FloydianMag Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sorry to keep labouring this but PIF cant appeal because it isnt against them is it? They declared independence in this so they wont in theory see the report So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. If it can be shown legally that the are independent then they’ll have little choice, that’s why I fear this will head to the UK courts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mighty__mag Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 What a bellend! Has nowt against the takeover though, just the saudis. he's obviously just reacting to the amount of shite he's had off our fans probably, which doesn't testify well as to his professionalism mind Lets be honest he's one of the glory days Man Utd fans and is desperate not to see his failing side fall further behind another side in the league. In my opinion very worried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Got me canny baffled this WTO report. So it means nothing but both sides can appeal which again makes it mean nothing, but the PL are waiting for it to be published so they can approve/reject the deal. Sense all over right there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sorry to keep labouring this but PIF cant appeal because it isnt against them is it? They declared independence in this so they wont in theory see the report So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. That will be in the hands of both sets of lawyers to establish that. Maybe that's what they're waiting for? If the WTO report rules against KSA and not PIF, then the PL can approve the deal and point to the WTO report which states its KSA who is responsible for piracy and not PIF who are buying NUFC (initials all over there). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Got me canny baffled this WTO report. So it means nothing but both sides can appeal which again makes it mean nothing, but the PL are waiting for it to be published so they can approve/reject the deal. Sense all over right there. The reason appealing makes it mean nothing is that the appeal can't be heard. They need a certain number of judges for a quorum which they currently lack and the US is refusing to confirm any more. If it gets appealed then it'll just get stuck on a shelf in limbo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE27 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Makes for grim reading if that were to happen. So we're just waiting for this to become public and the prem to hide behind this report as justification (I'm not saying it's contents aren't valid btw, I think we all know how sketchy KSA are) and that's that. Wherever the WTO report goes after that is of no relevance to prem or takeover I assume unless somewhere down the line it was contested and won on favour of KSA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Makes for grim reading if that were to happen. So we're just waiting for this to become public and the prem to hide behind this report as justification (I'm not saying it's contents aren't valid btw, I think we all know how sketchy KSA are) and that's that. Wherever the WTO report goes after that is of no relevance to prem or takeover I assume unless somewhere down the line it was contested and won on favour of KSA. It is of relevance if the report is not made public due to an appeal, as then the PL cannot use this report as justification (if this is actually what is happening, as that again is purely based on guesswork) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sorry to keep labouring this but PIF cant appeal because it isnt against them is it? They declared independence in this so they wont in theory see the report So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. If it can be shown legally that the are independent then they’ll have little choice, that’s why I fear this will head to the UK courts. You think it can be shown legally that the sovereign wealth fund of the country, whose chairman is the de facto ruler of the country, is independent from the ruler of the country? Good luck with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sorry to keep labouring this but PIF cant appeal because it isnt against them is it? They declared independence in this so they wont in theory see the report So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. If it can be shown legally that the are independent then they’ll have little choice, that’s why I fear this will head to the UK courts. You think it can be shown legally that the sovereign wealth fund of the country, whose chairman is the de facto ruler of the country, is independent from the ruler of the country? Good luck with that. Think you may want to read this article from a barrister Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Holden Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sorry to keep labouring this but PIF cant appeal because it isnt against them is it? They declared independence in this so they wont in theory see the report So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. If it can be shown legally that the are independent then they’ll have little choice, that’s why I fear this will head to the UK courts. You think it can be shown legally that the sovereign wealth fund of the country, whose chairman is the de facto ruler of the country, is independent from the ruler of the country? Good luck with that. Think you may want to read this article from a barrister He's only working off what information the public have. There could easily be details or evidence we're not privy to that could scupper it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Fucking hell let's just stick with cuntface A conundrum wrapped in an enigma, and we are wondering why it's taken so long Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 I don't doubt that it's a separate company. It's just abundantly obvious that there's incredibly close