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

[FloydianMag]

I think it’s already been accepted that there’s no mention of Newcastle in the report.

[Scotty66]

Forgive my ignorance, but does Manorpark know something we don't? Or is it optimism fuelling his posting.

 

 

If you have seen my previous posts over the last week or so, I have simply said that the Premier League need the evidence of the "published" WTO Report, for everyone to see, to support their decision to approve (what the Media have drummed up to be) this controversial (their words) takeover.

 

I have seen nothing to change my view on this.

 

It is just plain, simple LOGIC . . I have no inside information.

 

 

 

How will it support their decision to approve the takeover if it unquestionably incriminates KSA? You make no sense.

 

It’s about PIF and the degree of separation as a legal entity, were PIF responsible for piracy, if no then the takeover should proceed.

 

Hasn't that already been stated? I'm sure some legal expert on twitter posted a screenshot of it dated June 2nd? Didn't that come from the WTO report?

[FloydianMag]

Forgive my ignorance, but does Manorpark know something we don't? Or is it optimism fuelling his posting.

 

 

If you have seen my previous posts over the last week or so, I have simply said that the Premier League need the evidence of the "published" WTO Report, for everyone to see, to support their decision to approve (what the Media have drummed up to be) this controversial (their words) takeover.

 

I have seen nothing to change my view on this.

 

It is just plain, simple LOGIC . . I have no inside information.

 

 

 

How will it support their decision to approve the takeover if it unquestionably incriminates KSA? You make no sense.

 

It’s about PIF and the degree of separation as a legal entity, were PIF responsible for piracy, if no then the takeover should proceed.

 

Hasn't that already been stated? I'm sure some legal expert on twitter posted a screenshot of it dated June 2nd? Didn't that come from the WTO report?

 

Yes it has, however most go on about MBS as de facto head of state therefore it implicates PIF, I don’t think it does, and he’ll not be chairperson of NUFC.

[loki679]

So who's going to be grabbing the WTO doc at 3pm and then firstly doing a CTRL + F for 'Newcastle' just to check

Probably some weird Twitter nonce with no life.

 

How's Gallowgate End by the way?

[Guest godzilla]

Forgive my ignorance, but does Manorpark know something we don't? Or is it optimism fuelling his posting.

 

 

If you have seen my previous posts over the last week or so, I have simply said that the Premier League need the evidence of the "published" WTO Report, for everyone to see, to support their decision to approve (what the Media have drummed up to be) this controversial (their words) takeover.

 

I have seen nothing to change my view on this.

 

It is just plain, simple LOGIC . . I have no inside information.

 

 

 

How will it support their decision to approve the takeover if it unquestionably incriminates KSA? You make no sense.

 

It’s about PIF and the degree of separation as a legal entity, were PIF responsible for piracy, if no then the takeover should proceed.

 

Hasn't that already been stated? I'm sure some legal expert on twitter posted a screenshot of it dated June 2nd? Didn't that come from the WTO report?

 

Yes it has, however most go on about MBS as de facto head of state therefore it implicates PIF, I don’t think it does, and he’ll not be chairperson of NUFC.

 

I thought that was just his footnote from his article about documents he had seen. Don't think it was actually from the WTO report

[Guest reefatoon]

Just imagine if the Saudi bid fell through and then Qatar themselves moved in and bought us, just to have a bigger piss on their chips.

 

[St1pe]

3.05 and no meltdown yet.

 

#hope

[Guest godzilla]

[Teasy]

Yeah it wasn't from the WTO report, he had spoken to lawyers from Saudi and Qatar and had it confirmed by them that PIF is separate legally.

[FloydianMag]

Forgive my ignorance, but does Manorpark know something we don't? Or is it optimism fuelling his posting.

 

It is, here’s the report if you want to read it, just skip to the last para in all honesty.

