Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Oh sure, nobody could argue it’s been done fairly. 

[Jackie Broon]

13 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

But surely the test is designed for the PL to make their own judgement? If it was just a simple matter of legal entities it would be extremely easy and there would really be no point in that clause.

Realise we might be confusing competition case, arbitration case and original O&D test too. 

But there has to be a legal basis to that judgement. Also, in the case of Crystal Palace they accepted a company based in Delaware taking majority control of the club despite the directors of that company not being known because the law in Delaware doesn't require that.

But, like with just about any legal case, it could still go either way.

In terms of the competition case I think it is more about how the PL has acted in arriving at it's position. If the PL think there is a significant chance they'll be found to have broken competition law there's a very good chance they'll want to settle and make it go away by reversing their position on the O&D test.

[Wandy]

Apparently there's an article in The Athletic regarding the takeover, and Masters' position is described as being "as strong as it's ever been". 

[gjohnson]

2 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Apparently there's an article in The Athletic regarding the takeover, and Masters' position is described as being "as strong as it's ever been". 

So what? 

The official line was always that the had no position beyond stalling and hoping things go away.

He's now in a position where he has to reveal what actually happened beyond 'no comment'....this might be as strong as ever, but it's still a very weak position to be in

 

[Lazarus]

6 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Apparently there's an article in The Athletic regarding the takeover, and Masters' position is described as being "as strong as it's ever been". 

Isnt that just what they want their position to be in public? I mean, you don't say ahead of a court case that youre guilty/nervous/shitting it do you??

What it is in private could be entirely different

[Wandy]

3 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Isnt that just what they want their position to be in public? I mean, you don't say ahead of a court case that youre guilty/nervous/shitting it do you??

What it is in private could be entirely different

Absolutely. But I just want to see an article that says Masters is in deep shit & the PL dont have a leg to stand on. Seems to me that most of the media just love pissing on our hopes and really dont want it to happen.

[gjohnson]

3 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Isnt that just what they want their position to be in public? I mean, you don't say ahead of a court case that youre guilty/nervous/shitting it do you??

What it is in private could be entirely different

Would say just the opposite...they've gone out of their way to keep their position hidden. 

It's obvious that the 'big 6' interfered in some way to prevent competition, and would say he's terrified of the backlash he'll get when everyone sees conclusively that he's runs the league for their benefit. Imagine it was shown that our takeover wasn't allowed because  of Liverpool and Tottenham objected.... 

[Lazarus]

7 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Absolutely. But I just want to see an article that says Masters is in deep shit & the PL dont have a leg to stand on. Seems to me that most of the media just love pissing on our hopes and really dont want it to happen.

We'll never see that though.

The PL will have a PR strategy in place just as 'our' side will to show how confident they are and that they don't expect to lose. Its basically bluster.

That Athletic article is just another be part of that. Weve already seen the anti saudi comments and the general negativity from the usual suspects.

Both sides are showing their poker faces.

[Jackie Broon]

What is surprising though is that the PL haven't come out publicly with a statement disputing that they've breached competition law and/or affirming their commitment to competition law.

From what I can tell in other competition law cases the companies involved tend to do that. Also, lack of public statements distancing themselves from potentially anti-competitive behaviour can actually be used as evidence against a company in a competition law case.

[Dr Jinx]

I’m guessing the disclosure part hasn’t happened yet as we’re waiting on their response.

Tell me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t that be a two way street? Wouldn’t the club have to disclose the information on what their case is based on too?

Would the club also need to request the exact information they believe is relevant to the case? I can’t imagine the PL will give them the logins to their server and just let them dig around. 

If the PL decide to settle before it gets started, then we were right all along and they acted improperly, if they contest this I reckon they probably have a strong case that there was no wrong doing and will stick to their guns until this fizzles out completely.

[NE27]

18 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

if they contest this I reckon they probably have a strong case that there was no wrong doing and will stick to their guns until this fizzles out completely.

Not that you're wrong, but don't put it past people who think they're untouchable lying until the very minute they're found guilty.

 

My ex employer case in point 

[Fantail Breeze]

59 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Apparently there's an article in The Athletic regarding the takeover, and Masters' position is described as being "as strong as it's ever been". 

His position personally? Or his thoughts on the PL’s position on the takeover?

[ToonArmy1892]

When is something going to happen?

[gjohnson]

22 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

What is surprising though is that the PL haven't come out publicly with a statement disputing that they've breached competition law and/or affirming their commitment to competition law.

From what I can tell in other competition law cases the companies involved tend to do that. Also, lack of public statements distancing themselves from potentially anti-competitive behaviour can actually be used as evidence against a company in a competition law case.

Not remotely surprising.....Companies only tend to do this when there's overwhelming publicly available evidence one way or another that they have or haven't.

Can see three options....

1) They don't know if they've breached the law and are looking to see if they have or not, and what their options are either way

2) They know they have, and are searching for any loop-hole, caveat, excuse to justify it.

3) They know they haven't, and are looking for an actually legitimate reason to justify their position beyond some semantics of who is and isn't a director

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

When is something going to happen?

Thursday is when the PL have to submit their initial response to the CAT case by.

[Rosenrot]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

But surely the test is designed for the PL to make their own judgement? If it was just a simple matter of legal entities it would be extremely easy and there would really be no point in that clause.

Realise we might be confusing competition case, arbitration case and original O&D test too. 

It depends what the rules say to be honest. If they are not given arbitrary discretion, then no, it's not up to them to make their own judgement. If they have to make the decision based on a clear set of rules, those rules are the only thing that matters. They can't change the criteria mid-application because they don't like the outcome.

If they are given arbitrary discretion, it still might be anti-competitive which is of course unlawful on public policy grounds.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah I understand. I just meant that the rule itself seems to suggest some level of discretion. A shadow director by definition would be someone who’s not nominated officially. 

[Rosenrot]

3 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah I understand. I just meant that the rule itself seems to suggest some level of discretion. A shadow director by definition would be someone who’s not nominated officially. 

I guess it will be up to the court to decide the definition of a "shadow director" in the context of the test. I don't think the PL will be able to unilaterally decide what it means.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

1 minute ago, Rosenrot said:

I guess it will be up to the court to decide the definition of a "shadow director" in the context of the test. I don't think the PL will be able to unilaterally decide what it means.

I guess they might be able to decide for the purposes of their own O&D test, but you’re right it might still end up anti competitive in wider law.

I’m not saying I think any of this his above board BTW. 

[Wandy]

20 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

His position personally? Or his thoughts on the PL’s position on the takeover?

Not sure, as I haven't seen the article yet. I assume it means both.

[Nobody]

12 minutes ago, Wandy said:

Not sure, as I haven't seen the article yet. I assume it means both.

It's in relation to his standing after the Super League debacle. 

"What’s more, following his handling of the European Super League crisis, Masters is widely perceived to be as strong as he ever has been. If Ashley is attempting to weaken Masters’ position or create a division at Premier League executive board level, then recent events have not helped him. "

[Jackie Broon]

25 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Yeah I understand. I just meant that the rule itself seems to suggest some level of discretion. A shadow director by definition would be someone who’s not nominated officially. 

Technically a shadow director is something different and not what the PL's position is. A shadow director is defined in UK law and needs to both have the ability to influence the decisions of a company and act on that. The PL's position is that the KSA would have 'control' of the club. The PL's definition of control goes beyond that of a shadow director in UK law:

“Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to include:

(a) the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

(b) the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to exercise the voting rights applicable to, Shares in the Club (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.

For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that Person;

The difficulty for the PL is that it has to demonstrate that the Saudi state has control over PIF, if PIF is formed as a legally separate entity and makes decisions independent of the government that might be very difficult for them to do. There is clearly a level of discretion, however, that discretion still has to have a sound basis in law to stand up and the relevant law in determining the control the Saudi state has over PIF would be Saudi law I think.

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[ToonArmy1892]

Thursday it is then.

*waits*

[manorpark]

15 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

The difficulty for the PL is that it has to demonstrate that the Saudi state has control over PIF, if PIF is formed as a legally separate entity and makes decisions independent of the government that might be very difficult for them to do. There is clearly a level of discretion, however, that discretion still has to have a sound basis in law to stand up and the relevant law in determining the control the Saudi state has over PIF would be Saudi law I think.

 

But, all of this is only relevant if the Premier League are actively looking for a way to stop this deal going through.

With all the massive benefits it would bring to the City of Newcastle, The UK economy, the Premier League itself, and last (but not least) to Newcastle United FC, then SURELY the Premier League should really be actively looking for any way possible to get this deal passed, ASAP!

[Whitley mag]

18 minutes ago, Nobody said:

It's in relation to his standing after the Super League debacle. 

"What’s more, following his handling of the European Super League crisis, Masters is widely perceived to be as strong as he ever has been. If Ashley is attempting to weaken Masters’ position or create a division at Premier League executive board level, then recent events have not helped him. "

Very bizarre under his leadership PBP and the ESL has been attempted. Clandestine meetings with the top 6 the day before EPL board meetings have been widely reported. Relationships between the 6 clubs and the rest are at all time low. Rather than anything Masters did to prevent the ESL, it surely was down to fan and government pressure. 

The PL is now being threatened with an independent body to regulate it. I personally think Matt Slater is being spoon fed by the PL. Add to this ongoing cases brought by us and Man City and it’s clear Masters should be far from a position of strength.