links between the 2. And that because of that it may be legally independent, but it's not, in the other meaning of the word, actually independent. Bin Salman's the chairman, ffs. Clearly PIF didn't create BeOUTQ, but I don't think that's being even suggested. But they're owned by a man who might have, which is the issue. And it is an issue, because if it wasn't then this deal would have been done by now. All the "They can't block this" brigade have got their heads in the sand, shooting off such certainties when clearly the PL and their lawyers are somewhat less certain, as they are still trying to decide which way to go on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Sorry to keep labouring this but PIF cant appeal because it isnt against them is it? They declared independence in this so they wont in theory see the report So if they’re independent the PL can’t use the report to block the deal. Yeah, I'm sure the PL will just take their word for it. If it can be shown legally that the are independent then they’ll have little choice, that’s why I fear this will head to the UK courts. You think it can be shown legally that the sovereign wealth fund of the country, whose chairman is the de facto ruler of the country, is independent from the ruler of the country? Good luck with that. Think you may want to read this article from a barrister He's only working off what information the public have. There could easily be details or evidence we're not privy to that could scupper it. He is in a better position to have a sound basis on that information available than you or me that's for sure. It was in reply to Chris_R anyway who was indicating there was no way they were a separate legal entity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Makes for grim reading if that were to happen. So we're just waiting for this to become public and the prem to hide behind this report as justification (I'm not saying it's contents aren't valid btw, I think we all know how sketchy KSA are) and that's that. Wherever the WTO report goes after that is of no relevance to prem or takeover I assume unless somewhere down the line it was contested and won on favour of KSA. That's what the Telegraph reported and that's what I thought before reading the WTO dispute rules. I'm now of the opinion that at this point it's impossible for the PL to refer officially to the WTO dispute in any way, as it simply has not been concluded. I hope that doesn't mean that we're waiting another 3 months like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 I don't doubt that it's a separate company. It's just abundantly obvious that there's incredibly close links between the 2. And that because of that it may be legally independent, but it's not, in the other meaning of the word, actually independent. Bin Salman's the chairman, ffs. Clearly PIF didn't create BeOUTQ, but I don't think that's being even suggested. But they're owned by a man who might have, which is the issue. And it is an issue, because if it wasn't then this deal would have been done by now. All the "They can't block this" brigade have got their heads in the sand, shooting off such certainties when clearly the PL and their lawyers are somewhat less certain, as they are still trying to decide which way to go on it. Are they legally separate though which is the big question? PIF sources seems to indicate that they are, then that would be up to the law to distinguish Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 There can only be one conclusion to draw if the Premier League are waiting for the WTO report to be published, and that is to block it. All reports indicate they have the draft copy, and if I remember correctly was understood to be a ‘slam dunk for Qatar’ ? So if they have the draft and we’re planning to use it as leverage with Saudis surely they would be doing that now. To wait for the report can only mean as mentioned above, that they are going to hide behind WTO’s verdict. I honestly don’t believe the premier league have the resources or know how to prove the Saudis are guilty, however this report would give then an out. I think we’ll see some exclusives from the broadsheets this weekend, possibly Jason Burt and we might know where they’re heading with this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Makes for grim reading if that were to happen. So we're just waiting for this to become public and the prem to hide behind this report as justification (I'm not saying it's contents aren't valid btw, I think we all know how sketchy KSA are) and that's that. Wherever the WTO report goes after that is of no relevance to prem or takeover I assume unless somewhere down the line it was contested and won on favour of KSA. That's what the Telegraph reported and that's what I thought before reading the WTO dispute rules. I'm now of the opinion that at this point it's impossible for the PL to refer officially to the WTO dispute in any way, as it simply has not been concluded. I hope that doesn't mean that we're waiting another 3 months like. Agree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 I don't doubt that it's a separate company. It's just abundantly obvious that there's incredibly close links between the 2. And that because of that it may be legally independent, but it's not, in the other meaning of the word, actually independent. Bin Salman's the chairman, ffs. Clearly PIF didn't create BeOUTQ, but I don't think that's being even suggested. But they're owned by a man who might have, which is the issue. And it is an issue, because if it wasn't then this deal would have been done by now. All the "They can't block this" brigade have got their heads in the sand, shooting off such certainties when clearly the PL and their lawyers are somewhat less certain, as they are still trying to decide which way to go on it. I guess we’ll find out next week if the PL are ready to make a decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 The appeal procedure could last 60-90 days. So I guess now we know the timeframe for getting an answer on this test? The appeal can’t be heard without an appeal panel. The USA is using its veto to block elections to the panel. Thus any appeal can’t be heard. There’ll be no final ruling until after any appeal has been heard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 There can only be one conclusion to draw if the Premier League are waiting for the WTO report to be published, and that is to block it. All reports indicate they have the draft copy, and if I remember correctly was understood to be a ‘slam dunk for Qatar’ ? So if they have the draft and we’re planning to use it as leverage with Saudis surely they would be doing that now. To wait for the report can only mean as mentioned above, that they are going to hide behind WTO’s verdict. I honestly don’t believe the premier league have the resources or know how to prove the Saudis are guilty, however this report would give then an out. I think we’ll see some exclusives from the broadsheets this weekend, possibly Jason Burt and we might know where they’re heading with this. I have given up on time frames for any sort of conclusion ever since hairy hands chum Masters told us that there wasn't one. He's the only PL voice we've heard on it so far, and his smug brush off pretty much summed up why this has dragged on as long as it has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 That bellend has deleted loads of tweets here! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Are they legally separate though which is the big question? PIF sources seems to indicate that they are, then that would be up to the law to distinguish Why does this even matter? The law doesn't need to get involved at all. The directors' test just says that the PL need to believe that anyone who will have influence over the future of the club (Not even as a named director, ie Bin Salman) may have done something dodgy like piracy. Nothing in the directors' test requires anything to have been proven in a court of law, in fact it explicitly states that it does NOT have to be proven in a court of law - Just in the PL's reasonable opinion, iirc. There's no requirement for there to be a legal link between the companies either, as they can just do all of this on Bin Salman as an individual. If they "reasonably think" that A) he's behind the piracy, and that B) he'll have significant influence over the club then they can squash this. A) we all suspect strongly if we're honest, which is - by the wording of the PL test itself - enough. B) is 100% going to be the case, I don't think anyone at all would be able to dispute this with any credibility. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 There can only be one conclusion to draw if the Premier League are waiting for the WTO report to be published, and that is to block it. All reports indicate they have the draft copy, and if I remember correctly was understood to be a ‘slam dunk for Qatar’ ? So if they have the draft and we’re planning to use it as leverage with Saudis surely they would be doing that now. To wait for the report can only mean as mentioned above, that they are going to hide behind WTO’s verdict. I honestly don’t believe the premier league have the resources or know how to prove the Saudis are guilty, however this report would give then an out. I think we’ll see some exclusives from the broadsheets this weekend, possibly Jason Burt and we might know where they’re heading with this. You could well be right, but that would mean they've been leading the buyers down the garden path for a while. While they'll likely be fine from a legal stand point to reject it (I assume), it will hardly go down well if they've been giving 'positive tip offs' (I think was the phrase GC used) to the buyers, when all along, they've been ready to say 'No' Going to go down like a lead balloon, that. The basis of this of course is that GC has been fed truthful feedback from the buyers. I choose to believe that he has. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 That bellend has deleted loads of tweets here! The bubble must be shrinking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Are they legally separate though which is the big question? PIF sources seems to indicate that they are, then that would be up to the law to distinguish Why does this even matter? The law doesn't need to get involved at all. The directors' test just says that the PL need to believe that anyone who will have influence over the future of the club (Not even as a named director, ie Bin Salman) may have done something dodgy like piracy. Nothing in the directors' test requires anything to have been proven in a court of law, in fact it explicitly states that it does NOT have to be proven in a court of law - Just in the PL's reasonable opinion, iirc. There's no requirement for there to be a legal link between the companies either, as they can just do all of this on Bin Salman as an individual. If they "reasonably think" that A) he's behind the piracy, and that B) he'll have significant influence over the club then they can squash this. A) we all suspect strongly if we're honest, which is - by the wording of the PL test itself - enough. B) is 100% going to be the case, I don't think anyone at all would be able to dispute this with any credibility. Totally disagree with everything you're saying of course it legally matters. Why do you think that PIF are stating that they are a separate legal entity and why do you think you have legal professionals commenting and writing about this a. Strongly suspect has nothing to do with it, by law a reasonable opinion HAS to be based on factual evidence b. If PIF is a separate legal entity then this is certainly not 100% the case, legally it can be disputed and that's the whole point. It's not based on opinion it's what actually stands up within law Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts