Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

[Thumbheed]

16 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

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) then it'd be further proof of a clear of obvious cartel we can all acknowledge is present. This would contravene completion 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 The action of attempting to get others to essentially lobby on beins behalf which is the issue. 

Edit: *same

Then put this in the context of:

- ESL

-Project Big picture and the PL's alleged approval of it. 

-Spurs seemingly engaging PIF themselves for investment in the club 

- the fact the ODT is confidential and supposedly completely free from outside influence. 

Then you probably have quite an array of issues which the PL have to address. 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by Thumbheed

[Lazarus]

Did the letter go to the small 14 or just the big 6?

[Ben]

1 hour ago, Lazarus said:

Did the letter go to the small 14 or just the big 6?

Just the big 6 apparently 

[andyc35i]

3 hours ago, Ben said:

Just the big 6 apparently 

Apologies if I have missed it, has that been confirmed or is it speculation? We have all seen the letter and says things about the ‘Saudis stealing money from your club’, so it seems plausible that this has been sent to all teams

[Whitley mag]

15 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

Apologies if I have missed it, has that been confirmed or is it speculation? We have all seen the letter and says things about the ‘Saudis stealing money from your club’, so it seems plausible that this has been sent to all teams

NCSL confirmed that when they we’re seeking evidence it had actually gone out to clubs, one club said they had not received it. They we’re initially disappointed as it would have been evidence of lobbying against the bid, however they now have evidence all corrupt 6 and PL received the letter.

 

 

 

[Scotty66]

It's also strange that Bein didn't contact Newcastle and ask them to reconsider the takeover bid. Obviously they would get told where to go, but to do the process correctly surely the club actually involved should have been written to before any other club! 

[Candi_Hills]

I think we're wasting our time trying to guess how strong Newcastle's legal case is or isn't. We have only a few titbits of public information to go on and people who work in the legal field are able to offer only broad speculation.

Just be encouraged by the fact that it's Mike Ashley who wants this deal and he's a rotten git who has to have his way.

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Candi_Hills

[Consortium of one]

BeIn held the rights and had a legit grievance with the piracy.  End of.

[morpeth mag]

18 minutes ago, Consortium of one said:

BeIn held the rights and had a legit grievance with the piracy.  End of.

They had no legal reason to know an ODT was ongoing.

[andyc35i]

The deal was all over the press and anyone that looked found out the Saudis were involved 

[Robster]

I suppose the question isn't about what BEIN did, or who they wrote to, it's about what the PL did about it. If they ignored it, they should feel confident.
If they've acted on the lobbying and have been influenced by it, I suppose that's a different matter.

They are probably backdating a letter to BEIN as we speak, advising them that it's a confidential process.

[Whitley mag]

It’ll be interesting to see if the club go for a fast track anti competition case. I’m not sure what the difference is in terms of levels of disclosure as opposed to a full blown case. Where clearly banking on disclosure forcing the issue though and as such I’ve got a feeling arbitration is not happening if the case gets the go ahead. This article would support that these things tend get settled in regards to anti competition.

Competition law expert Ben Lasserson of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, said that use of the fast track had taken off "much more quickly than expected" following its introduction as part of the 2015 Consumer Rights Act (CRA 2015) on 1 October 2015. The previous two cases had settled quickly and this third case, brought by online training provider Socrates Training Ltd against the Law Society of England and Wales, was likely to do the same, he said.

"The debate surrounding the CRA 2015 reforms to private actions in competition law predominantly focused on the introduction of the collective actions regime, given the significance of that change," he said. "The 'fast track' procedure did not attract the same level of attention, yet this latest filing shows a pattern of fast track applications emerging."

"Interestingly, we are yet to see how this procedure will actually work in practice as each case has settled at an early stage. It is perhaps not surprising that the claims brought so far all involve an allegation of abuse of dominance. The reality is that companies understandably want to avoid the risk of a judicial finding of dominance, and will not want the added complication of having to fight an issue as complex as dominance in circumstances where the timetable is expedited and costs are capped. As a result, there is an obvious impetus towards early settlement. In its own way, therefore, the new procedure is arguably proving very effective for claimants as a means of challenging anti-competitive behaviour," he said.

The ability to allocate competition law proceedings to a 'fast track' procedure was one of several new powers given to the CAT by the CRA 2015. Claims allocated to the fast track must be heard within six months, and costs recoverable by the winning party will be capped at a level set by the CAT.

The CAT can allocate a case to the fast track either on its own initiative, or on the application of one of the parties. The procedure was designed primarily to benefit small and medium-sized businesses complaining of competition law infringements, but the CAT must also consider whether the case can be heard in three days or less and the complexity of the issues involved before deciding whether to allocate the case to the fast track.

 

 

[Dr Jinx]

Interesting, it will all depend on what the court says in relation to their jurisdiction challenge. June 9th I believe is when they (the PL) submit their case for this.

If the judge rules against them which I expect him to (basically the argument that arbitration is dealing with all of this can't cover Mike Ashley's loss of earnings and damages claim imo as arbitration doesn't cover this)

If the same trend applies then the PL should want to settle early in this regard.

