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

[mouldy_uk]

 

Loads of new pages today

 

This is proper exciting

 

it beats talking about Nazis, though I bet they will be back at some point today 

 

 

[Ketsbaia]

People really aren't understanding this at all. Going on as if the contents of this report are some sort of surprise to the parties involved and like this is a moment of revelation because the press can finally read and quote it. The PL and those involved had this report over a month ago. It says bad things. The question is whether the KSA/PIF response can either evade it by "not being involved/not same entity" or they can offer resolutions to resolve the issues in the report that (again) they have already had for ages.

 

True. Those involved in the deal have known about this for weeks and Caulkin says the buyers responded to another round of PL questions last week. So the dialogue has continued between both sides since the report.

[Kanj]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

[Stifler]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

I highly doubt it is. It’s good click bait for reporters though.

 

[Guest godzilla]

But the takeover isn't by KSA, it's PIF

 

Whose chairman owns the f***ing country.

 

Why are people so blind to this being an issue? Do people just have their heads in the sand? There's not a chance on earth this goes through. Zero.

 

The directors' test says anyone who might have an influence over the club has to be squeaky clean, and not "reasonably" thought to have done anything like, I dunno, be involved in piracy. Can you think of anyone who has connections to PIF who this might apply to?

 

I've been saying this for weeks.

 

Doesn’t f***ing matter it’s about PIF being a separate legal entity.

 

lol thats not how it works

 

Well a barrister who has seen more evidence than you seems to think that's exactly how it works.

[jdckelly]

People really aren't understanding this at all. Going on as if the contents of this report are some sort of surprise to the parties involved and like this is a moment of revelation because the press can finally read and quote it. The PL and those involved had this report over a month ago. It says bad things. The question is whether the KSA/PIF response can either evade it by "not being involved/not same entity" or they can offer resolutions to resolve the issues in the report that (again) they have already had for ages.

personally I find that a hard argument to swallow when the chairman of PIF is the crown prince/deputy prime minister

[AyeDubbleYoo]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

 

Nobody can answer this. Maybe they did an updated foreword or executive summary recently?

[Guest reefatoon]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

 

Miguel and Richard Keys asked them to put it in.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

People really aren't understanding this at all. Going on as if the contents of this report are some sort of surprise to the parties involved and like this is a moment of revelation because the press can finally read and quote it. The PL and those involved had this report over a month ago. It says bad things. The question is whether the KSA/PIF response can either evade it by "not being involved/not same entity" or they can offer resolutions to resolve the issues in the report that (again) they have already had for ages.

 

True. Those involved in the deal have known about this for weeks and Caulkin says the buyers responded to another round of PL questions last week. So the dialogue has continued between both sides since the report.

 

This is pretty important for everyone to read

[Guest godzilla]

I noticed Steve Wraith has said it's 50/50. Weeks and weeks of saying its done and his sources have said so blah blah. Now claiming it's a coin flip, no one knows and is denying ever saying it was done. Absolute arsehole of the highest order him.

 

He must have deleted it as can't see it on his twitter.

[mrmojorisin75]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

 

Nobody can answer this. Maybe they did an updated foreword or executive summary recently?

 

actually thinking about this more aren't the PL involved as the intellectual property rights qatar are booting off over are heavily involving the PL, highly likely they'd be involved in the investigation as it's their product that's being stolen

 

who was it posted the link to the WTO page with the report the other day, sure the PL was mentioned there

 

the question of how something that cropped up 2 months ago and is supposedly confidential has been crowbarred in is a different one though

 

EDIT:

 

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds567_e.htm

 

it's here and PL not mentioned in the headlines actually

[bowlingcrofty]

I noticed Steve Wraith has said it's 50/50. Weeks and weeks of saying its done and his sources have said so blah blah. Now claiming it's a coin flip, no one knows and is denying ever saying it was done. Absolute arsehole of the highest order him.

 

He must have deleted it as can't see it on his twitter.

 

Pretty sure he was responding to the person/article that said it was 50/50. Can't find it but it was tweeted out the other day.

[Guest neesy111]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

 

Nobody can answer this. Maybe they did an updated foreword or executive summary recently?

 

actually thinking about this more aren't the PL involved as the intellectual property rights qatar are booting off over are heavily involving the PL, highly likely they'd be involved in the investigation as it's their product that's being stolen

 

who was it posted the link to the WTO page with the report the other day, sure the PL was mentioned there

 

the question of how something that cropped up 2 months ago and is supposedly confidential has been crowbarred in is a different one though

 

Tbf, the BBC, Sky & BT Sports have all complained about Beoutq previously.  It was distributed widescale via IPTV as well.

 

The PL's biggest concern will be keeping broadcasters happy at this time considering they are the biggest stakeholder in the PL after the teams.

[jdckelly]

why the fuck is the report mentioning the takeover??

 

Nobody can answer this. Maybe they did an updated foreword or executive summary recently?

 

actually thinking about this more aren't the PL involved as the intellectual property rights qatar are booting off over are heavily involving the PL, highly likely they'd be involved in the investigation as it's their product that's being stolen

 

who was it posted the link to the WTO page with the report the other day, sure the PL was mentioned there

 

the question of how something that cropped up 2 months ago and is supposedly confidential has been crowbarred in is a different one though

prem probably only had a draft report with the takeover referenced in the final report finally given

[TK-421]

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

 

Make sense.

 

Where's that quote above from then?

[FloydianMag]

 

Make sense.

 

Where's that quote above from then?

 

Apparently he’s with the New York Times.

[Guest neesy111]

 

Make sense.

 

Where's that quote above from then?

 

Iain Dennis from the BBC.  Someone is wrong.

[Chris_R]

But the takeover isn't by KSA, it's PIF

 

Whose chairman owns the fucking country.

 

Why are people so blind to this being an issue? Do people just have their heads in the sand? There's not a chance on earth this goes through. Zero.

 

The directors' test says anyone who might have an influence over the club has to be squeaky clean, and not "reasonably" thought to have done anything like, I dunno, be involved in piracy. Can you think of anyone who has connections to PIF who this might apply to?

 

I've been saying this for weeks.

 

Doesn’t fucking matter it’s about PIF being a separate legal entity.

 

lol thats not how it works

 

Legally yes that’s how it works.

 

Yeah, for the test on PIF, sure.

 

But they also look at anyone involved in PIF who might have some significant say in the running of the club, and what they may have been involved with in other parts of their life. The fact that he did that outside of PIF is utterly irrelevant.

 

It's this bit....

 

‘Relevant Person’ means in respect of any Club any individual Person (and not any Entity) operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the 2006 Act (as a Company limited by shares or by guarantee).  Further, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person:

 

(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;

 

(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;

 

© a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;

 

(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;

 

(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;

 

(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;

 

(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;

 

(h) any Authorised Signatory;

 

(i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 46.1);

 

(j) any 'chief executive' officer, 'general manager', 'chief operating officer' or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;

 

(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and

 

(l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club,

 

You can't tell me with a straight face that MBS doesn't fall into any of this bit. Especially the last, bolded bit, because he's the chairman of PIF.

 

I get that PIF and Saudi Arabia are separate entities, but that's not the argument I'm having. They'll reject PIF on the grounds that MBS is the chairman and outside of PIF there's enough to say that...

 

(j) in the reasonable opinion of The League, has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in paragraph (f) of this definition if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

This gets rejected, for those reasons. It's about MBS and what he's done outside of PIF, and PIF cannot be separated from him as a person because he's the chairman. It's nothing to do with whether PIF and SA are separate, people need to stop banging that drum, it's a distraction and an irrelevance.

[The Prophet]

If they were going to knock it back point blank at these findings they'd have done so already.

[FloydianMag]

But the takeover isn't by KSA, it's PIF

 

Whose chairman owns the fucking country.

 

Why are people so blind to this being an issue? Do people just have their heads in the sand? There's not a chance on earth this goes through. Zero.

 

The directors' test says anyone who might have an influence over the club has to be squeaky clean, and not "reasonably" thought to have done anything like, I dunno, be involved in piracy. Can you think of anyone who has connections to PIF who this might apply to?

 

I've been saying this for weeks.

 

Doesn’t fucking matter it’s about PIF being a separate legal entity.

 

lol thats not how it works

 

Legally yes that’s how it works.

 

Yeah, for the test on PIF, sure.

 

But they also look at anyone involved in PIF who might have some significant say in the running of the club, and what they may have been involved with in other parts of their life. The fact that he did that outside of PIF is utterly irrelevant.

 

It's this bit....

 

‘Relevant Person’ means in respect of any Club any individual Person (and not any Entity) operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the 2006 Act (as a Company limited by shares or by guarantee).  Further, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following individuals shall in any event be deemed to qualify as a Relevant Person:

 

(a) a director as defined by Section 250 of the 2006 Act;

 

(b) a shadow director as defined by Section 251 of the 2006 Act;

 

© a person registered as a director or secretary of the Club with the Registrar of Companies;

 

(d) a person for whom a Form AP01 (to be filed with the Registrar of Companies) has been completed in relation to the Club;

 

(e) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the board of directors of the Club;

 

(f) a person who has been elected to become a director of the Club at a meeting of the members of the Club;

 

(g) a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the Club are accustomed to act;

 

(h) any Authorised Signatory;

 

(i) any duly appointed signatory (as that term is utilised in Regulation 46.1);

 

(j) any 'chief executive' officer, 'general manager', 'chief operating officer' or any other person undertaking any duties which would objectively be considered to be equivalent to those roles;

 

(k) any person appointed by those with Control over the Club to represent their interests in the management of the Club; and

 

(l) a person who has Control over the affairs of the Club,

 

You can't tell me with a straight face that MBS doesn't fall into any of this bit. Especially the last, bolded bit, because he's the chairman of PIF.

 

I get that PIF and Saudi Arabia are separate entities, but that's not the argument I'm having. They'll reject PIF on the grounds that MBS is the chairman and outside of PIF there's enough to say that...

 

(j) in the reasonable opinion of The League, has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in paragraph (f) of this definition if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

 

This gets rejected, for those reasons. It's about MBS and what he's done outside of PIF, and PIF cannot be separated from him as a person because he's the chairman. It's nothing to do with whether PIF and SA are separate, people need to stop banging that drum, it's a distraction and an irrelevance.

 

It’s only about the ODT test on PIF, the rest of the stuff you mention is your opinion, whataboutery and ifs and buts.

[Guest godzilla]

[prefabtoon]

So its a no deal then lets move on guys life is too short over to you mike and brucie.

[mrmojorisin75]

that BBC thing reads like he's asked a WTO gadgee what they think of the takeover being approved in light of what's in the report to me, rather than what's actually in it

[Chris_R]

 

 

It’s only about the ODT test on PIF, the rest of the stuff you mention is your opinion, whataboutery and ifs and buts.

 

I've literally quoted the test from the PL's website and highlighted the relevant bits. You have your head so far in the sand it's hilarious, though I understand why as I we all want this to go through but so many have lost the ability to think critically and objectively over this. I'm not willing to spend my day going in circular arguments so I'll just say as I've said to others when I've reached this point:

 

Time will tell, and I hope for the sake of this club and my own enjoyment that I'm wrong. I'll be delighted to be wrong, genuinely, but I maintain my stance which I've had since this first all started.