Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

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

Jinky Jim

by Jinky Jim
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Carrick18

Guest Carrick18

Posted
Posted

 

 

Funny enough he’s just tweeted this

Right, but it suggests Edwards simply hasn't read the fall-out of the French case.

 

BeIN did not make a sufficient case that the Saudi state were involved directly with beoutQ.

 

The court agreed there was evidence suffice that Arabsat satellites were being used, but convicting them on that basis is like charging a landlord for a tenant parking a stolen car on the driveway. It's not really the landlord's business to know. I think it's likely holding it up while they assess their options legally, and I don't doubt for a minute that Saudi Arabia were involved in beoutQ, but a belief and a conviction are very different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kanji

Kanji

Posted
Posted

 

my nerves are simple, somehow this isn't approved and we are stuck with MA.

 

Seems very unlikely.

 

If I wasn't a Newcastle United supporter I would KNOW it will be approved, it would never occur to me that it wouldn't be approved.

 

That includes if I was a Sunderland FC supporter, I would KNOW it would be approved . . though I would probably continually say the opposite !!!

 

I honestly believe in my mind and heart that it will get approved, the tests will be tightened, and Saudi Arabia will show a heavy handed corrective measure as it relates to piracy in their country. Further, I’d imagine a fuck off offer to bid for PL rights in the future as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SUPERTOON

SUPERTOON

Posted
Posted

 

my nerves are simple, somehow this isn't approved and we are stuck with MA.

 

Seems very unlikely.

 

If I wasn't a Newcastle United supporter I would KNOW it will be approved, it would never occur to me that it wouldn't be approved.

 

That includes if I was a Sunderland FC supporter, I would KNOW it would be approved . . though I would probably continually say the opposite !!!

 

I honestly believe in my mind and heart that it will get approved, the tests will be tightened, and Saudi Arabia will show a heavy handed corrective measure as it relates to piracy in their country. Further, I’d imagine a fuck off offer to bid for PL rights in the future as well.

 

I just think if it was going to be rejected it would have by now, the premier league has know about the piracy issue for a while now, I think they are working with the Saudi to get something out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted

 

my nerves are simple, somehow this isn't approved and we are stuck with MA.

 

Seems very unlikely.

 

If I wasn't a Newcastle United supporter I would KNOW it will be approved, it would never occur to me that it wouldn't be approved.

 

That includes if I was a Sunderland FC supporter, I would KNOW it would be approved . . though I would probably continually say the opposite !!!

 

I honestly believe in my mind and heart that it will get approved, the tests will be tightened, and Saudi Arabia will show a heavy handed corrective measure as it relates to piracy in their country. Further, I’d imagine a fuck off offer to bid for PL rights in the future as well.

 

I just think if it was going to be rejected it would have by now, the premier league has know about the piracy issue for a while now, I think they are working with the Saudi to get something out of it.

 

Agree. It's taking a bit longer due to the complications, plus with the delicate nature of PIF being a Saudi investment fund. Taking their time probably will allow some of the heat to be taken out of the situation as well, but it seems too far gone to be rejected by now. They would probably have vetoed it much earlier if they were going down that route.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raconteur

Raconteur

Posted
Posted

What is the burden of proof for establishing those rules though? I'm sure it's easy to make a case that Sheffield United could be "indirectly" influenced by MBS under rule F1.2 - but do Stavely/PIF have to prove they're not in a position to influence them, or do the complainants have to convinve the FA with proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandy

Wandy

Posted
Posted

It's not the piracy issue that might block this, it's sections F.1.2 & F.1.3 seen above in the O&D test, and whether they think MBS would be able to directly/indirectly hold power or influence over Sheffield United.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LV

LV

Posted
Posted

Remember, these tests are a collaborative effort. It’s not as if the papers are submitted and the PL go away and decide in secret. They are going back to PCP et al with questions for clarification. Which means they are working on putting it through. If there had been any massive stumbling blocks it would have already failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
relámpago blanco

relámpago blanco

Posted
Posted

It's not the piracy issue that might block this, it's sections F.1.2 & F.1.3 seen above in the O&D test, and whether they think MBS would be able to directly/indirectly hold power or influence over Sheffield United.

He could hold influence over anyone tbh as he has an entire fairly advanced military at his disposal

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kanji

Kanji

Posted
Posted

a massive what if hypothetical, just assuming that MBS would be so involved that he'd phone up his cousin and make him do something to lose to NUFC. I'd imagine if he really wanted to influence him, he'd just tell him to sell his stake :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixelphish

Pixelphish

Posted
Posted

a massive what if hypothetical, just assuming that MBS would be so involved that he'd phone up his cousin and make him do something to lose to NUFC. I'd imagine if he really wanted to influence him, he'd just tell him to sell his stake :lol:

 

Pretty much my thought. If it was going to be a problem his share in the club would already be gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandy

Wandy

Posted
Posted

I mean, it's perfectly plausible for the PL to think that MBS may one day do something like that. But are they really within their rights to say this is enough reason to block it? It's a sort of bizarre "pre-crime" situation that would surely hold no water if legally challenged. And if this was so important to the PL, why dont they just point blank refuse to let someone own a club if another family member has already beaten them to it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
woppy101

woppy101

Posted
Posted

a massive what if hypothetical, just assuming that MBS would be so involved that he'd phone up his cousin and make him do something to lose to NUFC. I'd imagine if he really wanted to influence him, he'd just tell him to sell his stake :lol:

There is no way any owner could walk into any dressing from and tell the players to lose a game without it getting out, it would be on the front page of all the papers the next day and teams docked points sharpish quite soon after and the premier league could even withdraw the right to play in the league

Link to post
Share on other sites
TooonDoom

TooonDoom

Posted
Posted

a massive what if hypothetical, just assuming that MBS would be so involved that he'd phone up his cousin and make him do something to lose to NUFC. I'd imagine if he really wanted to influence him, he'd just tell him to sell his stake :lol:

 

Pretty much my thought. If it was going to be a problem his share in the club would already be gone.

 

Indeed so given he still owns it no influence QED.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...