything including legal cases being dropped falls into place in Middle East. There is nothing in PL rule book to say the state can’t own a football club and if legal cases are dropped the PL will have nothing to fall back on legally in relation to piracy. I’ve stated all these points previously I might add.

Simple really don’t read, I don’t give a shit whether people take me seriously or not. I voice my opinion take it or leave it.

The point being ? Before this takeover who the fuck had heard of Bein Jacobs. From the article - While not the sort of place United would normally feature Mlex market insight, a website that specialises in regulatory risk, is a world-renowned authority on the subject and has tackled the Competition Appeals Tribunal case in a new editorial.

I’m still waiting which particular point was raised last night that didn’t go well ? A point maybe that shows the takeover won’t happen ? I thought Jacobs was credible in relation to the grand old duke being in relation to being about govt department’s and not just fucking consortium about. But as you’re treating the podcast akin to an election debate, what was the knockout blow in relation to the takeover ?

Keith is genuinely trying to keep fans in the loop and only reveals what he can. Interested to know which particular piece of information which was discussed last night that makes you think takeover won’t happen ? Jacobs is more eloquent and Keith is more abrupt and confrontational. However, not sure what you’re point is it wasn’t an election debate. Jacobs apart from teasing new evidence provided nothing new to suggest takeover won’t go through.

This would tie in with Luke Edwards getting all excited about some info putting an end to the takeover once and for all a few weeks back. He wasn’t able to substantiate it then let’s see what they come out with in next week. I predict it won’t be anything but smears and more tenuous links pedalled by certain journalists at the behest of invested parties.

Worth reading this thread before the propaganda and attempts to influence arbitration ramp up. Also worth asking yourself why PL choose the likes of Slater and Jacobs to leak info to.

He provided misinformation to the Chronicle last year not 12 years ago. Ben Jacobs has done a good enough job of discrediting himself without mine or Keith’s help. To be honest I thought Jacobs made a tit of himself when he claimed the clubs case wasn’t NCSL’s. How the hell does he know what’s in the clubs case ? The PL don’t even know what the club are claiming in damages. You’ve bigged up Jacobs performance and I’ve provided balance. All Jacobs provided last night was that there’s potentially new evidence re ESL and that MBS had a conversation with Boris. If that’s what the PL are relying on for separation argument I’m not worried in the least.

To quote Jacobs the evidence to come out this week will be damaging to the separation argument. Let’s see, I’ll be absolutely amazed if PIF have directly backed the ESL with finance. If PIF have shares in a company that pledged funds to the ESL as a partner, then I think the link will be tenuous and more clear agenda to shift blame from America and ESL clubs. He may sound eloquent, plausible and knows what he’s talking about, however only one person on the show last night has track record of being liberal with the truth. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1251554/CHARLES-SALE-Official-BBC-report-bares-Ben-Jacobs-sabotage-saga.html Also ask Andrew Musgrove at the Chronicle why they had to pull an article last year due to misinformation provided by Ben Jacobs. Keith rightly challenged him last night and I certainly know who I think is more genuine and trustworthy.

The most interesting point tonight is obviously Jacobs claiming new evidence exists to prove Saudi’s behind ESL. Matt Slater has also hinted at this so it will be interesting to see how conclusive this is. In terms of UEFA I think it will simply relate to piracy in relation to bidding for UCL rights, or the broadcast of Euro’s this summer. As I’ve said all along though it’s the same journalists and entirely predictable so I’ll reserve judgement on any impact. It would be all very convenient to shift the focus at this point from the clubs involved in the ESL, to try and deflect attention and blame those nasty Saudi’s for funding it. It would also surely be completely inconsistent with recent soundings from Ghodoussi and Reuben, who came out strongly against ESL. The propaganda war will undoubtedly heat up prior to cases being heard.

Exactly their own rule book told them to reject it, yet they felt compelled to offer arbitration out of the goodness of their heart. They didn’t reject it because they would have been exposed under a court of appeal by now.

Undoubtedly the Man City ownership model has one extra company set up to differentiate it from what is basically their sovereign wealth fund. Is Al Nahyan not a potential shadow director of City, or for that matter did Mansour even sit the O&D test. The PL test should supposedly be applied to current owners every season. Along with proving separation I’m quite sure De Marco will be using other ownership examples to show how unreasonable and inconsistent the PL’s approach to shadow directorship has been in this takeover.

1983 to 88 club crest for me, looked particularly great on the old silver shirts. https://www.nufc.co.uk/club/history/club-crest/

It’s good to see a journalist recognising the potential significance of all this.

Investigative powers in the UK To open a civil investigation the CMA or sectoral regulator must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement. Once it has started an investigation it may acquire information through: dawn raids on businesses where it may access electronic data; review, copy or remove physical or electronic documents; ask for factual explanations of documents relevant to an investigation, and interview individuals. In practice, its dawn raids often involve taking copies of electronic servers and reviewing these at a later stage; mandatory requests in writing for information and for specific documents or categories of documents. The CMA can require individuals connected with a company to answer questions, including ex-employees, suppliers and customers. In criminal investigations, the CMA may also obtain evidence through surveillance and covert human intelligence sources. Companies or people who obstruct the CMA in the exercises of these powers or failure to comply with any requirements can face civil or criminal proceedings. Richard Masters letter to the MP Liz Truss in January stated ‘I would like to reiterate that it is the Premier League's desire to have the matter resolved in timely matter.' Well the times nearly up for the lying bastards now. They refused to make a decision so we couldn’t appeal and take this to court. They’ve kicked it down the road in the hope the Saudis would walk. We’ll find out soon how confident they are in their actions, as things are going to get very uncomfortable for them in disclosure.

It’ll be interesting to see if the club go for a fast track anti competition case. I’m not sure what the difference is in terms of levels of disclosure as opposed to a full blown case. Where clearly banking on disclosure forcing the issue though and as such I’ve got a feeling arbitration is not happening if the case gets the go ahead. This article would support that these things tend get settled in regards to anti competition. Competition law expert Ben Lasserson of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said that use of the fast track had taken off "much more quickly than expected" following its introduction as part of the 2015 Consumer Rights Act (CRA 2015) on 1 October 2015. The previous two cases had settled quickly and this third case, brought by online training provider Socrates Training Ltd against the Law Society of England and Wales, was likely to do the same, he said. "The debate surrounding the CRA 2015 reforms to private actions in competition law predominantly focused on the introduction of the collective actions regime, given the significance of that change," he said. "The 'fast track' procedure did not attract the same level of attention, yet this latest filing shows a pattern of fast track applications emerging." "Interestingly, we are yet to see how this procedure will actually work in practice as each case has settled at an early stage. It is perhaps not surprising that the claims brought so far all involve an allegation of abuse of dominance. The reality is that companies understandably want to avoid the risk of a judicial finding of dominance, and will not want the added complication of having to fight an issue as complex as dominance in circumstances where the timetable is expedited and costs are capped. As a result, there is an obvious impetus towards early settlement. In its own way, therefore, the new procedure is arguably proving very effective for claimants as a means of challenging anti-competitive behaviour," he said. The ability to allocate competition law proceedings to a 'fast track' procedure was one of several new powers given to the CAT by the CRA 2015. Claims allocated to the fast track must be heard within six months, and costs recoverable by the winning party will be capped at a level set by the CAT. The CAT can allocate a case to the fast track either on its own initiative, or on the application of one of the parties. The procedure was designed primarily to benefit small and medium-sized businesses complaining of competition law infringements, but the CAT must also consider whether the case can be heard in three days or less and the complexity of the issues involved before deciding whether to allocate the case to the fast track.

NCSL confirmed that when they we’re seeking evidence it had actually gone out to clubs, one club said they had not received it. They we’re initially disappointed as it would have been evidence of lobbying against the bid, however they now have evidence all corrupt 6 and PL received the letter.

Any fines for the top 6 will probably go towards fighting our takeover, win, win for the corrupt 6. A points deduction is obviously not going to happen, but I’d like to see fines running into the millions. The money then distributed amongst the other 14 clubs or down the pyramid. It should not go into the PL coffers to assist there co conspirators Hoffman and Masters.

His preference is for club to pursue anti competition case before arbitration. He thinks we win the anti competition case, but due to bench in arbitration you can never be sure. On this point he is adamant Shaheed Fatima proves separation, but clearly Beloff is a concern. If I remember rightly from CAT case being given go ahead, disclosure could then begin in about 8 weeks. Arbitration hearing still set for July, but just my opinion I think club will then drag feet if CAT case is given ahead.