Various: N-O has lost the plot over potential end of Mike Ashley's tenure

[TRon]

The length of time has nothing to do with the likelihood of it being rejected.

 

Just provides more time for them to find new evidence to block it.

 

Yep. It suggests to me they are looking for reasons to reject it, and hoping someone will throw something that can stick. They obviously don't relish being slaughtered by the press once they give it the green light.

[The Prophet]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

[The Prophet]

It's against their interests to reject it, why would they be looking for reasons?

[Pixelphish]

They hate iz.

[SUPERTOON]

It's against their interests to reject it, why would they be looking for reasons?

 

Because of the backlash and possible legaL threats they will face.

[Chicane]

They hate us coz they aint us

[Guest awaymag]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

[The Prophet]

It's against their interests to reject it, why would they be looking for reasons?

 

Because of the backlash and possible legaL threats they will face.

 

I don't think they give the slightest fuck about 'backlash' to be honest. To them, the league is a commodity to be sold, a substantial investment in that outweighs everything. They've proven that on multiple occasions.

[toontownman]

It's against their interests to reject it, why would they be looking for reasons?

 

Because of the backlash and possible legaL threats they will face.

 

I don't think they give the slightest fuck about 'backlash' to be honest. To them, the league is a commodity to be sold, a substantial investment in that outweighs everything. They've proven that on multiple occasions.

Possible legal threats they will face? They will face worse if they turn it down imo.

[Jackie Broon]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

 

The actual wording is:

 

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

F.1.5.2. 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 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;

 

That's a pretty wide scope and the piracy issue is clearly incredibly complex.

[woppy101]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy

 

“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;“

 

People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf

[The Prophet]

There's also dialogue. It's not as simple you don't comply you fail. If they find an issue they'll be asked for their evidenced account. If they still don't comply, they'll be asked to take steps to remedy the problem.

[Guest awaymag]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy

 

“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;“

 

People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf

 

Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN?  If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer.

 

Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover.  IMO

[Pons Alias]

The smell, the gut feeling, the mood music - call it what you will. None of it is positive at the moment.

 

[Jackie Broon]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy

 

“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;“

 

People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf

 

Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN?  If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer.

 

Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover.  IMO

 

The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS.

[SAK]

All the clauses are in relation to someone becoming a director of a club, doesn't say anything about an owner?

 

So how would PL reject on any basis other than Stavely, The Reubens and PIF's nomination for the board being involved or strongly to believed to be involved in acts going against these clauses?

[SUPERTOON]

[woppy101]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy

 

“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;“

 

People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf

 

Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN?  If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer.

 

Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover.  IMO

 

The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS.

This ^^^

[Hhtoon]

People also have to understand that the Premier League isn't a criminal court and they won't need absolute proof.  Even a civil court is on the balance of probabilities and they might not even have to be as resolute as that...who knows? Likewise, they might not have to reject on either basis anyway.

[Whitley mag]

The smell, the gut feeling, the mood music - call it what you will. None of it is positive at the moment.

 

 

But it was at the end of last week, if this process has told us anything it’s fluid.

 

 

[Whitley mag]

All the clauses are in relation to someone becoming a director of a club, doesn't say anything about an owner?

 

So how would PL reject on any basis other than Stavely, The Reubens and PIF's nomination for the board being involved or strongly to believed to be involved in acts going against these clauses?

 

Not as simple as that, they will need to know where the 300 million is coming from, and all roads ultimately with this deal lead back to ruling family ie MBS.

[SAK]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy

 

“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;“

 

People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf

 

Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN?  If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer.

 

Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover.  IMO

 

The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS.

This ^^^

 

The documents only make mention of who is prevented from acting as a director nowhere do I see anything about restrictions on who can own a club?

 

Edit: just saw the post below

[Jackie Broon]

All the clauses are in relation to someone becoming a director of a club, doesn't say anything about an owner?

 

So how would PL reject on any basis other than Stavely, The Reubens and PIF's nomination for the board being involved or strongly to believed to be involved in acts going against these clauses?

 

See F.4. "including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club".

[SAK]

All the clauses are in relation to someone becoming a director of a club, doesn't say anything about an owner?

 

So how would PL reject on any basis other than Stavely, The Reubens and PIF's nomination for the board being involved or strongly to believed to be involved in acts going against these clauses?

 

See F.4. "including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club".

 

Is that not in relation to an individual, how could a legal entity like PIF be judged on those criteria?

[Guest awaymag]

In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached.

 

Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it.

 

Is it that complex though?  The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them.  Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions.  So the tests are.

 

1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years...  Well that is a no brainer.

2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions?  Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y.  Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 

3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league.  Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well.

 

It shouldn't  be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os.  I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations.  If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty!

That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy

 

“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;“

 

People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test

https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf

 

Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN?  If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer.

 

Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover.  IMO

 

The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS.

 

FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then.