Whitley mag

Jacobs must have impeccable sources at the PL that’s for sure.

The key being arbitration must be offered. The consortium didn’t want arbitration they knew what PL was up to. They wanted a decision even if it was disqualification which the PL refused to make. As if the PL are bothered about being unfair.

Disagree entirely he claims it was unfair to disqualify and therefore arbitration offer was made. The rule book allows for disqualification and consortium made clear KSA would not be put forward as director.

This Xander is spot on.

Still waffling does he really think the PL we’re doing us a favour by offering arbitration. The reason we had to start arbitration is because they wouldn’t make a fucking decision.

What a load of fucking rubbish. The consortium as Caulkin confirmed wanted them to reject it, then we could have gone down the route of the appeal court. They wanted to kick the can down the road and not make a decision, they also know arbitration is very difficult to appeal.

Far be it from me to question the balanced, informative and eloquent views of Benjamin Jacobs again, but I hope he isn’t providing misleading information again ? hmmmm 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

Cheers ?

I’ll certainly bow to Jackie Broon and B-More Mag and their legal expertise in relation to PIF governance and how ‘control’ can be defined according to PL rule book. The following from PIF website certainly suggests PIF board have to defer to CEDA on some key areas as referred to under article 7. However, in terms of what is deemed control in terms of the day to day running of a football club, I’m not sure if the below requirements of PIF board suggest they wouldn’t have full control of club matters by which is deemed reasonable. Reg 6.6 would suggest PIF board have full autonomy in appointing members to NUFC board for example without referring to CEDA. Article 6 The Board shall supervise the Fund, including its management and affairs, and shall ensure its objectives are achieved and its powers—as stipulated in this Law—are exercised. To this end, the Board shall have all necessary authorities and powers. It shall also approve and issue the Fund's Bylaws and Policies, including the following: 1. Setting investment strategies, policies, and procedures, including targeted returns; and the mechanism for deciding on an investment, monitoring its performance, and exiting therefrom. 2. Setting a policy for distribution of Fund profits. 3. Setting risk management procedures and systems. 4. Determining the accounting standards and policies for drafting and auditing the Fund’s financial statements, and determining the beginning and end of the fiscal year. 5. ApprovingtheFund'sloansandotherformsofdebt,includingissuingsukukand bonds, in accordance with relevant rules. 6. SettingrulesfornominatingandappointingtheFund’srepresentativestotheboards of directors of companies and other entities that the Fund owns or holds shares therein, and determining their remuneration, as well as their rights and duties. 7. Setting policies and procedures for tax liability. 8. Designating the persons authorized to sign on behalf of the Fund. 9. Approving the procedures regulating the Fund's communication with the media. 10. Approving the Fund’s financial and administrative regulations. 3 11. Approving the Fund's organizational structure and the manner of regulating and distributing its functions and duties. 12. Approving the Fund’s annual budget and annual report. The Board may, when necessary, form committees to carry out any of its duties and responsibilities. It may also delegate certain powers to the Governor or any of the Fund’s officers, in accordance with the Fund's Bylaws and Policies. Article 7 The Board shall submit to the Council of Economic and Development Affairs the Bylaws and Policies that regulate matters referred to in Article 6 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this Law, as well as the rules and procedures regulating its activities referred to in Article (8) of this Law, or any amendments thereto, within a period not less than 15 days or more than 30 days from the date set for their entry into force. The Council of Economic and Development Affairs may, within such period, direct the Board to make any amendments to the Bylaws and Policies, as it deems appropriate. My own conclusion is that there is enough complexity in all of this, for an expert like Shaheed Fatima to fully exploit and we have every chance in arbitration.

The only difference with the Man City model is that they appear to have been a lot more street wise in getting around the rules. The fact that they are sponsored by Etihad and have Abhu Dhabi plastered everywhere suggests more than purely sponsorship. Though the Abhu Dhabi United Group denied links to the state, it is a stretch to believe they are separate. It was initially thought that Abu Dhabi United Group was a part of Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund owned by Abu Dhabi. But Abu Dhabi United Group had denied connection to the government of Abu Dhabi. Masdar and Mubadala Developments, sister investment vehicles of Abu Dhabi managed by Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak also holds numerous investments which are linked to ADUG. Mubadala Investment Company PJSC(Arabic: شركة مبادلة للاستثمار‎) (Mubadala) is an Emirati state-owned holding company that can be characterized as a sovereign wealth fund. It was established in January 2017 as a Public Joint Stock Company, merging the then-named Mubadala Development Company (now Mamoura Diversified Global Holding) and the International Petroleum Investment Company(IPIC), and is a wholly owned investment vehicle of the government of Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates.

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.