Teasy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 It’s very sensible not to want us to be owned by Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately we don’t have another option and we have no power. I agree, which is why its not sensible IMO to not want the takeover because you don't want to be owed by Saudi Arabia. No bother if people don't want to have Saudi money in the club, but to want to pass this takeover up and stay with Ashley for god knows how much longer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs 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 s*** and would have rubber stamped the takeover months ago You don’t want this takeover to go through do you, now you’re straw clutching. quite frankly I would rather almost anyone else be trying to buy the club preferably someone without one of the worst human rights records in the world Careful now with that sensible opinion. Sensible? To see the club destroyed for 12 years and then think "whey I'm not sure I like these new owners lets wait it out and see if better come along". It's obviously a very sensible opinion. In a rational world people dying due to a horrendous regime "should" be more important than a football club. However, sport and football especially is tribal and is more important than anything else to a lot of people so it is also understandable that people will care more about that than human rights issues in a faraway country Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas 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 You don’t want this takeover to go through do you, now you’re straw clutching. quite frankly I would rather almost anyone else be trying to buy the club preferably someone without one of the worst human rights records in the world Have you killed anyone sir? "no" Pirated any football matches? "no" Congratulations Mr Glitter, your application is successful. Welcome aboard. As if Up the Glitter has never illegally streamed Young Boys playing hey-o Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy 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 s*** and would have rubber stamped the takeover months ago You don’t want this takeover to go through do you, now you’re straw clutching. quite frankly I would rather almost anyone else be trying to buy the club preferably someone without one of the worst human rights records in the world Careful now with that sensible opinion. Sensible? To see the club destroyed for 12 years and then think "whey I'm not sure I like these new owners lets wait it out and see if better come along". It's obviously a very sensible opinion. In a rational world people dying due to a horrendous regime "should" be more important than a football club. However, sport and football especially is tribal and is more important than anything else to a lot of people so it is also understandable that people will care more about that than human rights issues in a faraway country From my perspective the club isn't worth supporting under Mike Ashley. That's why I don't see it as a option to take or leave any change of ownership. If I could choose the owners, I'd choose just Stavely and the Ruebens alone, even if it meant a club that wasn't super rich and just slowly built competitively, but I can't choose. I'm not going to entertain the fantasy that we can just turn down a takeover and along will come another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i 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 s*** and would have rubber stamped the takeover months ago You don’t want this takeover to go through do you, now you’re straw clutching. quite frankly I would rather almost anyone else be trying to buy the club preferably someone without one of the worst human rights records in the world Careful now with that sensible opinion. Sensible? To see the club destroyed for 12 years and then think "whey I'm not sure I like these new owners lets wait it out and see if better come along". It's obviously a very sensible opinion. In a rational world people dying due to a horrendous regime "should" be more important than a football club. However, sport and football especially is tribal and is more important than anything else to a lot of people so it is also understandable that people will care more about that than human rights issues in a faraway country From my perspective the club isn't worth supporting under Mike Ashley. That's why I don't see it as a option to take or leave any change of ownership. If I could choose the owners, I'd choose just Stavely and the Ruebens alone, even if it meant a club that wasn't super rich and just slowly built competitively, but I can't choose. I'm not going to entertain the fantasy that we can just turn down a takeover and along will come another. Agree - all my future feelings of support for the club are pretty much centred upon new owners being in place that believe we can achieve something Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejeck Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 This line from the BBC report doesn't make great reading mind: "But in its judgement, issued on Tuesday, the WTO found that Saudi Arabia had facilitated the beoutQ operation and had "acted in a manner inconsistent" with international law protecting intellectual property rights." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53068494 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Don’t think it says anywhere in that WTO report that KSA as a state facilitated the piracy. Significant persons yes but not the ‘state’ and certainly not PIF Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ikon Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I'm sure we'll find out in a few weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 This line from the BBC report doesn't make great reading mind: "But in its judgement, issued on Tuesday, the WTO found that Saudi Arabia had facilitated the beoutQ operation and had "acted in a manner inconsistent" with international law protecting intellectual property rights." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53068494 It's nowt as far as the takeover is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs 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 s*** and would have rubber stamped the takeover months ago You don’t want this takeover to go through do you, now you’re straw clutching. quite frankly I would rather almost anyone else be trying to buy the club preferably someone without one of the worst human rights records in the world Careful now with that sensible opinion. Sensible? To see the club destroyed for 12 years and then think "whey I'm not sure I like these new owners lets wait it out and see if better come along". It's obviously a very sensible opinion. In a rational world people dying due to a horrendous regime "should" be more important than a football club. However, sport and football especially is tribal and is more important than anything else to a lot of people so it is also understandable that people will care more about that than human rights issues in a faraway country From my perspective the club isn't worth supporting under Mike Ashley. That's why I don't see it as a option to take or leave any change of ownership. If I could choose the owners, I'd choose just Stavely and the Ruebens alone, even if it meant a club that wasn't super rich and just slowly built competitively, but I can't choose. I'm not going to entertain the fantasy that we can just turn down a takeover and along will come another. That's fine but it's also sensible if other people disagree with that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 This line from the BBC report doesn't make great reading mind: "But in its judgement, issued on Tuesday, the WTO found that Saudi Arabia had facilitated the beoutQ operation and had "acted in a manner inconsistent" with international law protecting intellectual property rights." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53068494 Yeah and a BBC journo deleted his tweet this morning because he was talking shite. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Holden Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 This line from the BBC report doesn't make great reading mind: "But in its judgement, issued on Tuesday, the WTO found that Saudi Arabia had facilitated the beoutQ operation and had "acted in a manner inconsistent" with international law protecting intellectual property rights." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53068494 We already knew this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 One of these is talking BS, and I know who I'm inclined to believe. (Tin hat on) To me they are both saying the same thing and what the BBC are reporting also...(?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 One of these is talking BS, and I know who I'm inclined to believe. (Tin hat on) To me they are both saying the same thing and what the BBC are reporting also...(?) Edwards says Saudi State which is incorrect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 This line from the BBC report doesn't make great reading mind: "But in its judgement, issued on Tuesday, the WTO found that Saudi Arabia had facilitated the beoutQ operation and had "acted in a manner inconsistent" with international law protecting intellectual property rights." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53068494 Again, it doesn’t say that in the WTO report. I’ve found the bbc journos to be way off on this story over the last few weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon 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 You don’t want this takeover to go through do you, now you’re straw clutching. quite frankly I would rather almost anyone else be trying to buy the club preferably someone without one of the worst human rights records in the world If you were really being frank, you would admit that you'd rather stick with Ashley than be taken over by a partnership funded by SA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 BBC are having a shocker today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontownman Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Spin by the BBC I think. From what's been reported it looks like no-one involved in the takeover is directly linked or named. The obvious result as requested in the report is for Saudi Arabia to buckle down on piracy which is as easy as them committing to the PL likely followed by bidding for premier league rights. This is an easy hurdle to overcome than the moral issues. There wont be any way to really address the latter either. All in all this should move forward now. I do think we will be waiting another week or two to let the report settle and premier league games to resume. Hopefully not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Spin by the BBC I think. From what's been reported it looks like no-one involved in the takeover is directly linked or named. The obvious result as requested in the report is for Saudi Arabia to buckle down on piracy which is as easy as them committing to the PL likely followed by bidding for premier league rights. This is an easy hurdle to overcome than the moral issues. There wont be any way to really address the latter either. All in all this should move forward now. I do think we will be waiting another week or two to let the report settle and premier league games to resume. Hopefully not. If that's spin, at least it's positive spin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledGeordie Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Spin by the BBC I think. From what's been reported it looks like no-one involved in the takeover is directly linked or named. The obvious result as requested in the report is for Saudi Arabia to buckle down on piracy which is as easy as them committing to the PL likely followed by bidding for premier league rights. This is an easy hurdle to overcome than the moral issues. There wont be any way to really address the latter either. All in all this should move forward now. I do think we will be waiting another week or two to let the report settle and premier league games to resume. Hopefully not. There’s clearly been plenty of discussion about the piracy and how it’s might be address but it doesn’t sound like it’s enough to stop the takeover. That’s obviously just a wild guess though ?♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 https://www.arabnews.com/node/1690711/saudi-arabia Soz if already posted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 The PL needed a smoking gun to reject anything, this is far from it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 One of these is talking BS, and I know who I'm inclined to believe. (Tin hat on) To me they are both saying the same thing and what the BBC are reporting also...(?) Edwards says Saudi State which is incorrect. Got you So instead of the “government/state” its just claimed people “within” SA. No expert but that should seal the deal if nothing more to reveal... Like the people “within” the SA are the same people buying us but actually named. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 https://www.arabnews.com/node/1690711/saudi-arabia Soz if already posted That's one way to read it... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 One of these is talking BS, and I know who I'm inclined to believe. People within the UK use illegal streams, it’s difficult to prevent. (Tin hat on) To me they are both saying the same thing and what the BBC are reporting also...(?) Edwards says Saudi State which is incorrect. Got you So instead of the “government” its just claimed people “within” SA. No expert but that should seal the deal if nothing more to reveal... Like the people “within” the SA are the same people buying us but actually named. People in the UK use illegal streams, it’s difficult to prevent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts