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

[LV]

So much inaccurate reporting coming out about the WTO ruling that the Saudi state was facilitating the piracy. It clearly did not say that. The absolute shit state of journalism these days man..

[LV]

Can you doylems bother to at least read the conclusion. It's about 500 words and the histrionics about whether this tweet or that tweet is an accurate summary of the actual fucking summary is embarrassing.

 

8.1. For the reasons set forth in this Report, the Panel concludes as follows:

 

a. The Panel has no discretion to decline to make any findings or recommendation in the

case that has been brought before it;

 

b. With respect to Qatar's claims under Parts I, II and III of the TRIPS Agreement:

 

i. Qatar has established that Saudi Arabia has taken measures that, directly or

indirectly, have had the result of preventing beIN from obtaining Saudi legal

counsel to enforce its IP rights through civil enforcement procedures before Saudi

courts and tribunals, and thus Saudi Arabia has acted in a manner inconsistent

with Article 42 and Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement;

 

ii. Qatar has established that Saudi Arabia has not provided for criminal procedures

and penalties to be applied to beoutQ despite the evidence establishing prima

facie that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities under the jurisdiction of

Saudi Arabia, and thus Saudi Arabia has acted inconsistently with Article 61 of

the TRIPS Agreement;

 

iii. in the light of these findings, it is unnecessary to make findings on

Qatar's additional claims under Parts I and II of the TRIPS Agreement.

 

c. With respect to Saudi Arabia's invocation of the security exception in Article 73(b)(iii)

of the TRIPS Agreement:

 

i. the requirements for invoking Article 73(b)(iii) are met in relation to the

inconsistency with Article 42 and Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement arising

from the measures that, directly or indirectly, have had the result of preventing

beIN from obtaining Saudi legal counsel to enforce its IP rights through civil

enforcement procedures before Saudi courts and tribunals; and

 

ii. the requirements for invoking Article 73(b)(iii) are not met in relation to the

inconsistency with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement arising from Saudi Arabia's

non-application of criminal procedures and penalties to beoutQ.

 

8.2. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations

assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of

nullification or impairment. The Panel concludes that, to the extent that the measures at issue are

inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement, they have nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Qatar

under that Agreement.

 

8.3. Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, the Panel recommends that Saudi Arabia bring its

measures into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

 

The Saudi state broke international law, as ruled by the governing body of that piece of international law. Not that this was ever in serious dispute.

 

Given the violation centred on the IP rights of Premier League broadcaster, it would obviously be wildly inappropriate to allow that state to then purchase a Premier League football club. That's why the takeover will be rejected.

 

Bore off. That’s just about them not having access to redress under the Saudi legal system and doesn’t blame the Saudi state itself regarding piracy, just that it hadn’t given access to its legal system.

[Guest godzilla]

Can you doylems bother to at least read the conclusion. It's about 500 words and the histrionics about whether this tweet or that tweet is an accurate summary of the actual f***ing summary is embarrassing.

 

8.1. For the reasons set forth in this Report, the Panel concludes as follows:

 

a. The Panel has no discretion to decline to make any findings or recommendation in the

case that has been brought before it;

 

b. With respect to Qatar's claims under Parts I, II and III of the TRIPS Agreement:

 

i. Qatar has established that Saudi Arabia has taken measures that, directly or

indirectly, have had the result of preventing beIN from obtaining Saudi legal

counsel to enforce its IP rights through civil enforcement procedures before Saudi

courts and tribunals, and thus Saudi Arabia has acted in a manner inconsistent

with Article 42 and Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement;

 

ii. Qatar has established that Saudi Arabia has not provided for criminal procedures

and penalties to be applied to beoutQ despite the evidence establishing prima

facie that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities under the jurisdiction of

Saudi Arabia, and thus Saudi Arabia has acted inconsistently with Article 61 of

the TRIPS Agreement;

 

iii. in the light of these findings, it is unnecessary to make findings on

Qatar's additional claims under Parts I and II of the TRIPS Agreement.

 

c. With respect to Saudi Arabia's invocation of the security exception in Article 73(b)(iii)

of the TRIPS Agreement:

 

i. the requirements for invoking Article 73(b)(iii) are met in relation to the

inconsistency with Article 42 and Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement arising

from the measures that, directly or indirectly, have had the result of preventing

beIN from obtaining Saudi legal counsel to enforce its IP rights through civil

enforcement procedures before Saudi courts and tribunals; and

 

ii. the requirements for invoking Article 73(b)(iii) are not met in relation to the

inconsistency with Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement arising from Saudi Arabia's

non-application of criminal procedures and penalties to beoutQ.

 

8.2. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations

assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of

nullification or impairment. The Panel concludes that, to the extent that the measures at issue are

inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement, they have nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Qatar

under that Agreement.

 

8.3. Pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU, the Panel recommends that Saudi Arabia bring its

measures into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

 

The Saudi state broke international law, as ruled by the governing body of that piece of international law. Not that this was ever in serious dispute.

 

Given the violation centred on the IP rights of a Premier League broadcaster, it would obviously be wildly inappropriate to allow that state to then purchase a Premier League football club. That's why the takeover will be rejected.

 

Here's Keyser with his usual waffle

[LV]

Doylems

[Judge Holden]

So much inaccurate reporting coming out about the WTO ruling that the Saudi state was facilitating the piracy. It clearly did not say that. The absolute shit state of journalism these days man..

 

Stirring the pot, innit.

[Shearergol]

Doylems

 

Penn's obsessed with calling fellow supporters that. Because you know, he's the only one who can be right. Everyone else is a complete idiot. Bravo Penn[/member] bravo! Give yourself a massive pat on the back.

[LV]

So much inaccurate reporting coming out about the WTO ruling that the Saudi state was facilitating the piracy. It clearly did not say that. The absolute shit state of journalism these days man..

 

Stirring the pot, innit.

 

Sure is.

[Whitley mag]

Is the confusion and interpretation of state involvement, due to the wording ‘prominent Saudi individuals’ used in report.

 

If you wanted to spin it you could conclude this refers to people in power within Saudi.

 

The trouble for the objectors is that it’s inconclusive, therefore I think we’ve avoided the smoking gun and slam dunk the papers claimed.

[Shearergol]

To be fair, I still don't think this is going through, but calling fellow fans complete idiots is a bit of a shitty thing to do.

[TRon]

Ha, imagine the Saudi's passing and Amanda failing. Still, sure the Reuben's could cover her share

 

I've kind of bought into the Staveley dream, she's stayed committed to the takeover despite Ashley burning her off first time of asking, and she became pen pals with Stifler, so for me she has to be part of the new set up. 

[Guest neesy111]

I think the takeover will go through but the PL could still block it if it didn't get the answers it was looking for as part of the tests.

[The Prophet]

I think the takeover will go through but the PL could still block it if it didn't get the answers it was looking for as part of the tests.

 

This.

[TRon]

 

The takeover at the moment

 

 

 

[Numbers]

He's got a track record of dropping in, posting his own take on things, calling everyone else thick but never answering people who challenge him on it.

[Shearergol]

He's got a track record of dropping in, posting his own take on things, calling everyone else thick but never answering people who challenge him on it.

 

At least he's consistent I guess. Did anyone take up his offer when he wanted to bet that Ashley was going to keep the club regardless?

[Judge Holden]

He's got a track record of dropping in, posting his own take on things, calling everyone else thick but never answering people who challenge him on it.

 

Is it Miguel Delaney?

[xLiaaamx]

Howay man Penn, Where's Redbird Capital? You promised we'd hear the name a lot.

[Guest godzilla]

I think the takeover will go through but the PL could still block it if it didn't get the answers it was looking for as part of the tests.

 

No doubt, hopefully the consortium are providing the answers. Having seen the conclusions of the report I think it will be hard to knock it back now as the report does not specifically link either the Saudi Government (or PIF for that matter) in the direct responsibility for the transmission of the piracy. I must admit I was expecting the report to do this and this to be the reason for why the Premier League would use the report to justify knocking back the takeover.

[Robster]

He's got a track record of dropping in, posting his own take on things, calling everyone else thick but never answering people who challenge him on it.

The biggest annoyance is that Penn doesn't enter into a conversation. I think it seem like they know what they're talking about but then never enters into a dialogue to back up their knowledge or opinion.

[STM]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

[Guest godzilla]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

[Guest chopey]

 

This bloke is obsessed for this not to go through, I bet he wouldn't feel the same if it was Leyton Orient

[gdm]

He's got a track record of dropping in, posting his own take on things, calling everyone else thick but never answering people who challenge him on it.

The biggest annoyance is that Penn doesn't enter into a conversation. I think it seem like they know what they're talking about but then never enters into a dialogue to back up their knowledge or opinion.

 

He’s definitely up there as one of the worst posters on here. Offers nothing

[STM]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

Well, I dont think there will be a hurdle bigger than this.

[Dokko]

Why would Staveley fail just because she’s taking Barclays to court. Absolute dog dirt. The only way she’d fail is if she’s committed a crime or hasn’t got enough cash.

 

She can't fail, because she can't be tested as her stake isn't high enough.