Jump to content

Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Consortium of one said:

so the tweet that everyone is referencing, how do we know that went only to the big 6?  How do we know it wasn't sent to everybody?

NUFC never got a copy... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha, what about Carla di Bello, the so-called Kardashian associate involved as an advisor to the takeover? The weirdest possible combination for a consortium in PCP, Reubens and PIF but that's us! 

 

 

Edited by nbthree3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey. I really started to doubt it. But it’s now being covered by MLex to their 6,000 Twitter followers, written by the superb Simon Zekaria, to all 400 of his followers.

Phew. Things are really hotting up.

:lol: Keith saying “@SimonZekaria typically looks at the issues...” like he had ever heard of him before 9.20pm today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Yorkie changed the title to Positive Optimism - Saudi Takeover Edition

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...