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

[Guest godzilla]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

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

 

In what way do you think it will stop the takeover though?

[marki]

Im so confused NUFC.COM saying this...

 

WTO report released:

Sticking point / bargaining tool?

 

Tuesday saw publication of the World Trade Organisation report into TV piracy,  seen as pivotal to the mooted takeover of Newcastle United by a consortium including Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF).

 

As expected, the WTO found evidence of Saudi Arabian state involvement in the beoutQ TV service, with crown prince Mohammad bin Salman a key player in both PIF and the Saudi government.

 

That undermines undertakings made by the PIF/PCP/Reubens consortium to the Premier League, but puts pressure on the Saudis to make concessions in order for the takeover to proceed, rather than for the PL to simply reject their application.

 

PS: Separate to the WTO / PIF situation are claims that the eligibility of Amanda Staveley to be a PL owner could be called into question, something related to her current High Court action.

 

I don’t know where to start but are we moving on to Staveley now, what a crock of s***.

            ay tomorow we,ll be knee deep in international terrorism dabate..just get this cunting takeover done ffs

[Penn]

Just reading the meat of the report. My god, it's even more damning than I thought.

 

7.159. The Panel considers that, in the absence of effective refutation, the above evidence would

suffice to substantiate Qatar's assertion that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings with

screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of certain 2018 World Cup matches.

 

7.160. The Panel regards Saudi Arabia's assertion that "[t]he Government of Saudi Arabia does not

promote or authorize screenings of beoutQ broadcasts" as insufficient to rebut the evidence

provided by Qatar. Saudi Arabia has not contested the authenticity of this evidence or challenged

any aspect of Qatar's characterization of it. Insofar as Saudi Arabia's assertion is meant to

distinguish the central "Government of Saudi Arabia" from the municipalities, it suffices to refer to

the applicable principles of state responsibility that apply in WTO dispute settlement.

 

7.163. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings

with screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of 2018 World Cup matches.

 

Thus the WTO concludes that the government of Saudi Arabia promoted illegal beoutQ broadcasts.

 

It's over.

[Judge Holden]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

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

 

In what way do you think it will stop the takeover though?

 

He doesn't.

[Guest godzilla]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

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

 

In what way do you think it will stop the takeover though?

 

He doesn't.

 

Wasn't asking you 

[Guest godzilla]

Just reading the meat of the report. My god, it's even more damning than I thought.

 

7.159. The Panel considers that, in the absence of effective refutation, the above evidence would

suffice to substantiate Qatar's assertion that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings with

screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of certain 2018 World Cup matches.

 

7.160. The Panel regards Saudi Arabia's assertion that "[t]he Government of Saudi Arabia does not

promote or authorize screenings of beoutQ broadcasts" as insufficient to rebut the evidence

provided by Qatar. Saudi Arabia has not contested the authenticity of this evidence or challenged

any aspect of Qatar's characterization of it. Insofar as Saudi Arabia's assertion is meant to

distinguish the central "Government of Saudi Arabia" from the municipalities, it suffices to refer to

the applicable principles of state responsibility that apply in WTO dispute settlement.

 

7.163. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings

with screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of 2018 World Cup matches.

 

Thus the WTO concludes that the government of Saudi Arabia promoted illegal beoutQ broadcasts.

 

It's over.

 

;D

[marki]

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.

            i thought you would make an appearance today, go crawl back under your rock

[Judge Holden]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

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

 

In what way do you think it will stop the takeover though?

 

He doesn't.

 

Wasn't asking you 

 

What's your problem?

[1964]

That's definitely Miguel Delaney,  the journalist, because he can't spell pen

[Guest godzilla]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

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

 

In what way do you think it will stop the takeover though?

 

He doesn't.

 

Wasn't asking you 

 

What's your problem?

 

Stop stalking man go away

[Magpie]

Just reading the meat of the report. My god, it's even more damning than I thought.

 

7.159. The Panel considers that, in the absence of effective refutation, the above evidence would

suffice to substantiate Qatar's assertion that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings with

screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of certain 2018 World Cup matches.

 

7.160. The Panel regards Saudi Arabia's assertion that "[t]he Government of Saudi Arabia does not

promote or authorize screenings of beoutQ broadcasts" as insufficient to rebut the evidence

provided by Qatar. Saudi Arabia has not contested the authenticity of this evidence or challenged

any aspect of Qatar's characterization of it. Insofar as Saudi Arabia's assertion is meant to

distinguish the central "Government of Saudi Arabia" from the municipalities, it suffices to refer to

the applicable principles of state responsibility that apply in WTO dispute settlement.

 

7.163. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings

with screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of 2018 World Cup matches.

 

Thus the WTO concludes that the government of Saudi Arabia promoted illegal beoutQ broadcasts.

 

It's over.

 

Someone going to tell him that's got nothing to do with the EPL?

[Stifler]

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.

I’m going to guess that she needs to be tested as she will be classed as a director.

In saying this I have already pointed out how she won’t be failed.

For her to be failed by it, the FCA would have to take action against her and/or a court of law. Neither have happened and she is classed as director of various other companies which she wouldn’t have been able too if the FCA or a court has deemed that she has done anything like what the Barclays lawyer insinuated that she had in his line of questioning.

[Guest]

We filthy rich yet?

[Judge Holden]

If this doesnt stop the takeover, nothing will.

 

How?

 

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

 

In what way do you think it will stop the takeover though?

 

He doesn't.

 

Wasn't asking you 

 

What's your problem?

 

Stop stalking man go away

 

What are you on about?

[Guest chopey]

What a load of rubbish, the point is that there is an admission of piracy and an agreement that PIF did nothing to prevent it, Qatar could lose the rights next year and start broadcasting illegally themselves, this whole report is the start of legislation agreement in that area to prevent this happening again not to stop the takeover of NUFC.

 

Its done man, signed and sealed.

[marki]

What a load of rubbish, the point is that there is an admission of piracy and an agreement that PIF did nothing to prevent it, Qatar could lose the rights next year and start broadcasting illegally themselves, this whole report is the start of legislation agreement in that area to prevent this happening again not to stop the takeover of NUFC.

 

Its done man, signed and sealed.

            penn disagrees with you simpl because he enjoys being a prick

[Unbelievable]

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 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.

 

Have you read the conclusion yourself? The first bit you bolded is negated by section 8.1.c.i. The second bit about Saudi Arabia not having "provided 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" is not, but the investigation panel's final recommendation is "that Saudi Arabia bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement."

 

That's a small slap on the wrist at the very most. I can't see the PL using such a weak conclusion as grounds for a rejection. The KSA, let alone PIF, or anyone directly involved with the NUFC bid is not even close to being accused of being involved with or facilitating piracy. All the report concludes is that intellectual property holders should get access to the SA justice system to file a complaint and have their case considered.

 

[Scotty66]

 

Bein  "If you don't do what we want you won't have our money anymore"

[marki]

The pl should get this signed of now , any further delay just proves they are delaying for their own benefit, let alone incabable of making decisions on their own

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

Just reading the meat of the report. My god, it's even more damning than I thought.

 

7.159. The Panel considers that, in the absence of effective refutation, the above evidence would

suffice to substantiate Qatar's assertion that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings with

screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of certain 2018 World Cup matches.

 

7.160. The Panel regards Saudi Arabia's assertion that "[t]he Government of Saudi Arabia does not

promote or authorize screenings of beoutQ broadcasts" as insufficient to rebut the evidence

provided by Qatar. Saudi Arabia has not contested the authenticity of this evidence or challenged

any aspect of Qatar's characterization of it. Insofar as Saudi Arabia's assertion is meant to

distinguish the central "Government of Saudi Arabia" from the municipalities, it suffices to refer to

the applicable principles of state responsibility that apply in WTO dispute settlement.

 

7.163. Based on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that Saudi Arabia promoted public gatherings

with screenings of beoutQ's unauthorized broadcasts of 2018 World Cup matches.

 

Thus the WTO concludes that the government of Saudi Arabia promoted illegal beoutQ broadcasts.

 

It's over.

 

RedBird Capital - a name we're about to hear a lot more of in the next few days.

 

Does it say anything about RedBird Capital in that report Penn?

[Guest godzilla]

 

Bein  "If you don't do what we want you won't have our money anymore"

 

Trying to use blackmail that will go down well 

[Whitley mag]

NEW: BeIN respond to WTO ruling

 

This from the Financial Times.

 

"These are not allegations,” said Sophie Jordan, general counsel at beIN Media Group. “This is a decision from one of the most important international tribunals.

 

and

 

David Sugden, director of corporate affairs at beIN Media Group.“The next cycle of rights we will not bid anything near what we currently [pay],” he said, adding that if Saudi Arabia secured a place at English football’s top table, that would be “letting the fox into the henhouse”.

 

It adds that BeIN will 'reconsider' bidding for the TV rights if the takeover goes ahead despite the WTO ruling.

 

 

They are threatening not to bid for next tv rights, but in same breath saying they won’t be paying as much.

 

Will the prem bow to them or call their bluff.

 

This is what it all boils down to.

[LV]

 

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

 

The same FIFA who were complicit with Qatar’s iffy World Cup bid sticking up for mates who may know where the skeletons are. Colour me shocked.

[Guest godzilla]

 

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

 

The same FIFA who were complicit with Qatar’s iffy World Cup bid sticking up for mates who may know where the skeletons are. Colour me shocked.

 

[Penn]

 

Bein  "If you don't do what we want you won't have our money anymore"

 

Imagine you ran a TV network, and you bid for and won an exclusive contract to broadcast a particular franchise to, say, 200 million people.

 

Then, after the fact, it turned out that you can actually only broadcast (and sell advertising) to 150 million people.

 

Would that influence the amount of money you'd be willing to pay for those broadcast rights, do you think?

 

That's the principle being invoked here.