Judge Holden Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Snitches Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Snitches Got no problem with that, where being stitched up by journalists everyday. Think they’d be the last profession I’d have any sympathy for, they’ve been making people’s life hell for years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached. Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it. Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS. FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then. The Saudi state is reported to be directly implicated, MbS is the head of the Saudi state. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 It's against their interests to reject it, why would they be looking for reasons? Because of the backlash and possible legaL threats they will face. I don't think they give the slightest fuck about 'backlash' to be honest. To them, the league is a commodity to be sold, a substantial investment in that outweighs everything. They've proven that on multiple occasions. They might agree with the rest of the PL clubs that it will be against the interests of the Premier League itself to have one club with such powerful backing. They aren't exactly paupers that they think they can't survive with the money the Saudi deal will bring in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butcher Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 It's against their interests to reject it, why would they be looking for reasons? Because of the backlash and possible legaL threats they will face. I don't think they give the slightest fuck about 'backlash' to be honest. To them, the league is a commodity to be sold, a substantial investment in that outweighs everything. They've proven that on multiple occasions. They might agree with the rest of the PL clubs that it will be against the interests of the Premier League itself to have one club with such powerful backing. They aren't exactly paupers that they think they can't survive with the money the Saudi deal will bring in. It would make a mockery of their FFP rules if they did that. It would pretty much say that FFP does not apply. The Premier League allowed Jack Walker to buy the league with more money than anyone else. They allowed Abramovich to buy league with more money than anyone else, and they let Man City buy the league with more money than anyone else. The myth that they only want Man Utd to buy the league is wrong. Yes there is no doubt in my mind they would prefer for all these takeovers to have happened to Man Utd, including this one. However I don’t think they will disallow a takeover because one club has more money than another. Previous examples show this not to be the case, and even now FFP is supposed to exist to keep competition. If they rejected it because we have more money than anyone else then they would be sued, and they would admit that they don’t want competition from other clubs and admit that FFP rules basically do nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 His only sources are at Ashley's side, he admitted it the other day when he tweeted saying the seller had heard nothing but he had no idea about the buyer, or something like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 His only sources are at Ashley's side, he admitted it the other day when he tweeted saying the seller had heard nothing but he had no idea about the buyer, or something like that. Luke Edwards. Ryder probably hasn't got sources on either side of the fence tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Pretty bold statement that.... For all our sakes, I hope that his source is correct and this isn’t some made up ITK situation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 I struggle to think how the PL, in its reasonable opinion, could come to the opposite opinion of the French courts. I don’t know what the burden of proof was in that case but for the PL to come down on the other side of the fence would a little surprising to me. The PL need new money coming in, they want to expand their brand, they can reduce piracy, they can even justify their decision based on the current rules. Can you imagine if this doesn’t go through, PIF buy Roma or some other club and that league starts to challenge the PL and other new money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobloblaw Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached. Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it. Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS. FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then. The Saudi state is reported to be directly implicated, MbS is the head of the Saudi state. Not techincally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 If it were a big issue I wouldn't be surprised to see some sudden arrests of the ‘people responsible for BeoutQ’ in Saudi Arabia, à la the people arrested for Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. I'm still confident it will eventually go through. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Do we actually think the Saudis would be that bothered if this got turned down? They invest in so many areas I’m not certain they actually care that much if it is rejected. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prefabtoon Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Well guys I think the dream is over, So much shit has been thrown our way since the announcement. And now the world council have joined in. I was never comfortable with the thought of having this murdering leader as our owner. Even though we would have gotten rid of Ashley. So back to mike and Bruce now. The Dream is over. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Pretty bold statement that.... For all our sakes, I hope that his source is correct and this isn’t some made up ITK situation It's difficult to not get drawn into a statement like that but I don't know enough about him as a journalist to know if he's genuine or just another who's punting out tweets without substance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest awaymag Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached. Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it. Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS. FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then. The Saudi state is reported to be directly implicated, MbS is the head of the Saudi state. So the queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom, does that mean that anything attributed to the United Kingdom, is attributed to the Queen? So basically you are saying anything implicated illegal or anything else for that matter in the vast country of Saudi Arabia go back to MBS and by association PIF. Bit of a stretch! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 agreed, unironically! Since when has the buck stopped at the top? It stops at some lower circle of middle management hell! No one important is ever responsible for something! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Do we actually think the Saudis would be that bothered if this got turned down? They invest in so many areas I’m not certain they actually care that much if it is rejected. Disagree as I think them owning a club in the biggest league in the world opens up so many avenues for them both abroad and at home. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Pretty bold statement that.... For all our sakes, I hope that his source is correct and this isn’t some made up ITK situation It's difficult to not get drawn into a statement like that but I don't know enough about him as a journalist to know if he's genuine or just another who's punting out tweets without substance. He is usually pretty good to be fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Do we actually think the Saudis would be that bothered if this got turned down? They invest in so many areas I’m not certain they actually care that much if it is rejected. The UK government might be if it risked the billions the Saudis spend in this country every year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 In fairness to the PL, the piracy issue is complex and hugely controversial. No other takeover bid under the current regulations have had these kind of strings attached. Personally feel the length of time that's passed suggests there was negotiation and dialogue between the parties, which is encouraging, as opposed to them flat out rejecting it. Is it that complex though? The D&OT is in regards to the named directors and PIF, and the checks are against them. Now they are checking for criminal links or convictions. So the tests are. 1) Due the consortium have the funds for the purchase and funding of Newcastle for the next few years... Well that is a no brainer. 2) Do the D&O's have any criminal links or convictions? Right, this is not about hearsay, accusations by X, complaints of human rights abuse by Y. Do they or don't they have criminal links or convictions? 3) Have the D&O's made any false claims in the proposal to the premier league. Again if 2 is clear then 3 should be as well. It shouldn't be that difficult to run a background check on D&Os. I don't see why its taking 7 weeks plus and also why the media seem to think the premier league is open to accommodating hearsay and accusations. If there are no convictions then there is no case to answer and the rest is noise until someone brings it to court and one of the D&Os is found guilty! That’s incorrect you now don’t have to be convinced, the premier league can now use reasonable opinion if Saudi have been involved in piracy “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;“ People need to stop thinking the O&D test is a basic do you have money, have you had convictions etc, etc it’s not it’s far more stringent now, and there is a distinct possibility they the PIF will fail this test https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2020/05/27/e9b03ff0-4f09-443e-b934-64ada14679a5/2019-20-PL-Handbook-270520.pdf Okay so reasonable opinion of the board, have PIF, not the Saudi Government, been implicated any of these reports from WTO or BeIN? If they haven't then the answer is the same no case to answer. Nobody is naive enough to think that the Saudis didn't have a major hand in BeOut piracy (probably) but unless evidence points to PIF or the directors being involved then it surely it can't be held against the takeover. IMO The Chairman of PIF is MbS, FFS. FFS is MBS named in any of the reports then. The Saudi state is reported to be directly implicated, MbS is the head of the Saudi state. So the queen is the head of state of the United Kingdom, does that mean that anything attributed to the United Kingdom, is attributed to the Queen? So basically you are saying anything implicated illegal or anything else for that matter in the vast country of Saudi Arabia go back to MBS and by association PIF. Bit of a stretch! It's a bit of a stretch to compare a constitutional monarchy to an absolute monarchy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 See all the journalists who commented on the story breaking last night are all saying they still think it will be passed by the premier league. Kind of seems it was scaremongering more than anything. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 Pretty bold statement that.... For all our sakes, I hope that his source is correct and this isn’t some made up ITK situation It's difficult to not get drawn into a statement like that but I don't know enough about him as a journalist to know if he's genuine or just another who's punting out tweets without substance. He is usually pretty good to be fair. All I know about him was him being first to report a breakdown in relationship between Ashley and Rafa and that was proven correct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Holden Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 See all the journalists who commented on the story breaking last night are all saying they still think it will be passed by the premier league. Kind of seems it was scaremongering more than anything. Have Craig Hope and Luke Edwards? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted May 27, 2020 Share Posted May 27, 2020 See all the journalists who commented on the story breaking last night are all saying they still think it will be passed by the premier league. Kind of seems it was scaremongering more than anything. Have Craig Hope and Luke Edwards? Yeah, Edwards last night and Hope this morning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts