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

[Whitley mag]

This looks like an interesting article for anyone with a telegraph subscription.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/06/28/special-report-complex-relationship-saudi-arabia-uae-could-soon

 

Has some interesting insights into MBS I suppose, but the article itself comes to some weird conclusions.  For instance claiming that he might not be better than Mike Ashley for the club because it's unlikely he'd spend well over £1 billion of his cash on transfers ?.

 

Quite contradictory at times as far as the quotes and conclusions go.

 

Aye can’t remember big mike spending a billion on transfers.

[Dr Jinx]

This looks like an interesting article for anyone with a telegraph subscription.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/06/28/special-report-complex-relationship-saudi-arabia-uae-could-soon

 

Has some interesting insights into MBS I suppose, but the article itself comes to some weird conclusions.  For instance claiming that he might not be better than Mike Ashley for the club because it's unlikely he'd spend well over £1 billion of his cash on transfers ?.

 

Quite contradictory at times as far as the quotes and conclusions go.

 

Aye can’t remember big mike spending a billion on transfers.

 

He was going to, but then Keegan got greedy and asked for 2bn. That was the exact moment Ashley fell out of love with football. “It’s just become too commercial” he’s rumoured to have said at the time.

[FloydianMag]

A certain A Shearer will have the national airwaves at prime time tonight. He would be doing us a massive favour by launching into a full on pro takeover, how long does the premier league need to make a decision rant tonight.

 

And I’m not talking about some half arsed they just need to make a decision either way as it’s gone to long. I’m talking how can the premier league possibly reject a takeover which fans are desperate to happen. Use the opportunity to reinforce the neglect of the club by current regime and fully spell out how this needs to happen for the club and city.

 

Over to you Alan don’t miss the opportunity to turn the screw on masters and co.

 

He won’t.

 

He might.

 

He won’t, he works for the BBC and they and their presenters have to remain impartial.

 

He’s a pundit who’s paid to give his opinion, there isn’t anything to stop him giving his point of view on takeover.

 

To give opinions on games, that’s all not to take up the cause of NUFC by having a rant at the PL. He’ll hardly mention the takeover other than in general terms, i.e, the club is in limbo etc.

[mrmojorisin75]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

[Guest chopey]

I would to see Shearer back at the club in a Kenny Dalglish type role, one of the many things I hate about Ashley is the fact he cut ties with all our former stars apart from a couple of arse kisses.

[Jackie Broon]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

 

PL Handbook:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:

 

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

 

F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the

actual sentence imposed);

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)

 

Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297

 

Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9

 

Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1

 

Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

[mrmojorisin75]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

 

PL Handbook:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:

 

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

 

F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the

actual sentence imposed);

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)

 

Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297

 

Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9

 

Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1

 

Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

 

right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me

 

F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process

F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described"

 

wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test

 

 

[Guest chopey]

[Ikon]

Naah. Too early..

[Newcastle Fan]

Another week, another "its happening this week"

[1964]

Thats not even news, it literally says nothing

[Guest godzilla]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own f***ing product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

 

PL Handbook:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:

 

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

 

F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the

actual sentence imposed);

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)

 

Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297

 

Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9

 

Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1

 

Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

 

right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me

 

F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process

F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described"

 

wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test

 

How would not doing enough to stop piracy constitute an offence though?, there has yet to be any conclusive finding (i.e. the WTO report, French court) directly blaming the Saudi state (or PIF) in the direct transmission of the piracy streams.

[nufcnick]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own f***ing product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

 

PL Handbook:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:

 

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

 

F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the

actual sentence imposed);

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)

 

Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297

 

Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9

 

Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1

 

Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

 

right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me

 

F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process

F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described"

 

wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test

 

How would not doing enough to stop piracy constitute an offence though?, there has yet to be any conclusive finding (i.e. the WTO report, French court) directly blaming the Saudi state (or PIF) in the direct transmission of the piracy streams.

The bit that worries me is there doesn’t have to be any conclusive finding

“F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board“

[Guest godzilla]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own f***ing product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

 

PL Handbook:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:

 

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

 

F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the

actual sentence imposed);

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)

 

Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297

 

Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9

 

Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1

 

Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

 

right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me

 

F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process

F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described"

 

wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test

 

How would not doing enough to stop piracy constitute an offence though?, there has yet to be any conclusive finding (i.e. the WTO report, French court) directly blaming the Saudi state (or PIF) in the direct transmission of the piracy streams.

The bit that worries me is there doesn’t have to be any conclusive finding

“F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board“

 

A reasonable opinion has to by law, be made from factual evidence.

[Jackie Broon]

The frustration is that it is a "confidential" process not capable of influence by third parties, yet is openly being influenced by a tv company. The number 1 priority should be the fact they have a pathetic make up the numbers owner in ashley, and that a more competitive and properly run club can be made. Instead the league, yet again and since the early 90s, demonstrates itself to be the absolute bitch of any tv company with money.

 

nah not buying that like, the test itself specifically has provision for piracy issues and one of their own commercial partners had a claim against SA for pirating their own fucking product man

 

it's the letters from MP's, khashoggis mrs etc. that extend beyond their remit that's been troubling to me, the piracy thing is 100% legit and they shouldn't give up from their pov imo

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test. If the PL were to decide that such an offence has been committed the director simply fails the test, any requirement of a settlement to resolve that would be straying into very dodgy territory for the PL with the level of scrutiny there could be of this.

 

IMO there seems to be more of a basis for the test to be failed in relation to Khashoggi (the CIA reportedly concluded that MbS was directly responsible for ordering the murder) or for the hacking of Jeff Bezos' phone via a message from MbS himself, both of which would be criminal offences in this country with sentences of over 12 months. A government failing to crack down of piracy doesn't seem likely to constitute a criminal offence.

 

where have you got this from?  the test rules clearly state that the PL can bin off an application if they believe someone is guilty of an offence, not even convicted in another country or whatever, just in their own judgement

 

it's been the reason for a lot of pessimism in this thread tbh

 

Their reasonable opinion still has to be a legally sound one, and it actually has to be an act equivalent to an offence in this country.

 

Sorry, it's not actually offences under the Digital Economy Act, the specific offence referenced in the PL handbook is 'Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment' contrary to s.297 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

 

again can you specify your source and link it because in the 3 or whatever months since this broke you're the first person i've seen to suggest this is the case

 

PL Handbook:

 

F.1. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

 

F.1.5. he has a Conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:

 

F.1.5.1. in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed;

 

F.1.5.2. in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

 

F.1.5.3. in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the

actual sentence imposed);

 

F.1.6. in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

Appendix 1: Schedule of Offences (Rule F.1.5.3)

 

Dishonestly receiving a programme broadcast from within the UK with intent to avoid payment - Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s.297

 

Admitting spectators to watch a football match at unlicensed premises - Football Spectators Act 1989, s.9

 

Persons subject to a banning order (as defined) - Football Spectators Act 1989 Schedule 1

 

Ticket touting – football tickets - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.166

 

right, sure, but there's enough wiggle room in the wording of that for them to do what they want if you ask me

 

F.1.5.2. could very well supercede F.1.5.3. if they feel they've acted dishonestly in the process

F.1.6. itself doesn't seem to say only these offences, just "would constitute an offence of the sort described"

 

wiggle room imo, certainly doesn't clearly state the following as you suggest

 

But the issue of piracy has to equate to a criminal offence by the prospective director under the Digital Economy Act to influence the test

 

 

 

But it has to actually amount to something that would be an offence, failure of the government to act to prevent piracy would not be an offence in this country as far as I'm aware.

 

This is a £300m deal, they’re not going to just refuse it without sound legal justification for doing so, PIF and/or Ashley would have the option of pursuing financial redress from the PL through the courts, possibly for loss of income and/or reputational damage.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

Still 100% positive here!

[jarralad]

If it was going to get turned down it would have been by now, the PL are getting everything they want out of it before giving it the green light.

[BirtleyMag]

Biggest factor for me is that the government want it to happen. All the noises from journalists have been that this will pass eventually...

 

Of course the longer it goes on, the more people start to doubt it’ll not go through. It’s a disgrace that the premier league have allowed this to go on for nearly 3 months though.

[Wilson]

Aye I still feel it's just a matter of time.  I do think there's some substance to claims that it may have been provisionally kb'd until they got some concrete assurances about cracking down on the piracy.

 

Slowly slowly getting there, I hope.

[TRon]

Just wondering, what link has the Sheffield Utd owner got to the Saudi regime?  I'm assuming that he is less representative of the state than PIF would be. Only asking because there was talk about a conflict of interest if we got took over by PIF.

[Lazarus]

I think its done.

 

My thinking is based on a tiny thread of evidence, but i think its done.

 

The toons website has been updated and as far as i can see, the only thing that couldve been changed is the registrant details.

 

The DNS hasnt changed, the name server appears the same so its got to be a change in owner of the website.

[Judge Holden]

I think its done.

 

My thinking is based on a tiny thread of evidence, but i think its done.

 

The toons website has been updated and as far as i can see, the only thing that couldve been changed is the registrant details.

 

The DNS hasnt changed, the name server appears the same so its got to be a change in owner of the website.

 

Was just telling my lass the same.

[Montey]

 

The DNS hasnt changed, the name server appears the same so its got to be a change in owner of the website.

 

It could have just been a registration renewal.

[Decky]

It looks like it was registered for 25 years in 1997 but it was updated yesterday. But wouldn't the registration details be NUFC as a company rather than someone in specific?

 

Relevant dates:

Registered on: 25-Aug-1997

Expiry date: 25-Aug-2022

Last updated: 27-Jun-2020

 

 

[Lazarus]

 

The DNS hasnt changed, the name server appears the same so its got to be a change in owner of the website.

 

It could have just been a registration renewal.

 

Definately not - otherwise the renewal date would be 27/06/XX - the XX being whichever year it was renewed to.