Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[Whitley mag]

Quite obvious why Ashley is doing everything to get this deal through. Some good snippets on Castore deal aswell.

 

[manorpark]

2 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

It was excellent and he showed plenty of emotion aswell. The bloke cares no doubt about it. To suffer threats if he went to the city on Wednesday night, ridicule, financial costs and a relationship break up because of this is a massive sacrifice for anyone to make. 

We all deserve a happy ending to this, but i’ll certainly tip my hat to him for his contribution and dogged determination to make this happen when it’s all over.

 

 

Well said !!!

I'm with you on that, I think we in this group should push ourselves forward to arrange some kind of thank-you meeting for him, somewhere in town.

[Jinky Jim]

3 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

Dead bird in my garden this morning, hopefully it’s a bad sign for bird & bird.

Passed 2 Magpies picking at a dead Bird in the road….is this another good sign.

[nufcjb]

That's pushing it like. What happens when @Whitley mag can't come because he is Keith or vice-versa?

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by nufcjb

[Whitley mag]

16 minutes ago, nufcjb said:

That's pushing it like. What happens when @Whitley mag can't come because he is Keith or vice-versa?

I was born on the banks of the Tyne in North Shields, if I spoke like Keith I’d be asking serious questions of my parentage. He’s got a few years and a few quid on me, but I’d happily buy him a pint in town for all the work he’s put into this.

 

[Kanji]

4 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

It was excellent and he showed plenty of emotion aswell. The bloke cares no doubt about it. To suffer threats if he went to the city on Wednesday night, ridicule, financial costs and a relationship break up because of this is a massive sacrifice for anyone to make. 

We all deserve a happy ending to this, but i’ll certainly tip my hat to him for his contribution and dogged determination to make this happen when it’s all over.

 

 

What did he say about the takeover process (in terms of how far it was?) can you share?

[Whitley mag]

7 minutes ago, Kanji said:

What did he say about the takeover process (in terms of how far it was?) can you share?

His preference is for club to pursue anti competition case before arbitration. He thinks we win the anti competition case, but due to bench in arbitration you can never be sure. On this point he is adamant Shaheed Fatima proves separation, but clearly Beloff is a concern. If I remember rightly from CAT case being given go ahead, disclosure could then begin in about 8 weeks. Arbitration hearing still set for July, but just my opinion I think club will then drag feet if CAT case is given ahead.

[GWN]

interesting 

[Slim]

22 minutes ago, GWN said:

interesting 

I dont get why that's a big deal at all. Basically saying they have stolen premier league games for years and you should fully investigate this.

I dont see any harm in that at all.

[Doctor Zaius]

Of course beIN lobbied the PL and other PL clubs. 

Saudi pirated PL content and had the cheek to call it beoutQ like. 

I dont think its grounds to block the takeover, but a broadcaster asking the PL to take a closer look at the cunts who stole their shit for years isnt evidence of any wrongdoing on behalf of the 'big six', the PL or Qatar. 

Am I right in thinking that the CAT would need us to provide evidence of the PL blocking the takeover on the grounds that it would provide more competition within the league, both sporting and financially? Or is it a case of the PL being guilty until they can prove that they blocked the deal for other reasons?

[robbo_11]

12 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Of course beIN lobbied the PL and other PL clubs. 

Saudi pirated PL content and had the cheek to call it beoutQ like. 

I dont think its grounds to block the takeover, but a broadcaster asking the PL to take a closer look at the cunts who stole their shit for years isnt evidence of any wrongdoing on behalf of the 'big six', the PL or Qatar. 

Am I right in thinking that the CAT would need us to provide evidence of the PL blocking the takeover on the grounds that it would provide more competition within the league, both sporting and financially? Or is it a case of the PL being guilty until they can prove that they blocked the deal for other reasons?

I understand it as this would have created an opportunity for a club or clubs to influence the Premier League into a decision. The club most likely would need to produce evidence from during the test stage to indicate they had provided everything as requested and other shareholders had acted in a way that had impeded their ability to compete or the club suffered damages throughout this process.

I feel like the arbitrition actually covers the main issue which was highlighted as separation between KSA and PIF in terms of the OADT.

 

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, toontownman said:

Oh my.off the post.

Wrong post in wrong thread!

[toontownman]

19 minutes ago, HTT II said:

Wrong post in wrong thread!

There is never a wrong post in wrong thread for mackem misery.

Also managed to do it twice but caught the other one. ?‍♂️

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by toontownman

[James]

4 hours ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Of course beIN lobbied the PL and other PL clubs. 

Saudi pirated PL content and had the cheek to call it beoutQ like. 

I dont think its grounds to block the takeover, but a broadcaster asking the PL to take a closer look at the cunts who stole their shit for years isnt evidence of any wrongdoing on behalf of the 'big six', the PL or Qatar. 

Am I right in thinking that the CAT would need us to provide evidence of the PL blocking the takeover on the grounds that it would provide more competition within the league, both sporting and financially? Or is it a case of the PL being guilty until they can prove that they blocked the deal for other reasons?

The reason for the lobbying is irrelevant. It is against competition law for companies to collude against a rival company.

in this letter PL clubs are being encouraged to collude against us, so the question that can now be applied is did they collude?

 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 hours ago, James said:

The reason for the lobbying is irrelevant. It is against competition law for companies to collude against a rival company.

in this letter PL clubs are being encouraged to collude against us, so the question that can now be applied is did they collude?

 

That’s not true though, is it? The letter isn’t asking anyone to collude. 

It’s a fair letter raising concerns about KSA’s piracy and suggesting clubs should ask the PL to ensure the deal is correctly interrogated, to protect their own revenue.

It’s no different to NUFC asking the PL to take action against the top 6. 

[Manxst]

11 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

That’s not true though, is it? The letter isn’t asking anyone to collude. 

It’s a fair letter raising concerns about KSA’s piracy and suggesting clubs should ask the PL to ensure the deal is correctly interrogated, to protect their own revenue.

It’s no different to NUFC asking the PL to take action against the top 6. 

Hardly the same when NUFC are a member of the PL? Bein are/were merely a business partner. 

[Fantail Breeze]

2 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Hardly the same when NUFC are a member of the PL? Bein are/were merely a business partner. 

What difference does it make?

BeIN are the business partner who have been directly affected by the piracy. They have every right to raise a concern with it.

I just don’t see anything wrong with that letter. They’re not even calling for the clubs to block it.

 

[Thumbheed]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

What difference does it make?

BeIN are the business partner who have been directly affected by the piracy. They have every right to raise a concern with it.

I just don’t see anything wrong with that letter. They’re not even calling for the clubs to block it.

 

What are they asking the clubs to do? 

[Fantail Breeze]

6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

What are they asking the clubs to do? 

They’re not asking them to do anything. 

They’re suggesting it’s in the clubs’ interests to protect their own commercial revenues by asking the PL to consider the impact of Saudi piracy.

It certainly doesn’t ask the clubs to block the takeover, nor does it ask them to join a secret group.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Rosenrot]

I’m with @Fantail Breeze to be honest. Nothing particularly interesting about that letter. It doesn’t really matter.

All that matters is whether the PL followed their own rules and didn’t act in an anti-competitive manner.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Rosenrot

[Scotty66]

The problem is though is that BEIN didn't send that letter to ALL the PL clubs. 

It doesn't really matter how they said it,but you simply can't ask the biggest teams in the league to help stop the takeover, while completely ignoring the lower reams. It's emphasising the fact that you're only interested in money money money, and not fair competition.

Also in a process that is strictly confidential, BEIN have absolutely no right to get involved. They are not part of the PL owners and directors test, yet they got themselves involved which again, is not fair competition. 

[Thumbheed]

24 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re not asking them to do anything. 

They’re suggesting it’s in the clubs’ interests to protect their own commercial revenues by asking the PL to consider the impact of Saudi piracy.