It's not unrealistic that we could have a takeover by end of July.

[Whitley mag]

Investigative powers in the UK

To open a civil investigation the CMA or sectoral regulator must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement. Once it has started an investigation it may acquire information through:

• dawn raids on businesses where it may access electronic data; review, copy or remove physical or electronic documents; ask for factual explanations of documents relevant to an investigation, and interview individuals. In practice, its dawn raids often involve taking copies of electronic servers and reviewing these at a later stage; 
• mandatory requests in writing for information and for specific documents or categories of documents.

The CMA can require individuals connected with a company to answer questions, including ex-employees, suppliers and customers.

In criminal investigations, the CMA may also obtain evidence through surveillance and covert human intelligence sources.

Companies or people who obstruct the CMA in the exercises of these powers or failure to comply with any requirements can face civil or criminal proceedings.

Richard Masters letter to the MP Liz Truss in January stated ‘I would like to reiterate that it is the Premier League's desire to have the matter resolved in timely matter.' 

Well the times nearly up for the lying bastards now. They refused to make a decision so we couldn’t appeal and take this to court. They’ve kicked it down the road in the hope the Saudis would walk. We’ll find out soon how confident they are in their actions, as things are going to get very uncomfortable for them in disclosure.

 

 

[morpeth mag]

2 hours ago, andyc35i said:

The deal was all over the press and anyone that looked found out the Saudis were involved 

Yes, but how was it all over the press? The PL were proven to be briefing as I recall.

[Dr Jinx]

2 hours ago, morpeth mag said:

Yes, but how was it all over the press? The PL were proven to be briefing as I recall.

The Wall Street Journal posted the whole thing in January and said it was highly likely to happen.

It was April when the bid was accepted so they (Qatar, Ben, Khashoggi widow, Amnesty, rival clubs etc) had plenty of time to do their lobbying.

Perhaps if that article had never come out, the campaign to stop the takeover would not have been as organised.

[Scotty66]

6 hours ago, Consortium of one said:

BeIn held the rights and had a legit grievance with the piracy.  End of.

The had a contract with the PL for the rights, I'm guessing that didn't include the provision that they could get themselves involved with a clubs takeover business. 

They should have gone to the press and said we're not happy, and let masters respond in public or ignore it, like he did with us. Instead they contacted other clubs of the league that they aren't involved in. They have the rights but they aren't a shareholder like 20 other clubs. 

BeIn got to big for their boots and the PL were to chicken shit to tell them where to go. Bein have actually done more damage to themselves in helping the takeover by getting involved. Ironic. 

[Armchair Pundit]

13 minutes ago, Scotty66 said:

The had a contract with the PL for the rights, I'm guessing that didn't include the provision that they could get themselves involved with a clubs takeover business. 

They should have gone to the press and said we're not happy, and let masters respond in public or ignore it, like he did with us. Instead they contacted other clubs of the league that they aren't involved in. They have the rights but they aren't a shareholder like 20 other clubs. 

BeIn got to big for their boots and the PL were to chicken shit to tell them where to go. Bein have actually done more damage to themselves in helping the takeover by getting involved. Ironic. 

That was kind of my thinking too, though I guess it remains to be seen as to how likely any of the judges, etc actually give either case a fair hearing.

... pain in the arse it's all taking so frickin long.

[Consortium of one]

2 hours ago, Scotty66 said:

The had a contract with the PL for the rights, I'm guessing that didn't include the provision that they could get themselves involved with a clubs takeover business. 

They should have gone to the press and said we're not happy, and let masters respond in public or ignore it, like he did with us. Instead they contacted other clubs of the league that they aren't involved in. They have the rights but they aren't a shareholder like 20 other clubs. 

BeIn got to big for their boots and the PL were to chicken shit to tell them where to go. Bein have actually done more damage to themselves in helping the takeover by getting involved. Ironic. 

Bein was in the process of renewing their contract for the EPL rights when the takeover started.  Since BeoutQ  originated in the KSA I think they had every right to bring it to EPL and ask that the piracy be resolved.  

[Manxst]

4 hours ago, Consortium of one said:

Bein was in the process of renewing their contract for the EPL rights when the takeover started.  Since BeoutQ  originated in the KSA I think they had every right to bring it to EPL and ask that the piracy be resolved.  

But they went to select PL clubs and asked them to specifically lobby against the takeover, no? That’s not the same as asking the PL to resolve the piracy matter.

[1964]

Doesn't it depend on what those Clubs subsequently did?  If they have evidence that they took action it could be interesting 

[Danh1]

57 minutes ago, 1964 said:

Doesn't it depend on what those Clubs subsequently did?  If they have evidence that they took action it could be interesting 

Especially if it was not long after the nod that the consortium apparently got that the takeover was about to be waved through.

 

[Happinesstan]

On 23/05/2021 at 00:02, Thumbheed said:

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

I don't think "the big 6" is a legally recognised term.

[manorpark]

34 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I don't think "the big 6" is a legally recognised term.

FULL TITLE . . . . "The Sky Big Picture Corrupt Six".

[Thumbheed]

39 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

I don't think "the big 6" is a legally recognised term.

Me neither. What's your point?