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

Penn

Penn

Posted
Posted

 

Bein  :lol: "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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankles Bennett

Ankles Bennett

Posted
Posted

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.

This ruling simply states that the KSA breached international law prima facie That means on the face of it.  In other words they have stopped short of saying the KSA conclusively breeched international law so I would say it's not particularly damning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest godzilla

Guest godzilla

Posted
Posted

 

Bein  :lol: "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.

 

:cheesy: ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites
FloydianMag

FloydianMag

Posted
Posted

 

Bein  :lol: "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.

 

When the deal goes through you’ll still be in denial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest awaymag

Guest awaymag

Posted
Posted

WTO report will be the smoking gun......

 

Uhm.........

 

Stavely will fail the directors test.......

 

Uhm............

 

BeIN will throw their toys out of the pram

 

Uhm..........

 

Someone send another letter in...........

 

10 weeks later............

 

Uhm.............

 

Just make a f*ckin decision PL!

 

PS, never seen so many journalist make utter dicks of themselves this morning when fake outcomes of WTO report were circulated- there is no integrity of checking sources any more, its all about being first and getting the clicks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
STM

STM

Posted
Posted

I definitely feel that the Qataris have lost this. The tone in their statement is like a petulant child.

 

We should find out in the coming hours, what bearing, if any at all, that this WTO report has had on their decision making.

 

I just dont think the PL will have learned anything new from this.

 

It's possible that the PL are waiting for football to restart, just to take the heat off themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RS

RS

Posted
Posted

SA are definitely going to have make public concessions for the takeover to go through, something they are not used to doing. In the balance.

Closed it down last august?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Logic

Mr Logic

Posted
Posted

No idea who he's heard that from...

 

    Hearing the WTO report condemns Saudi Arabia in the strongest possible terms over piracy... does not bode well, but what do I know, I’m not a lawyer?

    — Luke Edwards (@LukeEdwardsTele) June 16, 2020

 

Not much of a journalist either unless contrarian sensationalism was what you studied, then I guess your pretty good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Armchair Pundit

Armchair Pundit

Posted
Posted

So were Bein the only bidders the last time around for the tv rights? If not, why would it matter what they choose to do next time round? Up to them if they bid on it or not. Moreover, what was the criteria for picking them if there was more than them bidding last time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy

Andy

Posted
Posted

Not sure how I feel about this at the moment. There's both negative and positive spin to take away from this report, and neither perspective is more accurate than the other. If it's a key factor in the premier league's decision I'd say this takeover is very much on a knife-edge at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if they told them to go away and come back in a year when they've done more to crack down on piracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest awaymag

Guest awaymag

Posted
Posted

Not sure how I feel about this at the moment. There's both negative and positive spin to take away from this report, and neither perspective is more accurate than the other. If it's a key factor in the premier league's decision I'd say this takeover is very much on a knife-edge at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if they told them to go away and come back in a year when they've done more to crack down on piracy.

 

LOL, we haven't the balls to make a decision so would you mind awfully, if we ask you to come back this time next year!  Aye nah bother Masters, see you in 2021!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest godzilla

Guest godzilla

Posted
Posted

Not sure how I feel about this at the moment. There's both negative and positive spin to take away from this report, and neither perspective is more accurate than the other. If it's a key factor in the premier league's decision I'd say this takeover is very much on a knife-edge at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if they told them to go away and come back in a year when they've done more to crack down on piracy.

 

How can you knock back a company unless it is legally established as being directly involved in the actual transmission of the piracy (neither has the government for that matter). The WTO report or the French court have not been able to establish this. Don't think PIF would accept the decision you suggest as I think they would be straight into court. You mention piracy and the crack down on it, however the Premier League can't even control that within the UK through IPTV.

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