It certainly doesn’t ask the clubs to block the takeover, nor does it ask them to join a secret group.

My understanding is they don't have to stipulate the takeover be blocked for it to be a breach of competition law. 

The question is whether the clubs are legally allowed to ask that PL 'thouroughly investigate' as per competition law. 

It'd be like Coca Cola writing to the Aldi, Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Lidl asking them to convey their disapproval to the CMA of an Asda takeover (to James point, the reason why doesn't materially matter), they legally wouldn't be allowed to do that. 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Thumbheed

[Fantail Breeze]

5 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

My understanding is they don't have to stipulate the takeover be blocked for it to be a breach of competition law. 

The question is whether the clubs are legally allowed to ask that PL 'thouroughly investigate' as per competition law. 

It'd be like Coca Cola writing to the Aldi, Sainsbury's, Waitrose and Lidl asking them to write to the CMA asking them to convey their concern of an Asda takeover (to James point, the reason doesn't matter), they legally wouldn't be allowed to do that. 

They’re certainly allowed to ask the PL to ‘thoroughly investigate’ piracy. As they have done multiple times pre the proposed takeover. That letter is no different.

BeIN will probably be able to produce several other letters from years ago which say a similar thing - proving there is no anti-competition element to it and they’re only concerned about the piracy.

That’s not directly comparable though - if Asda were selling fake Coca Cola in their stores, would Coca Cola be able to convey concerns then? I think they would. They’re protecting their own brand.

14 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

The problem is though is that BEIN didn't send that letter to ALL the PL clubs. 

It doesn't really matter how they said it,but you simply can't ask the biggest teams in the league to help stop the takeover, while completely ignoring the lower reams. It's emphasising the fact that you're only interested in money money money, and not fair competition.

Also in a process that is strictly confidential, BEIN have absolutely no right to get involved. They are not part of the PL owners and directors test, yet they got themselves involved which again, is not fair competition. 

That’s not what the letter says.

 

Edit - all of this is with the caveat of they are my own opinions and I’m by no means an expert. Hopefully one of the legal chaps on here will be able to shed some light on it.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Fantail Breeze

[Thumbheed]

51 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re certainly allowed to ask the PL to ‘thoroughly investigate’ piracy. As they have done multiple times pre the proposed takeover. That letter is no different.

BeIN will probably be able to produce several other letters from years ago which say a similar thing - proving there is no anti-competition element to it and they’re only concerned about the piracy.

That’s not directly comparable though - if Asda were selling fake Coca Cola in their stores, would Coca Cola be able to convey concerns then? I think they would. They’re protecting their own brand.

That’s not what the letter says.

 

Edit - all of this is with the caveat of they are my own opinions and I’m by no means an expert. Hopefully one of the legal chaps on here will be able to shed some light on it.

I agree, I think they probably are allowed to raise their concerns to the PL, but the question is whether they're allowed to raise their concerns via the clubs. If only a select number of clubs received those letters (as is being suggested) and those clubs were the big 6 (as in being implied) and they acted on it, then it'd be further proof of a clear of obvious cartel we can all acknowledge is present. This would contravene competition law. 

Re: the supermarket analogy, again, the reasoning is irrelevant in the context of a multimillion pound transaction for the purchase of a business. They categorically would not be allowed to lobby the other supermarkets to raise concerns on behalf of Coca Cola, irrespective of whether they're selling the real stuff or not. It's It's the action of attempting to get others to essentially lobby on Cokes behalf that is the issue, not the fact that the new owners of Asda sell Rola Cola themselves.

Edit: *same

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Thumbheed

[TRon]

31 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

They’re not asking them to do anything. 

They’re suggesting it’s in the clubs’ interests to protect their own commercial revenues by asking the PL to consider the impact of Saudi piracy.

It certainly doesn’t ask the clubs to block the takeover, nor does it ask them to join a secret group.

Well they would hardly ask the PL to join a secret group in a public document.