Jump to content

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition


Jinky Jim

Recommended Posts

just a small club in the North East with fans that expect too much.   Jesus Christ we have Saudi and UK diplomatic relationship on the line and in the middle is the PL due to NUFC.   I will say one thing, for Masters and Hoffman to go against them, they either have the biggest pair of balls or didnt realise how deep in the shit that they were and still are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

I’ll be honest I’ve no idea what to make of all this. Completely pointless trying to guess 

Everything is until the arbitration case is concluded. Hopefully in the not too distant future so everyone can put it too bed once and for all. The last 24 hour press releases have given ammunition to both sides to start trumpeting off again. Best just to wait for the final decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, et tu brute said:

Everything is until the arbitration case is concluded. Hopefully in the not too distant future so everyone can put it too bed once and for all. The last 24 hour press releases have given ammunition to both sides to start trumpeting off again. Best just to wait for the final decision.

Yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Shearergol said:

The Puma deal was worth £6.5m a year. The new Castore deal is worth £5m a year. Nobody want to discuss the negatives around this?

OK so we're supposed to believe that currently Sports Direct run the club shops and receive £6.5m to sells Puma gear, as well as sports direct gear which is pure profit. But Mike has decided to bring in Castore to entirely own the shops with nothing at all in sales going to sports direct for £1.5m less. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The published emails can only add to the case. The club will argue that the test wasn’t applied according to the PL’s own rule book and it’s looking increasingly certain that this was the case.

Whether they can prove a direct separation between PIF and the state might not even be important anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

We're trying to tell the arbitration panel that MBS has no involvement with our takeover and there he is telling Boris to get the deal done or he will cut trade with the UK. 

That absolutely does us no favours. 

However, I agree that it "shouldn't" be enough ammo for the PL to kill the deal. 

MBS is the head of state, he doesn't need to be personally linked to something in Saudi Arabia to be able to speak about it or try to influence it positively.  Whether you believe he's linked to it or not, his legal connection isn't effected by lobbying for it because he'll lobby for anything that's positive for his nation.  If Boris Johnson lobbied for a certain industry or added tariffs to protect it is that proof he's directly connected to that industry financially? , obviously not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scotty66 said:

The latest one by hope seems to have ruined all NDM's good work though. 

We wanted them seperate didn't we? ?

 

Heads of state (e.g. the Queen and the royal family) and heads of government (e.g. the Prime Minister and other senior ministers) lobby foreign governments on behalf of UK owned businesses all the time, it's normal behaviour.  This doesn't imply any ownership by the Queen or the Prime Minister of those UK owned businesses, it's just about opening up trade opportunities for those businesses.

 

I don't think MBS lobbying Johnson to intervene changes anything, with respect to the question of separation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Montey said:

Heads of state (e.g. the Queen and the royal family) and heads of government (e.g. the Prime Minister and other senior ministers) lobby foreign governments on behalf of UK owned businesses all the time, it's normal behaviour.  This doesn't imply any ownership by the Queen or the Prime Minister of those UK owned businesses, it's just about opening up trade opportunities for those businesses.

 

I don't think MBS lobbying Johnson to intervene changes anything, with respect to the question of separation.

The only thing that makes me question this, is not the lobbying, I get that, but that the article is reporting that MBS was basically threatening to cut relations as a direct result. Pretty sure that’s not in the lobbying protocol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Maybe, but it has been leaked though. Just saying some thoughts and not trying to be negative.

I don't think the result of a Freedom of Information request can be considered a "leak".  But, I do think that ministers have a vast amount of discretionary control over how they respond to FoI requests and it's interesting what was provided as part of the FoI response.

 

It's interesting to me that (as a result of the FoI request) this information has been provided while, allegedly, the arbitration process is underway.  The FoI revelations seem very relevant to what would be getting discussed within the arbitration.  The arbitration is almost certainly addressing the issue of separation and these FoI revelations have the government's Secretary of State making a definitive statement that in his eyes (in the eyes of the government) PIF are a separate entity from MBS.  It could be interpreted that the minister who has released this information (as part of their FoI response) has deliberately thrown the Premier League under the bus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Montey said:

Heads of state (e.g. the Queen and the royal family) and heads of government (e.g. the Prime Minister and other senior ministers) lobby foreign governments on behalf of UK owned businesses all the time, it's normal behaviour.  This doesn't imply any ownership by the Queen or the Prime Minister of those UK owned businesses, it's just about opening up trade opportunities for those businesses.

 

I don't think MBS lobbying Johnson to intervene changes anything, with respect to the question of separation.

Spot on, it’s what Prime Ministers, Heads of State do. Johnson is off to India soon, he’s not off on a jolly, he’ll be lobbying on behalf of British businesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BlueStar said:

There were some complaints about shoddy sweatshirts etc, but the problem with the kits seemed to be some people were accidentally sent the yet-to-be-released "pro" version, which was to be identical to match-worn, and so people were comparing their tops to their mate and feeling like they'd got a shoddy batch.

Score for some fans then. From what I’ve read the quality is generally good for their clothes so hopefully no issues. It’s not like I’ll be buying one, haven’t bought a toon top for over 2 decades now, though if Ashley left I could be persuaded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

Spot on, it’s what Prime Ministers, Heads of State do. Johnson is off to India soon, he’s not off on a jolly, he’ll be lobbying on behalf of British businesses.

Exactly, add to this the impact on North East economy and I bloody hope Boris would show some interest in this. The fact Lord Grimstone also tried to act as a go between shows the govt want this takeover. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Exactly, add to this the impact on North East economy and I bloody hope Boris would show some interest in this. The fact Lord Grimstone also tried to act as a go between shows the govt want this takeover. 

Surely the question now becomes under what capacity was MBS acting under? Crown Prince or chairman of PIF. 

Obvs the 'official' answer is CP, but something like this definitely blurs the lines and certainly adds strength to the argument that the PL are making, I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwsie.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Surely the question now becomes under what capacity was MBS acting under? Crown Prince or chairman of PIF. 

Obvs the 'official' answer is CP, but something like this definitely blurs the lines and certainly adds strength to the argument that the PL are making, I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwsie.

 

IMHO it doesn’t matter at all. The issue isn’t separation but piracy with Bein leading the charge with the big hitters in the league behind them. If Bein/Qatar are satisfied this will go away, it’ll not be stated as such, the veil of secrecy around legal wrangles will disguise any real reasons this has become an issue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Surely the question now becomes under what capacity was MBS acting under? Crown Prince or chairman of PIF. 

Obvs the 'official' answer is CP, but something like this definitely blurs the lines and certainly adds strength to the argument that the PL are making, I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwsie.

 

There is blurred lines and then are legal lines.  Its the legal line that we are interested in

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

Surely the question now becomes under what capacity was MBS acting under? Crown Prince or chairman of PIF. 

Obvs the 'official' answer is CP, but something like this definitely blurs the lines and certainly adds strength to the argument that the PL are making, I'm not sure how anyone can argue otherwsie.

 

I don’t think we’ll ever know in what capacity he was acting under. However, what’s changed we know MBS is chairman of PIF and lawyers knew this before the Mail article. This tweet below in response to a cretin in the local media is a good summary in my view.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I don’t think we’ll ever know in what capacity he was acting under. However, what’s changed we know MBS is chairman of PIF and lawyers knew this before the Mail article. This tweet below in response to a cretin in the local media is a good summary in my view.

 

33 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

 

 

 

The examples make perfect sense but is this really a fair comparison? So in the example if equinor, would the argument still be valid if said trade minister was chairman of equinor and furthermore if Norway's entered legal system is defined by him and his family; the same legal system we're supposed to accept as legally binding? 

Edit: wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that guy to be a named director?

 

 

Edited by Thumbheed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...