UncleBingo Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 From my understanding......beoutQ were operating on a 'commercial scale' but KSA refused to do anything about them as they had cut ties with Qatar, citing security concerns. There is nothing as far as I can see linking the Saudi government or PFI to the piracy. The report has basically said that the Saudis must comply and stop the piracy. Is that it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/16/newcastle-takeover-latest-saudi-arabia-tv-piracy-ruling-released-by-wto-premier-league-pressure The WTO report states the evidence it has seen supports Qatar’s assertions that: “a) beoutQ’s piracy was promoted by prominent Saudi nationals, (b) beoutQ targets the Saudi market, © beoutQ’s pirate broadcasts are transmitted via Arabsat satellite frequencies, and (d) beoutQ has received assistance from a Saudi content distributor in delivering its pirated broadcasts to Saudi consumers. “Taking these conclusions together, and recalling the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary principles in WTO dispute settlement, the Panel considers that Qatar has established a prima facie case that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia,” it adds. "The World Trade Organisation has ruled that Saudi Arabia was behind a pirate satellite TV and streaming service that illegally broadcast sporting events" But they haven't though, have they? They've established that Saudi Arabia didn't do enough to stop it, not that SA was behind the illegal broadcasts. That's what I was thinking. Their headline is bullshit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awaymag Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 up...down....up...down...............what does the WTO show.........depends on what you want it show it seems! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 That report conclusion just seems to suggest that SA were wrong in not allowing Qatar to take BeoutQ to court. Quite far away from being to blame for the piracy. Although obviously they probably were. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Long and short of it seems to be that Saudi has stopped Qatar and others gaining legal redress in Saudi for breaches of intellectual property law. Further, that Saudi has not used its Criminal Law to punish those responsible for BeoutQ. Hardly surprising. Yeah, that's how I read the limited bits that have come out Not so much about the piracy as the lack of response to the piracy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_F Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Not taking criminal action against individuals seems to be the main charge Probably the best we could have hoped for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Report moves us a step closer if anything. Sure some will protect their interests and agenda by putting a negative spin on it but it pretty much says nothing we didn’t know and that PIF have nothing to do with piracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 There is more than enough wiggle room in that report for the Premier League to ok the takeover, Luke Edwards reporting of this today was Ryder bad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Wonder if the questions the buyers were answering last week were in relation to the recommendations at the end of the report. As in what steps are they taking to allow criminal proceedings to be brought against BeOutQ. I doubt the Premier League even saw the end of the report, more likely they were given the worst possible snippets by Qatar and have been waiting to put it all into context when their lawyers read the whole thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 It isn’t that bad at all, obviously doesn’t mean the deal will go through but the report doesn’t really look like it provides enough for it to be blocked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Total storm in a teacup that. You'd have thought at worst the PL will want assurances action is being taken. No link mentioned between piracy and the Saudi gov, let alone PIF. No wonder Qatar are releasing their own interpretation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 The worst I see from that report - BeoutQ was operated from Saudi Arabia and by Saudi nationals. It cannot be proven that it was the Saudi government. Saudi government didn't do enough to find and prosecute those in charge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Total storm in a teacup that. You'd have thought at worst the PL will want assurances action is being taken. No link mentioned between piracy and the Saudi gov, let alone PIF. No wonder Qatar are releasing their own interpretation. except its pretty explicit SA won't take any action because that would benefit Qatar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenBartonCentrePartin Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Me reading those screenshots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordie_b Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Wonder if the questions the buyers were answering last week were in relation to the recommendations at the end of the report. As in what steps are they taking to allow criminal proceedings to be brought against BeOutQ. I doubt the Premier League even saw the end of the report, more likely they were given the worst possible snippets by Qatar and have been waiting to put it all into context when their lawyers read the whole thing. This would make a bit of sense I think Might be 2+2 = 5 though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 The worst I see from that report - BeoutQ was operated from Saudi Arabia and by Saudi nationals. It cannot be proven that it was the Saudi government. Saudi government didn't do enough to find and prosecute those in charge. I think everyone knew that before the report in anycase. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovineblue Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/16/newcastle-takeover-latest-saudi-arabia-tv-piracy-ruling-released-by-wto-premier-league-pressure The WTO report states the evidence it has seen supports Qatar’s assertions that: “a) beoutQ’s piracy was promoted by prominent Saudi nationals, (b) beoutQ targets the Saudi market, © beoutQ’s pirate broadcasts are transmitted via Arabsat satellite frequencies, and (d) beoutQ has received assistance from a Saudi content distributor in delivering its pirated broadcasts to Saudi consumers. “Taking these conclusions together, and recalling the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary principles in WTO dispute settlement, the Panel considers that Qatar has established a prima facie case that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia,” it adds. "The World Trade Organisation has ruled that Saudi Arabia was behind a pirate satellite TV and streaming service that illegally broadcast sporting events" But they haven't though, have they? They've established that Saudi Arabia didn't do enough to stop it, not that SA was behind the illegal broadcasts. The same people would be complaining if the Saudis had caught those behind beoutQ and chopped their arms off (or whatever they do to pirates over there). Can't win. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/16/newcastle-takeover-latest-saudi-arabia-tv-piracy-ruling-released-by-wto-premier-league-pressure The WTO report states the evidence it has seen supports Qatar’s assertions that: “a) beoutQ’s piracy was promoted by prominent Saudi nationals, (b) beoutQ targets the Saudi market, © beoutQ’s pirate broadcasts are transmitted via Arabsat satellite frequencies, and (d) beoutQ has received assistance from a Saudi content distributor in delivering its pirated broadcasts to Saudi consumers. “Taking these conclusions together, and recalling the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary principles in WTO dispute settlement, the Panel considers that Qatar has established a prima facie case that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia,” it adds. "The World Trade Organisation has ruled that Saudi Arabia was behind a pirate satellite TV and streaming service that illegally broadcast sporting events" But they haven't though, have they? They've established that Saudi Arabia didn't do enough to stop it, not that SA was behind the illegal broadcasts. The same people would be complaining if the Saudis had caught those behind beoutQ and chopped their arms off (or whatever they do to pirates over there). Can't win. but the premier league wouldn't give half a shit and would have rubber stamped the takeover months ago Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 If that's all it says, the PL seem to be left with no option but to approve the deal. Unless specific named entities or people are mentioned as having been responsible for piracy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Holden Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I can't help but get the feeling everyone's jumping the gun here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaydnNUFC Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I can't help but get the feeling everyone's jumping the gun here. Does anyone have a conclusion? I haven't seen one Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I can't help but get the feeling everyone's jumping the gun here. Possibly but how? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts