Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

Jinky Jim

by Jinky Jim
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Danh1

Danh1

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

Looks like the EPL response should be this week, was some doubt earlier it maybe next week. It’ll fall on deaf ears but I hope everyone keeps their shit together when the response comes. Clearly they’ll fight this and sound confident in their position, but the acid test will only be when disclosure comes. Fully expect the likes of Edwards and Matt Slater to paint the PL’s defence as strong, but we’ve been here before lads and know the drill. HTFL.

 

He sounds extremely confident in that last tweet mind. Hope he’s right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
manorpark

manorpark

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, nufcjb said:

Whatever happened to the good news that was due after the end of Ramadhan/Eid celebrations, moon position? What was it supposed to be anyway?

There is no point in listening to anyone who says there is going to be 'good news' or 'bad news' on a certain day, or even 'after' a certain day.

Unless it is Staveley, or someone else actually involved.

No one else knows any 'dates' at all.

We all know there will be good news (in fact 'great news') eventually, but don't listen to anyone who says "when" !!!

 

 

Edited by manorpark

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shearergol

Shearergol

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

I’m honestly lost at the minute, where are we with the takeover? What’s the holding point at the minute still?

  1. Arbitration is still in the background. It may not be required though, depends on....
  2. The EPL still need to respond to the legal action against them. This may result in compensation and/or a change to the ruling on the owners test.
  3. There are thoughts that the EPL won't want the legal hearing to go ahead because of potentially damning evidence regarding the ESL and Master.
  4. Piracy is still potentially an issue but signs are looking positive on this (as above)

That's all I know really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
STM

STM

Posted
Posted

I still think the biggest issue is separating PIF from the Saudi state. Which is incredibly difficult when MBS is a board member as listed on their website. [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted
Just now, STM said:

I still think the biggest issue is separating PIF from the Saudi state. Which is incredibly difficult when MBS is a board member as listed on their website. [emoji38]

If WTO, legal cases we’re dropped and Bein reinstated, would it matter if they we’re separate or not ? There is nothing in PL rule book to say a state can’t own a football club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
RS

RS

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

If WTO, legal cases we’re dropped and Bein reinstated, would it matter if they we’re separate or not ? There is nothing in PL rule book to say a state can’t own a football club. 

Does that not lead back to MBS not wanting to identify as a director again?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Whitley mag

Whitley mag

Posted
Posted
Just now, RS said:

Does that not lead back to MBS not wanting to identify as a director again?

You would think so but would the PL even be bothered if they couldn’t link the piracy anymore ? It’s been pretty well established that human rights are not part of the test, so I think it’s debatable. All the PL’s favoured journalists like Matt Slater insist all roads lead to piracy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
cosmic

cosmic

Posted
Posted
On 09/05/2021 at 05:16, QatarMag said:

Eid has been called for Wednesday 12th (so far) again depending on moon committee, so expect something later on in the week to come in positive with regards to news on the takeover from the KSA / Legal / PCP side from Sunday 16th May onwards which is the starting week in Qatar and GCC (Dubai / Saudi etc)

(Just to clarity no contracts / negotiations / legals etc.. will be signed off until then (due to Ramadan)

PL have not got a legal leg to stand on with regards to defending any NUFC case hence the push from MA publicly, he’s in a very strong position.


From what I know and what I’ve been told which has been very clear from day 1, is we need to be patient and the TO will happen. 

 

Any (Positive) updates now that Eid is over? Counting down the days ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, STM said:

I still think the biggest issue is separating PIF from the Saudi state. Which is incredibly difficult when MBS is a board member as listed on their website. [emoji38]

I don't think that necessarily means that PIF is not legally separate from the state. For example if the queen sits on the board of a company would that mean that it were controlled by the British state?

I think the issue is whether PIF is set up in a way that gives it independence of decision making, which I belive it is.

From what I can gather it also has very limited requirements to report back to government, less so than most other SWFs that are established as legally separate entitles.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
AyeDubbleYoo

AyeDubbleYoo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Like we discussed though, I'm not sure if legal separation is enough. The O&D test seems to allow for people who have shadow control.

Obviously we didn't fail the O&D test anyway, so it's a slightly weird argument. 

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Like we discussed though, I'm not sure if legal separation is enough. The O&D test seems to allow for people who have shadow control.

Obviously we didn't fail the O&S test anyway, so it's a slightly weird argument. 

But the issue for the PL is they have to establish that in legal terms. The legal relationship between the Saudi state and a Saudi company can only be a matter of Saudi law and apparently there is no concept of shadow directorship in Saudi law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AyeDubbleYoo

AyeDubbleYoo

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

But the issue for the PL is they have to establish that in legal terms. The legal relationship between the Saudi state and a Saudi company can only be a matter of Saudi law and apparently there is no concept of shadow directorship in Saudi law.

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. 

 

 

Edited by AyeDubbleYoo

Link to post
Share on other sites
Optimistic Nut

Optimistic Nut

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, STM said:

I still think the biggest issue is separating PIF from the Saudi state. Which is incredibly difficult when MBS is a board member as listed on their website. [emoji38]

Still don’t think this should have any bearing on it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
James

James

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Like we discussed though, I'm not sure if legal separation is enough. The O&D test seems to allow for people who have shadow control.

Obviously we didn't fail the O&S test anyway, so it's a slightly weird argument. 

The argument here is that Crystal Palace and Man City have shadow directors so the test hasn’t been applied fairly even if agreed that MBS is pulling the strings.

that wouldn’t win arbitration but it is another key argument to make on the competitions tribunal 

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...