GWN Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. At this moment in time it’s gone for me, I’m giving up on this mentally. It was my last chance of going back one day soon., I hope they didn’t chuck out the paddling pool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED209 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Just read this, might as well be in Japanese as far as I’m concerned https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/567r_conc_e.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Carrick18 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 As someone who isn't overly fond of the idea or for it, the obvious solution would be to pass it with the remit that they crack down on piracy with an iron fist. BeIN saying they won't bid for rights is total bluster. There's no way a sports network like that would sacrifice the biggest league going and give Saudi a free run at it. They know Saudi will start bidding if they get a team in the league so fans have a legal way to watch that isn't beIN. They are worried of that driving up costs, all while overpaying for Ligue 1. By the same token, the PL know bowing to that pressure sets a very dangerous precedent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. There's a difference between controlling it and not trying. The premier league try very hard to control iptv, but the fact is its just too widespread for them. The saudis have apparently just let it run, although I agree with you on that, it shouldn't affect the decision either way but the PL will definitely use this as leverage to try to get them to do more to prevent it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I struggle with Penn as he’s a massive ben Arfa fan, but also a twat. Conflicted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Puppets Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I’ve just read through a bunch of the report, and to me it DOES say that Saudi state are complicit, so I’m not sure why people are moaning at the BBC? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 As someone who isn't overly fond of the idea or for it, the obvious solution would be to pass it with the remit that they crack down on piracy with an iron fist. BeIN saying they won't bid for rights is total bluster. There's no way a sports network like that would sacrifice the biggest league going and give Saudi a free run at it. They know Saudi will start bidding if they get a team in the league so fans have a legal way to watch that isn't beIN. They are worried of that driving up costs, all while overpaying for Ligue 1. By the same token, the PL know bowing to that pressure sets a very dangerous precedent. I’ve said it before. The EPL can’t say to PIF that they need to crack down on piracy. First of all PIF are classed as a superset entity to the government, I get the links, but legally they are different. Most importantly though, if the EPL start saying to PIF that this, and that needs to happen (which falls outside of the remit of the directors and owners test) then it is breach in their D&O test, and in breach of the rules in all football organisations that forbids political interference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. If the individuals are Saudi I can't imagine they would get a fair trial in Qatar, considering the open hostility between the two nations. They would have to be prosecuted by a neutral, within a neutral country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. That's irrelevant. They've literally been denied the right to prosecute on the grounds of diplomacy, what, 9 times they've tried? So as to "what more could they do?" the answer is clear - Allow those prosecutions to take place. That's not saying they must convict, but they should at least have the right to be tested in a court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. There's a difference between controlling it and not trying. The premier league try very hard to control iptv, but the fact is its just too widespread for them. The saudis have apparently just let it run, although I agree with you on that, it shouldn't affect the decision either way but the PL will definitely use this as leverage to try to get them to do more to prevent it. Agree, what I'm saying though, is if the premier league find it hard to control it, then how can they expect other establishments to be able to control it either. Piracy has been a massive issue for years in a lot of entertainment industries and is still not even being close to being controlled. BeOutQ has been shut down, but how can you stop people using an app on a firestick or an android box. Maybe they can issue fines and possible prison sentences, but I'm sure I read on here that they had already started this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I’ve just read through a bunch of the report, and to me it DOES say that Saudi state are complicit, so I’m not sure why people are moaning at the BBC? The report certainly never claims that the Saudi government were behind the piracy. They sat they didn't do enough to stop it and didn't allow Qatar to challenge it in court. Perhaps you can say that makes them complicit. But that's nowhere near the same thing as saying they are actually behind the piracy, as in they themselves pirated the streams. I mean I haven't seen Look North myself. But if it is saying that the WTO report claims the Saudi government are behind the piracy, well I don't see that quotes anywhere from the WTO report. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. That's irrelevant. They've literally been denied the right to prosecute on the grounds of diplomacy, what, 9 times they've tried? So as to "what more could they do?" the answer is clear - Allow those prosecutions to take place. That's not saying they must convict, but they should at least have the right to be tested in a court. Have they arrested anyone? You presume that they know who the perpetrators are so enlighten me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. That's irrelevant. They've literally been denied the right to prosecute on the grounds of diplomacy, what, 9 times they've tried? So as to "what more could they do?" the answer is clear - Allow those prosecutions to take place. That's not saying they must convict, but they should at least have the right to be tested in a court. Have they arrested anyone? You presume that they know who the perpetrators are so enlighten me. There is an IP-focused report by the US Trade association from 2019 that confirms that arrests have been made and offices raided in Riyadh, concerning beoutQ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. That's irrelevant. They've literally been denied the right to prosecute on the grounds of diplomacy, what, 9 times they've tried? So as to "what more could they do?" the answer is clear - Allow those prosecutions to take place. That's not saying they must convict, but they should at least have the right to be tested in a court. Have they arrested anyone? You presume that they know who the perpetrators are so enlighten me. There is an IP-focused report by the US Trade association from 2019 that confirms that arrests have been made and offices raided in Riyadh, concerning beoutQ. By who the Saudi Government? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkhead Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. That's irrelevant. They've literally been denied the right to prosecute on the grounds of diplomacy, what, 9 times they've tried? So as to "what more could they do?" the answer is clear - Allow those prosecutions to take place. That's not saying they must convict, but they should at least have the right to be tested in a court. Have they arrested anyone? You presume that they know who the perpetrators are so enlighten me. There is an IP-focused report by the US Trade association from 2019 that confirms that arrests have been made and offices raided in Riyadh, concerning beoutQ. By who the Saudi Government? Yeah, I'll try to find it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. The takeover is the only real win Qatar can get. The WTO have "ruled" in their favour but aren't telling SA to really do much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 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. BeoutQ has been closed down, last August, what more can they do? Allow Qatar to prosecute the individuals concerned? That's basically what the entire WTO thing is about, Saudi Arabia's refusal to allow this to happen. There’s servers in the UK offering illegal streams, how many prosecutions do you hear of. It’s not easy to catch the perpetrators as you think and I guess it’s the same in any country. That's irrelevant. They've literally been denied the right to prosecute on the grounds of diplomacy, what, 9 times they've tried? So as to "what more could they do?" the answer is clear - Allow those prosecutions to take place. That's not saying they must convict, but they should at least have the right to be tested in a court. Have they arrested anyone? You presume that they know who the perpetrators are so enlighten me. There is an IP-focused report by the US Trade association from 2019 that confirms that arrests have been made and offices raided in Riyadh, concerning beoutQ. By who the Saudi Government? Yeah, I'll try to find it. No it's ok I believe you, that could be something useful to be used by PIF (and probably has) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Stupid question probably, but what right do the league or anyone for that matter have, to tell or expect the Saudi government to have done more to stop piracy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Stupid question probably, but what right do the league or anyone for that matter have, to tell or expect the Saudi government to have done more to stop piracy? WTO have that right. PL just have their test, part of which is not having been involved with piracy, which imo this report is miles from proving as far as PIF is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Stupid question probably, but what right do the league or anyone for that matter have, to tell or expect the Saudi government to have done more to stop piracy? Simply down to lost revenue so money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Stupid question probably, but what right do the league or anyone for that matter have, to tell or expect the Saudi government to have done more to stop piracy? Simply down to lost revenue so money I get that but what I mean is it’s not a crime as such so should in no way be enough for them to block the takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Stupid question probably, but what right do the league or anyone for that matter have, to tell or expect the Saudi government to have done more to stop piracy? They don't. At least not directly. But they can tell Newcastle United that they won't be allowed in the PL with someone they disapprove of in a position of power. But then you cycle that forward: Newcastle's options are play outside the PL (Because the PL aren't potentially stopping the takeover per se, they're just saying Newcastle can't join our club), Newcastle ensure they don't have that person in a position of power (takeover collapses), or they ask the PL what can be done to allow this person to both be in a position of power and Newcastle be in the PL. That's when the PL say "well, if the person in question (MBS) would clamp down on piracy, we're all good." So they can't directly order SA to clamp down on piracy, but indirectly they can say it's a condition of Newcastle playing in the PL with him in a position of authority / control over the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts