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

[The Bonk]

[NE27]

I googled it, said I had cancer

[SuperFlat]

Cool, I see we’ve reached the petition stage.

 

[Strawberry]

People letting off steam via that petition has to be a lot better than them abusing the Premier League over Twitter.

 

So it is better just to say this and that in this forum and not signing the petition?

[Guest godzilla]

 

But the prospective directors need to have demonstrably done something equivalent to an offence in this country to fail the test. The government not doing enough to prevent piracy is not likely to equate to an offence.

 

I think it's probably quite the opposite, that PIF are happy to go along with what the PL are asking for now, but both they and the PL know that there is no way that a disqualification of the directors would be likely to stand up to legal scrutiny.

 

 

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are.

 

It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now.

 

Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might.

 

I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection.

 

There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS.

 

As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days.

 

My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along.

 

Well I hope you're right, of course. But I don't see that.

 

The French court case recently ruled that Arabsat, whose main shareholder is Saudi Arabia, were distributing BeOUTQ.

 

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019/06/14/arabsat-is-distributing-beoutq-french-court-rules/

 

The WTO report said that the Saudis didn't do enough to prevent piracy. Apparently the PL tried what, 7, 9 times to contact the Saudis? And were just rebuffed every time. Legal recourse has clearly and deliberately been denied to rights holders by the Saudis.

 

Personally, I don't know where the line is for "reasonable belief" in an offence because I'm not that up on all the relevant international legislation. But for anyone to say with certainty that there's not enough evidence that we couldn't possibly be over that line seems incredibly optimistic, as the only people who could potentially say for certain are employed in such incredibly niche positions that I doubt they're posting on here, and even if they were, they'd have to do months worth of reading and have access to information likely not in the public domain to make an accurate judgement.

 

We have to trust that the PL are looking at this correctly, and that the relevant lawyers interpret it correctly. And that we get the result we want. But I go back to my initial point - People screaming that it's taking too long or they deserve to be informed or that they PL are being unprofessional just come across as whiny children who haven't got their sweets yet. I'm as frustrated as anyone, but I'm fully aware that the grown-ups are still doing their shopping and the sweets only come at the end.

 

Hopefully we get sweets, but screaming for them and having a tantrum in the middle of aisle 8 seldom works.

 

Is a government putting in place an environment that denied legal recourse tantamount to a specific offence by the government? I think probably not.

 

Arabsat is owned by 21 states, including the UAE (and Qatar), if MbS fails the test on the basis that the Saudi state owns part of Arabsat so would Sheik Mansour because of the UAE's ownership interest.

 

 

 

The Saudis plus Kuwait, their closest regional allies, have a controlling stake of 51%. Yes, the Qataris own 9.8% and the UAE 4.7% but that's very different to having a controlling stake in the company and what it does. And of course other countries have stakes too but 12 of them have less than 2% each. I own more than that in shares of an Australian mining company but I'm f***ed if I'll be held accountable for their actions if they start doing dodgy s***. I've never even been to Australia or spoken to anyone at the company, I'm just in it for the ride and hopefully some £s at the end.

 

Ultimately though, my point isn't that they HAVE committed an act that is in the "reasonable opinion" of the PL likely to disqualify them. My point is that nobody (at least none of us) can be sure that they have not.

 

The very fact that the actual lawyers in this with the evidence in front of them still haven't signed it off is surely proof of that? I had to let people have their "Oh, it'll be fine" moment what, 6 weeks ago, but now it looks rather like I had a point then because look where we are now - NOT signed off as we rampage into week 13 of a 4-week process. For people to still be talking in such absolutes despite this, that the Saudis have DEFINITELY NOT done anything that could render them liable for disqualification and the PL cannot stop this going through, is frankly bonkers because it seems the PL's lawyers who are actually working on the case aren't as sure as all you google experts.

 

By business law they are two separate stakes and as such do not have the 51% controlling stakes in the company.

[TheInfiniteOdyssey]

It takes as long as it takes man. Just sit back, relax and wait for the good times.

 

Acceptable for supporters but what about the club and the people involved who work there though? We're stuck in limbo and this is the main reason why the PL needs to come to a decision.

 

Doesn't matter, quite frankly.

 

They will come to a decision. Demanding they hurry it is ridiculous and if anything counter-productive. Assuming they're taking their time to give it every chance to go through, which seems like the case here, can't people see the problem with asking them NOT to take their time?

 

How is it counter productive?, the only decision is based on the D&O text anything else has got nothing to do with any decision

 

Because you're getting the backs up of people who are human beings with real emotions and feelings. If this is on a knife edge, which it looks like, then however much we might want to *think* they'll just look at the facts, do you really think it's worth the risk? We should ditch the petition, it's childish and petulant.

 

Amazing how much you’ve been wound up by a petition 

[Jackie Broon]

 

But the prospective directors need to have demonstrably done something equivalent to an offence in this country to fail the test. The government not doing enough to prevent piracy is not likely to equate to an offence.

 

I think it's probably quite the opposite, that PIF are happy to go along with what the PL are asking for now, but both they and the PL know that there is no way that a disqualification of the directors would be likely to stand up to legal scrutiny.

 

 

MBS is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, and the chairman of PIF. In his role as Crown Prince, he's believed complicit in piracy. In his role as chairman of PIF, he's a person likely to be able to influence the direction of the club and therefore counts as a director, named or not, under the terms of the O&Ds' test. I went through this about 2 months ago and was shouted down, yet here we are.

 

It seems the PL are giving the Saudis a window of opportunity to get their house in order to pass the test. That seems more than fair to me, hence the delays, because there wasn't a hope in hell of this passing in its original form. I said that at the time and with the events of the last few weeks I most certainly stand by it now.

 

Everyone screaming how "unfair" it is that it's taking so long, or they're not being kept informed about the workings of confidential deals need to give their heads a shake. We have no right to be kept informed, indeed it would be grossly unprofessional if we WERE kept informed, and the only alternative to a long, drawn-out process would be the deal collapsing. Which of course it still might.

 

I agree that fairness doesn't come into it, my response was to your assertion that the current position would be rejection.

 

There does not appear to be anything in the WTO report that is likely to equate to an actual offence by the Saudi State or MbS.

 

As far as I can see the cards appear to be stacked very much in PIF's favour because the PL do not seem to have an actual offence to hang disqualification of a director on and, by their rules, should have issued their decision within five working days.

 

My view is that at moment the PL are probably bluffing, knowing that they have a weak hand, trying to get whatever concessions they can, and for now PIF are happy enough to play along.

 

Well I hope you're right, of course. But I don't see that.

 

The French court case recently ruled that Arabsat, whose main shareholder is Saudi Arabia, were distributing BeOUTQ.

 

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2019/06/14/arabsat-is-distributing-beoutq-french-court-rules/

 

The WTO report said that the Saudis didn't do enough to prevent piracy. Apparently the PL tried what, 7, 9 times to contact the Saudis? And were just rebuffed every time. Legal recourse has clearly and deliberately been denied to rights holders by the Saudis.

 

Personally, I don't know where the line is for "reasonable belief" in an offence because I'm not that up on all the relevant international legislation. But for anyone to say with certainty that there's not enough evidence that we couldn't possibly be over that line seems incredibly optimistic, as the only people who could potentially say for certain are employed in such incredibly niche positions that I doubt they're posting on here, and even if they were, they'd have to do months worth of reading and have access to information likely not in the public domain to make an accurate judgement.

 

We have to trust that the PL are looking at this correctly, and that the relevant lawyers interpret it correctly. And that we get the result we want. But I go back to my initial point - People screaming that it's taking too long or they deserve to be informed or that they PL are being unprofessional just come across as whiny children who haven't got their sweets yet. I'm as frustrated as anyone, but I'm fully aware that the grown-ups are still doing their shopping and the sweets only come at the end.

 

Hopefully we get sweets, but screaming for them and having a tantrum in the middle of aisle 8 seldom works.

 

Is a government putting in place an environment that denied legal recourse tantamount to a specific offence by the government? I think probably not.

 

Arabsat is owned by 21 states, including the UAE (and Qatar), if MbS fails the test on the basis that the Saudi state owns part of Arabsat so would Sheik Mansour because of the UAE's ownership interest.

 

 

 

The Saudis plus Kuwait, their closest regional allies, have a controlling stake of 51%. Yes, the Qataris own 9.8% and the UAE 4.7% but that's very different to having a controlling stake in the company and what it does. And of course other countries have stakes too but 12 of them have less than 2% each. I own more than that in shares of an Australian mining company but I'm fucked if I'll be held accountable for their actions if they start doing dodgy shit. I've never even been to Australia or spoken to anyone at the company, I'm just in it for the ride and hopefully some £s at the end.

 

Ultimately though, my point isn't that they HAVE committed an act that is in the "reasonable opinion" of the PL likely to disqualify them. My point is that nobody (at least none of us) can be sure that they have not.

 

The very fact that the actual lawyers in this with the evidence in front of them still haven't signed it off is surely proof of that? I had to let people have their "Oh, it'll be fine" moment what, 6 weeks ago, but now it looks rather like I had a point then because look where we are now - NOT signed off as we rampage into week 13 of a 4-week process. For people to still be talking in such absolutes despite this, that the Saudis have DEFINITELY NOT done anything that could render them liable for disqualification and the PL cannot stop this going through, is frankly bonkers because it seems the PL's lawyers who are actually working on the case aren't as sure as all you google experts.

 

That seems a bit a of a stretch.

 

I work in an job that involves a lot of interpretation of law and often work with solicitors and barristers, although a very different area of law to this. I'm well aware that law is grey rather than black and white and I've made that point in this thread.

 

However, putting my armchair barrister hat on, I just can't see a strong case for the directors of PIF being disqualified as directors on those grounds. And actual barristers have also given that opinion.

 

I feel that it has gone on for so long because the PL know they can't disqualify the directors but want to use the opportunity to get Saudi Arabia to act on the piracy issue, the only hand they can play is to bluff and not make a decision.

[Chris_R]

Again, I hope you're all right. I hope this goes through as much as anyone. But we're into week 13 now and it hasn't, that's got to tell you something about how completely unable to disqualify or stop PIF the PL are.

[Jackie Broon]

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

[Guest chopey]

TBF they have had to organise a game a day as well as deal with a global pandemic, still think they could save themselves a lot of work and just let it go through, apparently a consortium is looking at West Ham so if they start in July it could be October by the time theirs goes through

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

I googled it, said I had cancer

 

[ED209]

TBF they have had to organise a game a day as well as deal with a global pandemic, still think they could save themselves a lot of work and just let it go through, apparently a consortium is looking at West Ham so if they start in July it could be October by the time theirs goes through

 

Might be quicker if the West Ham buyers aren’t dodge pots.

[Guest chopey]

Every fucka with that sort of money is a dodgepot

[Chris_R]

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

 

I suspect they already have, and this is the appeal stage. The PL have told them what to do to pass (sort out piracy in Saudi Arabia), and we're seeing evidence of that happening. Hopefully they do enough. Even if they aren't in any appeal stage, what they're doing now in Saudi is clearly at the behest of the Premier League with the idea that it'll help push this through.

[Guest godzilla]

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

 

I suspect they already have, and this is the appeal stage. The PL have told them what to do to pass (sort out piracy in Saudi Arabia), and we're seeing evidence of that happening. Hopefully they do enough. Even if they aren't in any appeal stage, what they're doing now in Saudi is clearly at the behest of the Premier League with the idea that it'll help push this through.

 

It would have leaked from either the Premier League, sellers side or the buyers side.

[Amir_9]

Can't wait to never hear the term "cans" everyday again

[Wilson]

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

 

I suspect they already have, and this is the appeal stage. The PL have told them what to do to pass (sort out piracy in Saudi Arabia), and we're seeing evidence of that happening. Hopefully they do enough. Even if they aren't in any appeal stage, what they're doing now in Saudi is clearly at the behest of the Premier League with the idea that it'll help push this through.

 

It would have leaked from either the Premier League, sellers side or the buyers side.

 

Not so sure it would have.

 

I kind of lean to this theory now as well, disagree with most of his rants but not that bit

 

Edit: Sorry completely misread what he said, I don't think they've actually been rejected but I do think they've said something along the lines of 'show us you're serious about stamping out the piracy before we approve it'.

[Guest godzilla]

I see it the other way around, if they were in a position to disqualify the directors they would've done it by now.

 

I suspect they already have, and this is the appeal stage. The PL have told them what to do to pass (sort out piracy in Saudi Arabia), and we're seeing evidence of that happening. Hopefully they do enough. Even if they aren't in any appeal stage, what they're doing now in Saudi is clearly at the behest of the Premier League with the idea that it'll help push this through.

 

It would have leaked from either the Premier League, sellers side or the buyers side.

 

Not so sure it would have.

 

I kind of lean to this theory now as well, disagree with most of his rants but not that bit

 

Edit: Sorry completely misread what he said, I don't think they've actually been rejected but I do think they've said something along the lines of 'show us you're serious about stamping out the piracy before we approve it'.

 

Won't disagree with your edited bit, just think there is no way it wouldn't have leaked if it was at the appeal stage.

[Guest]

[Alberto2005]

Thought I was back on page 1.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

 

MAJOR DEVELOPMENT!

[Guest godzilla]

 

Second part for all the suicide watch squad 

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Deal agreed though, that’s a positive.

[Whitley mag]

 

Second part for all the suicide watch squad 

 

I think your done in 2 weeks expires this Friday if I remember correctly.

 

You might be joining the squad. 

[Guest chopey]

Thank goodness it's only the Mirror