 

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/newcastle-united-fc-takeover-and-the-premier-leagues-owners-and-directors-test

 

 

 

 

If you have seen my previous posts over the last week or so, I have simply said that the Premier League need the evidence of the "published" WTO Report, for everyone to see, to support their decision to approve (what the Media have drummed up to be) this controversial (their words) takeover.

 

I have seen nothing to change my view on this.

 

It is just plain, simple LOGIC . . I have no inside information.

 

 

 

How will it support their decision to approve the takeover if it unquestionably incriminates KSA? You make no sense.

 

It’s about PIF and the degree of separation as a legal entity, were PIF responsible for piracy, if no then the takeover should proceed.

 

Hasn't that already been stated? I'm sure some legal expert on twitter posted a screenshot of it dated June 2nd? Didn't that come from the WTO report?

 

Yes it has, however most go on about MBS as de facto head of state therefore it implicates PIF, I don’t think it does, and he’ll not be chairperson of NUFC.

 

I thought that was just his footnote from his article about documents he had seen. Don't think it was actually from the WTO report

 

Here’s the report

 

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/newcastle-united-fc-takeover-and-the-premier-leagues-owners-and-directors-test

[St1pe]

Wait... does that read rather promising?

[Chapo]

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.

 

Doesn’t seem too drastic.

[Sir Toon]

  Got to be #cans. Surely?

[Guest chopey]

Yip, Premier League will say SA have to play by their rules, which involves loads of money so they would anyway, confirmed by the end of the week

[54]

From the Conclusions page, i have no idea what any of it means, but here it is:

 

7.293. The Panel concludes that the non-application of criminal procedures and penalties to beoutQ does not have any relationship to Saudi Arabia's policy of ending or preventing any form of interaction with Qatari nationals. Therefore, the Saudi authorities' non-application of criminal procedures and penalties to beoutQ is so remote from, or unrelated to, the "emergency in international relations" as to make it implausible that Saudi Arabia implemented these measures for the protection of its "essential security interests".848 As a consequence, the Panel concludes that the

non-application of criminal procedures and penalties to beoutQ does not "meet a minimum requirement of plausibility in relation to the proffered essential security interests, i.e. that they are not implausible as measures protective of these interests"

 

 

7.4.4 Conclusion

7.294. For these reasons, the Panel finds that 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 Agreement850 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. The Panel also finds that 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 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

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 primafacie 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.

[Ketsbaia]

Wow, that sounds alright

[Miggys First Goal]

Is this the final hurdle?

 

Or will somebody submit a new letter to the PL complaining about the takeover?

[Guest Butcher]

We're flying here, lads. Get it confirmed ffs.

[FloydianMag]

Is this the final hurdle?

 

Or will somebody submit a new letter to the PL complaining about the takeover?

 

Probably, the top six in the PL.

[Judge Holden]

Is this the final hurdle?

 

Or will somebody submit a new letter to the PL complaining about the takeover?

 

Quite possibly Joey Linton.

[St1pe]

Seems like it it’s ruled on their ability to bring legal action within Saudi Arabia. I can’t see anything there that would directly effect our takeover unless I’m massively missing something.

 

It certainly isn’t the damning indictment some journalist were claiming was leaked earlier. Was expecting to see they’d be complicit in BeOut or whatever it was called.

[Wilson]

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

 

WT/DS567/R

- 125 -

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.

 

Again, I think the report means nowt in regards to the takeover, but if it did, it hardly seems 'damning'.

 

Didn't do enough to prevent it or punish beoutQ, but now that it's finished, surely it's moot anyway.

[Teasy]

Basically just seems to be saying that Saudi Arabia haven't kept to their obligation of allowing Qatar to chase BEoutQ in their courts.  Then concludes that Saudi Arabia should allow those proceedings.  How the fuck was this made out to be some kind of nuclear bomb for the takeover??

[xLiaaamx]

Feels like when a video game has had loads of hype for ages in build up and then just...nowt.

[David Edgar]

Roaring at this tweet in replies to the WTO report