Pilko Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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's my read on this am too Neesy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest godzilla Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejeck Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Not a fan of his, but Buzzkill speaks well here: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shays Given Tim Flowers Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Nice straight bat from Masters there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RodneyCisse Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Looks like the petition is working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Kasper Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Looks like the petition is working. Clearly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Pons Alias Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Why is an SNP MP able to comment on an issue which only applies to the English Premier League? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
toon25 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 Masters said he couldn’t comment and was still asked variants of the same question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reefatoon Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 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 More sharing options...
UncleBingo Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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. I've got no idea. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-urged-to-break-qatar-relationship-pp88sdqmp Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Think this tweet sums up the key lines, I’m actually a lot more confident after seeing masters reaction to the SNP MP. And it looks like the Saudis are being given every chance to sort this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willow Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 I think adding some kind of poll to this thread may tip the balance of this deal, fingers crossed the PL keep up to date with things here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 As uncle bingo says no idea why...but here’s another good article on SNP’s relationship with Qatar. They’re clearly calling in favours as that other SNP wanker the other week also wanted the government to intervene. https://theferret.scot/scottish-government-fire-keeping-quiet-human-rights-abuses-qatar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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. I've got no idea. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-urged-to-break-qatar-relationship-pp88sdqmp Ha. Busted! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty66 Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 Has the response been posted anywhere in here? If not will it be made public? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 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 More sharing options...
manorpark Posted June 30, 2020 Share Posted June 30, 2020 That is almost word-for-word exactly what I have written on here more than a few times. I was told to "get real" !! I haven't changed my mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts