Jump to content

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


Jinky Jim

Recommended Posts

It's clear to me the PL are giving PIF a path to allow the takeover otherwise it would've been rejected by now.

 

Yep, that thing that Downie tweeted there suggests that to me too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest godzilla

thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting

 

No, didn't say he was linked to the piracy, it said he was the one who issued the Saudi response to the WTO report (i.e. email-gate)

 

I'm pretty sure this was the same guy named in the WTO report specifically mind

 

Pretty sure nobody was named in the report as being specifically linked to the piracy. It only mentioned Saudi parties with no actual names

.

 

there was 100% a SA individual named in the report

 

EDIT: i'm wrong was a different guy i think, Saud Al-Qahtani

 

He was sacked by the Saudis in 2018. I knew nothing was mentioned concerning Majid Al Qasabi as that would have been massive news when the report was released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest chopey

It's clear to me the PL are giving PIF a path to allow the takeover otherwise it would've been rejected by now.

 

Aye it sounds like they are protecting current and future TV deals with a nod to pushing it through, Qatar will be finished with football after the world cup anyway SA will be the place for sport after 2022

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184

 

Masters says in this clip "there is no timetable set as part of the rules", which is actually incorrect, the rules state that a decision will be made within 5 working days of submission. They seem to be silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met, which probably means it has no real weight. But technically he seems to have possibly committed contempt of Parliament with that statement.

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6;

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a journo last week who tweeted something like "PL want piracy issues sorted from SA then they will nod it through"

 

With today's comments from masters that journos source is definitely legit. At the time lots were tweeting different things but his tweet has been proven to be spot on.

 

Can't remember which journo it was though  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

Hopefully it gets loads of signatures so they can roll it up and twat Masters across the dish with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe wishful thinking, but I interpret 'I would like the process to conclude shortly' as an indication that the process is nearing an end. I don't think Masters would have put it that way otherwise.

 

I don't think the PL are under any obligation to keep the fans informed. I can see why, realistically, it's better to say nothing than make a short statement which is going to be raked over for hints and indications.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thought that ben jacobs tweet was interesting mind, that the PL wanted clarification of that one bloke who was linked to piracy (or something) and is also on the board of PiF....there's always been the question over legal entities etc. but if he's heavily implicated in the piracy stuff then it might be what they're targetting

The Football Law opinion indicates that Saudi and Qatari lawyers accept that PIF is a separate legal entity.

 

∆ On 2 June 2020 Qatari- and Saudi- based lawyers provided confirmation to this author that KSA PIF is a separate legal entity.

 

I think it's pretty clear that's not the case.

 

I’ll go with the lawyers opinion not some know it all on N-O.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111

Why is an SNP MP able to comment on an issue which only applies to the English Premier League?

 

Because he's an MP in the UK parliament.  It's pretty simple.

 

 

I'd question why they are getting involved though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184

 

Masters says in this clip "there is no timetable set as part of the rules", which is actually incorrect, the rules state that a decision will be made within 5 working days of submission. They seem to be silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met, which probably means it has no real weight. But technically he seems to have possibly committed contempt of Parliament with that statement.

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6;

 

What in the actual fuck is that SNP fuckwit trying to do here  :lol:

 

Masters said he couldn’t comment and was still asked variants of the same question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest reefatoon

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184

 

Masters says in this clip "there is no timetable set as part of the rules", which is actually incorrect, the rules state that a decision will be made within 5 working days of submission. They seem to be silent on what happens if that timescale isn't met, which probably means it has no real weight. But technically he seems to have possibly committed contempt of Parliament with that statement.

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6;

 

What in the actual fuck is that SNP fuckwit trying to do here  :lol:

 

Masters said he couldn’t comment and was still asked variants of the same question.

 

The wonky gepped fuckwit just wanted to make sure he got all his points across, wasn't expecting answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Has the response been posted anywhere in here? If not will it be made public?

 

It’ll be a standard ‘we can’t say anything, confidential process etc etc’

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...