Guest reefatoon Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Straighten your glasses up man Nicolson, you wonky lugged whopper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Interesting stuff from Jacobs, so even if rejected we could still have to wait through an appeals protest. Probably best to take a break from it if its bothering you, it could be a while yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penn Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 It's crazy that the Premier League's lawyers are incapable of understanding that the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is a "sEpArAte lEgAl eNtItY" and all this discussion about piracy is therefore completely irrelevant to their own owners and directors test! Really disappointing actually - if only they had the expertise present on this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 It's crazy that the Premier League's lawyers are incapable of understanding that the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is a "sEpArAte lEgAl eNtItY" and all this discussion about piracy is therefore completely irrelevant to their own owners and directors test! Really disappointing actually - if only they had the expertise present on this forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Also if true, I’m not sure how the premier league can request to speak to a Saudi minister if he isn’t apart of the PIF. The PL seem to be backing themselves in to a corner and shouldn’t over estimate the leverage they have. It said he was on the board but likely not involved in the deal didn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Important line here ? Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA. i disagree, a major part of the WTO finding was SA blocking legal redress in their own country for violations That doesn't seem to be what he was referring to, he didn't say 'enforce rights', it seems to me that he's referring to beIN not being able to broadcast in SA. "to take their rights" were the words he used, guess we interpret it differently I can see that it could be interpreted either way, although taking rights implies more to me the process of actually using those rights to broadcast. Notwithstanding that, I can't see how a government failing to take action could amount to an actual offence that could, within remit of the O&D test, result in disqualification of a director. The PL seem to be acting beyond the scope of the test purely due to their commercial interests. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting The Football Law opinion indicates that Saudi and Qatari lawyers accept that PIF is a separate legal entity. ∆ On 2 June 2020 Qatari- and Saudi- based lawyers provided confirmation to this author that KSA PIF is a separate legal entity. I think it's pretty clear that's not the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Also if true, I’m not sure how the premier league can request to speak to a Saudi minister if he isn’t apart of the PIF. The PL seem to be backing themselves in to a corner and shouldn’t over estimate the leverage they have. It said he was on the board but likely not involved in the deal didn't it? Oh he is? My bad then. Can’t imagine the Saudis will be thrilled with having ministers grilled by the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheInfiniteOdyssey Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 We are totally fucked if this stretches on into next season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 It's crazy that the Premier League's lawyers are incapable of understanding that the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is a "sEpArAte lEgAl eNtItY" and all this discussion about piracy is therefore completely irrelevant to their own owners and directors test! Really disappointing actually - if only they had the expertise present on this forum. Come on now Luke, calm down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 It's crazy that the Premier League's lawyers are incapable of understanding that the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is a "sEpArAte lEgAl eNtItY" and all this discussion about piracy is therefore completely irrelevant to their own owners and directors test! Really disappointing actually - if only they had the expertise present on this forum. Come on now Luke, calm down. Assume it's just admins who can see user IPs? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 It's crazy that the Premier League's lawyers are incapable of understanding that the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia is a "sEpArAte lEgAl eNtItY" and all this discussion about piracy is therefore completely irrelevant to their own owners and directors test! Really disappointing actually - if only they had the expertise present on this forum. Come on now Luke, calm down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting No, didn't say he was linked to the piracy, it said he was the one who issued the Saudi response to the WTO report (i.e. email-gate) I'm pretty sure this was the same guy named in the WTO report specifically mind Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting No, didn't say he was linked to the piracy, it said he was the one who issued the Saudi response to the WTO report (i.e. email-gate) I'm pretty sure this was the same guy named in the WTO report specifically mind Pretty sure nobody was named in the report as being specifically linked to the piracy. It only mentioned Saudi parties with no actual names . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Some Scottish MP trying his best to scupper the deal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Cans Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Important line here ? Reckon that concludes the matter. Only a matter of time. Agreed. Cat out of the bag there for me. have SA said they'll allow prosecution of people in their courts? cause if they don't then i could see that being a major issue based on that That seems to be referring to lifting the ban on beIN broadcasting in SA. If that's what they're requiring they may be on incredibly dodgy ground, because there's certainly no offence involved in not allowing beIN to broadcast in SA. i disagree, a major part of the WTO finding was SA blocking legal redress in their own country for violations That doesn't seem to be what he was referring to, he didn't say 'enforce rights', it seems to me that he's referring to beIN not being able to broadcast in SA. "to take their rights" were the words he used, guess we interpret it differently Just watched that clip, pretty sure the words he says are "..and to allow sports rights-holders to protect their rights". Unclear what he actually means, but perhaps it just means they (The PL) wants to see that SA are committed to stopping piracy, and that action is/will be taken if it happens again, as up to now, they have seemingly done little to stop it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awaymag Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Cans LOL, so the ODT test has been sort of shelved and the whole thing has become an open gallery of shit throwing and the consortium cannot respond as they are bound by the NDAs. It is a farce and for 3 months now, NUFC and it supporters have had constant shit and baiting thrown at them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting No, didn't say he was linked to the piracy, it said he was the one who issued the Saudi response to the WTO report (i.e. email-gate) I'm pretty sure this was the same guy named in the WTO report specifically mind Pretty sure nobody was named in the report as being specifically linked to the piracy. It only mentioned Saudi parties with no actual names . there was 100% a SA individual named in the report EDIT: i'm wrong was a different guy i think, Saud Al-Qahtani Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Cans LOL, so the ODT test has been sort of shelved and the whole thing has become an open gallery of shit throwing and the consortium cannot respond as they are bound by the NDAs. It is a farce and for 3 months now, NUFC and it supporters have had constant shit and baiting thrown at them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Henry loves us! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting No, didn't say he was linked to the piracy, it said he was the one who issued the Saudi response to the WTO report (i.e. email-gate) I'm pretty sure this was the same guy named in the WTO report specifically mind Pretty sure nobody was named in the report as being specifically linked to the piracy. It only mentioned Saudi parties with no actual names . there was 100% a SA individual named in the report EDIT: i'm wrong was a different guy i think, Saud Al-Qahtani MBS' Himmler Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 It's clear to me the PL are giving PIF a path to allow the takeover otherwise it would've been rejected by now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts