Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP

[manorpark]

If manorpark hadn't have outlined he watched NUFC games in the 60s I would have thought he was 13 going on 14

 

 

Thanks, I'm 21 actually, you should know that Dad!

[madras]

What’s the next step from PIF, Staveley, etc then? They asked the fans to act, they’ve done so in a way I doubt they’d never have expected. Has to be in their court now.

 

At this point that boils down to who is more likely to take legal action Ashley or Bein.

 

I've seen this mentioned a few times in here, and

I'm a bit confused by it. This is a genuine question, not trying to be a knob or anything but what legal grounds would Bein have to sue the Premier League?

 

I mean obviously they're going to be p*ssed off as rightly or wrongly they blame Saudi for pirating their rights. And clearly they're going to be very shitty with the PL and possibly threaten to bid less money next time the rights are up for grabs or maybe even withold agreed payments for next season.

 

But if the bid passed the O&D test as published and the takeover was approved, is there any legal basis for Bein to try to take action vs the PL?

 

I’m no legal expert but seems common consensus that Bein have legal teams ready. The telegraph and Liam Kennedy has mentioned this tonight, I can only assume they’ll come after the Premier League as the rights holder for their loss of earnings.

 

Apparently Serie A has reimbursed a large sum to bein sports, after the Italian FA agreed to hold a cup game in Saudi Arabia.

 

I guess they’d see it as the PL becoming complicit with the piracy by allowing the Saudis into the league, I’m unsure myself how that argument would stack up legally.

 

Would it be the piracy as I thought that stopped last year. More likely to be that KSA banned Bein from boardcasting there.

[Montey]

Something I don't understand, from a few comments that have been made...

 

What legal case would BeIN Sports have against the Premier League if the League did approve the takeover?

 

The Premier League is not legally responsible for enforcing the licensing rights sold to BeIN Sports, it is the responsibility of the rights holder to enforce the rights they have paid for - unless the Premier League were spectacularly stupid and agreed in the rights agreement to enforce those rights.  But, it would be spectacularly stupid for the Premier League to have agreed such a thing (I think it would be unheard of) because no business is ever willing to take on a risk over which they have no control.  The suggestion is that BeIN has "lawyers hovering" ready to sue the Premier League if they approve the takeover, but sue the League for what?

 

So, I am not seeing what BeIN Sports could legally do to the Premier League other than refuse to bid for the next rights package in 2022 (this is no small thing, but not something they'd have "lawyers hovering" for).

[Chris_R]

It's not about legal cases or who is responsible for enforcing rights. It's about what BeIN and other rights holders would think.

 

If the PL allowed the Saudis in, then BeIN would rightly feel that the PL are not protecting their rights, supporting piracy, and would say "well why should we bid again next time round?". Not just BeIN, but others might think the same too in case the PL do the same to them.

[Wolfcastle]

What’s the next step from PIF, Staveley, etc then? They asked the fans to act, they’ve done so in a way I doubt they’d never have expected. Has to be in their court now.

 

At this point that boils down to who is more likely to take legal action Ashley or Bein.

 

I've seen this mentioned a few times in here, and

I'm a bit confused by it. This is a genuine question, not trying to be a knob or anything but what legal grounds would Bein have to sue the Premier League?

 

I mean obviously they're going to be p*ssed off as rightly or wrongly they blame Saudi for pirating their rights. And clearly they're going to be very shitty with the PL and possibly threaten to bid less money next time the rights are up for grabs or maybe even withold agreed payments for next season.

 

But if the bid passed the O&D test as published and the takeover was approved, is there any legal basis for Bein to try to take action vs the PL?

 

I’m no legal expert but seems common consensus that Bein have legal teams ready. The telegraph and Liam Kennedy has mentioned this tonight, I can only assume they’ll come after the Premier League as the rights holder for their loss of earnings.

 

Apparently Serie A has reimbursed a large sum to bein sports, after the Italian FA agreed to hold a cup game in Saudi Arabia.

 

I guess they’d see it as the PL becoming complicit with the piracy by allowing the Saudis into the league, I’m unsure myself how that argument would stack up legally.

 

 

Italian's do it better.

[Montey]

It's not about legal cases or who is responsible for enforcing rights. It's about what BeIN and other rights holders would think.

 

If the PL allowed the Saudis in, then BeIN would rightly feel that the PL are not protecting their rights, supporting piracy, and would say "well why should we bid again next time round?". Not just BeIN, but others might think the same too in case the PL do the same to them.

 

But it is about legal cases - because it's about what one party can force the other party to do via the courts (either as a matter of criminal law, civil law, or commercial law).

 

If BeIN can't convince a court to make an order on their behalf, then BeIN can't have a court order the Premier League to do anything or face any penalty.  If they can't get the courts to order the Premier League to do anything, then all BeIN can do is threaten to not participate in the next round of bidding for licensing rights.  Which is hardly a threat given there are other parties who could outbid them in 2022.

 

I would just about guarantee that the rights agreement, sold by the Premier League to the broadcasters, will say that it is the responsibility of the rights holder to enforce those rights - that whilst the Premier League will provide all possible assistance to the rights holder in pursuing their rights it is still 100% the responsibility of the rights holder to enforce them and the rights holder has no legal recourse against the Premier League for violation of those rights by a 3rd party.  This means that as long as the Premier League is seen by all rights holders to be doing all they reasonably can then the rights holders have no case against the Premier League for which BeIN's "lawyers would be hovering".

 

So this means the only actual obvious risk to the Premier League is, that by approving the takeover there exists the perception that they are devaluing those rights.  But, the Premier League could easily argue that they are not devaluing the rights because the rights holders are not losing any revenue as a result of the approval (i.e. SkySport's revenue will not go down; BeIN Sports revenue will not go down since they are not getting revenue from KSA anyway due to their diplomatic issues).

 

Additionally, let's hypotheticalise a scenario where the takeover has been approved and BeIN throws their toys out of the pram by refusing to bid for 2022 and beyond - do we really think that SkySports, ITV, BBC, and other broadcasters will also refuse to bid?  Of course they won't, they'll be in there as they always are, bidding the same amount they would if the takeover didn't happen, because they want the revenues from broadcasting EPL games.

 

So, to me, the argument that the Premier League is denying the takeover because of piracy is just a weak deflection away from more likely, less legally legitimate, reasons for not wanting the takeover to go through.

 

This is why I am more inclined to think the behavior of the Premier League is more about what the "preferred 6 clubs" want or don't want.  That if the refusal to approve the takeover was about piracy and that piracy was a fully legitimate reason to refuse then the League would have officially refused the takeover and announced piracy as the reason.  The fact that the takeover was not officially refused says to me that piracy is not the actual reason - so I start looking for other reasons.  It's the only explanation I have seen that actually makes sense (is understandable) - piracy seems a weak argument; human rights seems a hypocritical argument; organisation structure issues seems a weak argument; protecting vested interests seems a strong argument.

[Raconteur]

That’s a thoughtful argument (probably more so than mine will be), but I think it understates the significance of Saudi actions of the past - or more correctly, throughout the period of the current rights deal.

 

It seems universally accepted that the PL tried to make PIF and KSA (and the actions of BeOutQ) as the same thing for the purposes of the O&D test, and I would suggest that the PL did this, with the encouragement of BeIn, for the purposes of future legal battles.

 

KSA’s sanctions against Qatar during the current rights period means that BeIn has already suffered losses - and I have to say that I’m not sure I agree that it is BeIn’s responsibility to enforce their broadcasting rights. The WTO action was one of those attempts to establish liability, and I’m sure I read that the PL attempted some action prior to that.

 

It’s what gives BeIn leverage to say “If you approve the deal, we’ll sue you for the money we’ve lost when you sold us rights to a country we weren’t allowed to broadcast into.”

[Montey]

That’s a thoughtful argument (probably more so than mine will be), but I think it understates the significance of Saudi actions of the past - or more correctly, throughout the period of the current rights deal.

 

It seems universally accepted that the PL tried to make PIF and KSA (and the actions of BeOutQ) as the same thing for the purposes of the O&D test, and I would suggest that the PL did this, with the encouragement of BeIn, for the purposes of future legal battles.

 

KSA’s sanctions against Qatar during the current rights period means that BeIn has already suffered losses - and I have to say that I’m not sure I agree that it is BeIn’s responsibility to enforce their broadcasting rights. The WTO action was one of those attempts to establish liability, and I’m sure I read that the PL attempted some action prior to that.

 

It’s what gives BeIn leverage to say “If you approve the deal, we’ll sue you for the money we’ve lost when you sold us rights to a country we weren’t allowed to broadcast into.”

 

I understand what your saying, but I think your position ignores the geopolitical reality of the relationship between KSA and Qatar.

 

I find hypothetical analogies can be helpful in these scenarios, so here's one that may help.

 

Imagine for a moment that an American television company (e.g. ABC) purchased the rights to broadcast the Premier League into the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war.  In our hypothetical scenario, whilst ABC may own the rights for EPL broadcasting into the USSR, the relationship between the USA and USSR is such that the USSR does not permit ABC to actually deliver that broadcast.  In this hypothetical scenario, citizens within the USSR still want to watch EPL games so they form their own group to pirate games, then Chelsea FC gets sold to a Russian billionaire with ties to the USSR government.  Would the American broadcaster have the right to sue the EPL for revenues lost (revenues not achieved) because they couldn't broadcast into the USSR?  I think the answer would obviously be "no", because the American broadcaster knew before they purchased the rights they were never likely to be able to deliver that broadcast into the USSR - in other words, in our hypothetical, ABC were stupid because they paid the EPL money for something they couldn't use.

 

Now, let's translate this to the situation we are discussing.

 

Qatar and KSA are in the equivalent of the cold war that America and the USSR experienced.  There is no diplomatic relationship between the two countries, and there are embargoes in place on trade and other activities (e.g. travel) between KSA and its allies, and Qatar and its allies.  This has been the situation since things turned completely sour in June 2017 (refer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_diplomatic_crisis).  On 10th August 2018, BeIN Sports announced it had secured exclusive rights to broadcast the EPL in the Middle East and North Africa (refer: https://www.beinsports.com/en/premier-league/video/bein-sports-secures-exclusive-premier-league-/949495), which means it was announcing that it had paid for the right to exclusively broadcast EPL games into countries with whom Qatar had no diplomatic or trade relationship.

 

The key point being that the sanctions enacted by KSA and its allies against Qatar (in 2017) happened before BeIN Sports acquired the rights for the 2019/20 to 2021/22 seasons (in 2018).

 

Thus, I would contend, that BeIN Sports had knowingly paid for rights it could not execute on - this is their own error and not the error nor responsibility of the EPL (the EPL was likely laughing all the way to the bank).

 

Going for another analogy, it would be akin to you purchasing an item that was always illegal to use and then attempting to sue the government because they were not permitting you to use it.  You would be laughed out of court.

 

This is why I think that any assertion that the issue with the takeover is based on piracy is not correct - the argument is not strong enough and KSA/PIF can easily argue that BeIN Sport paid money for rights they had no ability to fulfil; that BeIN Sport has no legal standing in KSA because of there being no trade permitted between KSA and Qatar, and that this condition existed before BeIN Sport purchased the rights package from the EPL.

[Raconteur]

That’s fair, and most of my responses would be quibbling at the edges.

 

My understanding was that the WTO action was motivated because BeIn could not execute the rights they had purchased, and that that action was inconclusive at best. Essentially, they’re arguing that Saudi sanctions are unfair, that it’s not BeIn’s fault they can’t exercise their rights.

 

I don’t know you can so easily say that BeIn should have bid for the rights knowing they’d be unable to exercise them. I can’t easily find a quotable number, but from memory, KSA made up about a third of MENA viewers? By that logic, BeIn are expected to bid for 100% of the rights, but can only expect 66% of the revenue? (Again, numbers are suspect).

 

Would that also mean that Saudi companies would bid for the MENA rights, knowing they couldn’t broadcast into Qatar and Iran? (I don’t even know if those countries have sanctions currently, but it seems no one is playing).

 

Besides, I think BeIn is just threatening the PL rather than actually wanting to take their partners to the cleaners. It would put future rights bids is jeopardy.

[mrmojorisin75]

It seems universally accepted that the PL tried to make PIF and KSA (and the actions of BeOutQ) as the same thing for the purposes of the O&D test, and I would suggest that the PL did this, with the encouragement of BeIn, for the purposes of future legal battles.

 

Not sure I follow your logic here, how does linking PiF/KSA help bein with future legal battles considering neither have been held directly responsible for the piracy?

 

If you mean banning their licence still don't see how linking PiF to it has any impact whatsoever.

[Montey]

I don’t know you can so easily say that BeIn should have bid for the rights knowing they’d be unable to exercise them. I can’t easily find a quotable number, but from memory, KSA made up about a third of MENA viewers? By that logic, BeIn are expected to bid for 100% of the rights, but can only expect 66% of the revenue? (Again, numbers are suspect).

 

Would that also mean that Saudi companies would bid for the MENA rights, knowing they couldn’t broadcast into Qatar and Iran? (I don’t even know if those countries have sanctions currently, but it seems no one is playing).

 

The court room argument would be that BeIN Sport took on the MENA rights with existing knowledge that they could not deliver into all countries within the MENA region.  That if BeIN Sport was concerned about being asked to pay money for the whole region when they could not broadcast into every country in that region (ergo, they were concerned about paying for the right to broadcast into KSA knowing they could not do so) then they should have addressed that with the Premier League before making the agreement.

 

An analogy - it is akin to buying a car where you know, before you buy it, that the car won't turn left - you can't then go back to the dealer and insist on your money back because the car won't turn left.

 

In other words, BeIN Sport knew all of the limitations and issues with the product (rights license) they purchased before they made the purchase, therefor they can not come back and complain about one of those faults.

 

To your question - Yes, if KSA purchased the licensing rights for 2022/23 and they could not get cooperation with Iran or Qatar, then they would face the prospect of not being able to broadcast into those countries.  It is why there are a number of countries that have single-country agreements with the EPL.  For example, Israel is in the MENA region but has it's own arrangement with the EPL to broadcast games within Israel - because they are in a conflict situation with Qatar and its allies.

[Raconteur]

It seems universally accepted that the PL tried to make PIF and KSA (and the actions of BeOutQ) as the same thing for the purposes of the O&D test, and I would suggest that the PL did this, with the encouragement of BeIn, for the purposes of future legal battles.

 

Not sure I follow your logic here, how does linking PiF/KSA help bein with future legal battles considering neither have been held directly responsible for the piracy?

 

If you mean banning their licence still don't see how linking PiF to it has any impact whatsoever.

 

You're right, that is poorly expressed. I guess what I mean is that the PL want to have "everything Saudi" in one box (or one list of owners, directors, and controlling interests), so that they can say that *this* action and *this* action and *this* one all comes from the same place. BeIn and the PL have been unsuccessful in making meaningful progress on resolving the issue of rights in KSA, and PIF gifted them an opportunity to "do something" when they made their bid for NUFC.

 

Unless I mistake your meaning, in that no one has been convicted of anything yet, so linking them doesn't matter?

 

It certainly makes KSA's refusal to accede to those conditions more reasonable.

 

That presupposes the PL is more interested in trying to resolve the issue with MENA rights that they themselves created than they are in approving the sale. (I have no problem with this argument.) It also contradicts indications that the deal had been given a sly nod, but was that before or after the WTO report? My memory says before, but I could be wrong.

 

Montey[/member] argues the PL sold MENA rights "as is" and the PL has no responsibility towards BeIn because of geopolitical considerations outside their control, that my argument they have been sold a bill of goods is unsound.

 

I'd argue that BeIn has suggested, quite forcefully, that it paid hundreds of millions of pounds for rights that it cannot exercise, and suggested, just as forcefully, that BeIn and the PL work together to combat piracy. That is a completely shit legal argument.

 

But it's also what soft power truly buys. Here's an article from February, talking about the years-long collaboration between BeIn and the PL against BeOutQ (as Montey says, pre-dating the current rights deal). BeIn praise the PL as "outstanding rights holder", and here's a PL suit admitting to jumping to the whip:

 

We definitely have to respond when one of our most important broadcasters challenges us,” Plumb begins, “but I wouldn’t say it has changed our approach in any way. If it’s not BeIN, it’s Sky. If it’s not Sky, it’s BT. If it’s not BT, it’s NBC. We have a lot of significant broadcast partners who we work with hand in glove on piracy.

 

https://www.sportspromedia.com/interviews/premier-league-piracy-bein-beoutq-illegal-streaming-singapore-interview

 

[Raconteur]

It's actually a very interesting article (for an interview with a lawyer), and there is a whole section on BeOutQ (bolded because it makes HTT's work look like limericks)

 

 

 

‘BeoutQ became a reliable piracy brand’: The Premier League’s ongoing battle with illegal streaming

 

One year after the Premier League opened an office in Singapore, Kevin Plumb, its director of legal services, explains how the organisation’s anti-piracy strategy has evolved in recent times, and gives a rights holder’s perspective on working with BeIN Sports to fight Saudi-led bootlegging operation BeoutQ.

 

Back in March last year, Steven King, Paul Rolston and Daniel Malone were jailed for a total of 17 years for selling illegal streams of Premier League games to more than 1,000 pubs, clubs and homes across England and Wales. In what was one of the more high-profile piracy cases, the three men had stolen premium content from more than 20 broadcasters around the world, making more than UK£5 million (US$6.5 million) over the course of a decade.

 

At the time of the conviction, Kevin Plumb, the Premier League’s director of legal services, noted that the sentences, which were some of the longest ever issued for piracy crimes, reflected “the seriousness and the scale” of the offences. He added that the Premier League’s “investment into cutting edge technology” means “it has never been more difficult for football piracy to operate in the UK.”

 

Indeed, English soccer’s top flight has more reason than most to invest in protecting its content. Its reported UK£9.2 billion worth of television rights contracts are comfortably the most lucrative in club soccer, but that value can be traced back to more than just the product on the pitch.

 

“Here, internally, anti-piracy has always been high up the list,” Plumb (right) says now, speaking to SportsPro at the Premier League’s London offices. “[Former Premier League executive chairman] Richard Scudamore was always pushing us on this, and I think that’s one reason that we are in as good a position as we are on anti-piracy, because he saw it before most other people saw it, so we’ve always dedicated a lot to it.”

 

It should hardly come as a surprise that Scudamore identified piracy as a blight that could negatively impact the value of the Premier League’s media rights. When he began his two-decade tenure at the helm of English soccer’s top flight, the league’s domestic rights deals brought in approximately UK£670 million. By the time he left, in 2018, that figure was well north of UK£5 billion. It would be false to attribute that growth entirely to the competition’s efforts against piracy, but the two are not unrelated.

 

Today, the Premier League’s anti-piracy operation spans several departments. Plumb’s team comprises lawyers and content protection specialists, but also draws on the expertise of the competition’s broadcast division, data analysts and the communications team. Then, externally, the league enlists fingerprinters, investigators, social media experts and several other service providers to create what Plumb calls “a much more expanded unit”.

 

It sounds an extensive operation, but one that is necessary given the way piracy has matured in recent years.

 

“The subject matter has changed quite a lot, I would say,” Plumb continues. “When I first started, our focus was limited to the UK, and it was all about commercial premises.

 

“Over the last few years our position has changed dramatically that the emphasis has swung into the residential market, both domestically and internationally. As the internet has got better and better, and as broadband has been rolled out, online streaming - rather than card sharing and the purchase of foreign cards - has become much more serious. Then, over the last three years, even that has changed, so you go from open web viewing, to illicit streaming devices and closed networks that you wouldn’t be able to access unless you had an active subscription.

 

“Alongside that has been significant expansion in our service provision to a much more global enforcement programme, where we’re now undertaking activity in close to 30 different territories.”

 

Battling BeoutQ

 

Perhaps the best case study for piracy’s evolution has come in the last couple of years, during which Saudi Arabia-backed piracy operation BeoutQ has been illegally streaming billions of dollars’ worth of the world’s most premium sports coverage, including plenty of Premier League games played in that time. Among other things, it is a saga that has raised the question of whether it is the responsibility of rights holders, broadcasters, or a combination of both to protect their content.

 

The main target for BeoutQ, which originally transmitted via Riyadh-based satellite operator Arabsat, has been BeIN Sports, the Qatari network that serves as the broadcast partner in the Middle East for the Premier League and a host of other major soccer competitions. BeIN has been quick to call out the likes of Serie A for continuing to stage its Italian Super Cup competition in Saudi Arabia despite evidence of the country’s intellectual property (IP) theft, even threatening to pull the plug on UK£390 million (US$500 million) worth of overseas rights deals with Italy’s top tier.

 

The Premier League, though, has been free of such criticism. In fact, speaking to SportsPro in December, BeIN’s chief executive Yousef Al-Obaidly was even keen to namecheck the English competition as an “outstanding rights holder” in both the battle against BeoutQ and piracy more generally.

 

“We definitely have to respond when one of our most important broadcasters challenges us,” Plumb begins, “but I wouldn’t say it has changed our approach in any way. If it’s not BeIN, it’s Sky. If it’s not Sky, it’s BT. If it’s not BT, it’s NBC. We have a lot of significant broadcast partners who we work with hand in glove on piracy.

 

“With BeIN, it’s been: how do we have an impact when you have a very sophisticated pirate operation – that’s one of the big differences, it is very sophisticated – in a territory that we’re not used to enforcing in, and where it is very difficult for us to access the justice system? That is the problem you then face.

 

“To us, we need BeIN to know that we’re right there alongside them; it’s no good for us to be 100 yards back, we have to be completely shoulder to shoulder. If we weren’t reacting in a way that BeIN were happy with, then I’d be concerned by that as well.”

 

In terms of how the Premier League has reacted to that challenge, the competition was one of eight major soccer bodies to jointly call on authorities in Saudi Arabia to help bring an end to BeoutQ’s brazen bootlegging operation. Beyond that, the organisation has also secured major enforcement victories, announcing in October that a retailer in London had been convicted for selling illegal streaming devices (ISDs) with access to BeoutQ.

 

However, attempts to bring down BeoutQ have also been riddled with frustration. Plumb notes that, in the UK, it can take three years “from start to finish” to secure a conviction – whether that be suing someone or putting them behind bars – against a piracy operation. In Saudi Arabia, however, nine law firms chose not to act on behalf of the Premier League and the other soccer bodies attempting to bring a legal case against BeoutQ.

 

BeoutQ might now be down from Arabsat satellites, but its set top boxes are very much in circulation, and Plumb expects it to “continue to be a pretty significant work stream for a while”. Given the unique, political complexities, it remains unclear precisely how the situation will ultimately be resolved, but what is certain is that BeoutQ has become a central cog in the piracy ecosystem.

 

“BeoutQ essentially became a brand for reliable piracy, and then they found themselves being pirated as well,” Plumb notes. “In an ideal world all those illegal boxes in Saudi Arabia would go away. I’d like to see it be on a level playing field with any other territory where there’s a number of illegal operators in the market, so I can go there, I can get evidence of what’s going on, and I have access to legal remedies.

 

“If that is the case, then it’ll take time, there will be frustrations along the way, but we have a route forward alongside BeIN - like we would in the UK, like we would in the States, like we would in Singapore. All we want is the territory to respect IP rights and not be a dark territory for UK rights owners.”

 

Fighting on all fronts

 

It is now a little over a year since the Premier League opened the doors to its first international office in Singapore, a move that was designed to ramp up the fight against piracy outside of the UK and to support the competition’s broadcasters in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region.

 

Plumb is quick to point out that the Premier League’s APAC hub is more than just an anti-piracy operation, but notes that the proximity has given the organisation a better understanding of the varying reasons that people in different markets illegally stream sports content.

 

“APAC, as we see it, there is no single solution,” Plumb says. “The reason that people pirate in Singapore, in Malaysia, in Thailand, in Hong Kong, is different, so if the reasons that they pirate are different, then the best way of combatting that piracy is different. You can’t just take one size and try to make it fit all, so your expert team needs to be dedicated to a bespoke plan for each broadcaster, and a bespoke plan for each territory.

 

Fighting on all fronts

 

It is now a little over a year since the Premier League opened the doors to its first international office in Singapore, a move that was designed to ramp up the fight against piracy outside of the UK and to support the competition’s broadcasters in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region.

 

Plumb is quick to point out that the Premier League’s APAC hub is more than just an anti-piracy operation, but notes that the proximity has given the organisation a better understanding of the varying reasons that people in different markets illegally stream sports content.

 

“APAC, as we see it, there is no single solution,” Plumb says. “The reason that people pirate in Singapore, in Malaysia, in Thailand, in Hong Kong, is different, so if the reasons that they pirate are different, then the best way of combatting that piracy is different. You can’t just take one size and try to make it fit all, so your expert team needs to be dedicated to a bespoke plan for each broadcaster, and a bespoke plan for each territory.

 

Fighting on all fronts

 

It is now a little over a year since the Premier League opened the doors to its first international office in Singapore, a move that was designed to ramp up the fight against piracy outside of the UK and to support the competition’s broadcasters in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region.

 

Plumb is quick to point out that the Premier League’s APAC hub is more than just an anti-piracy operation, but notes that the proximity has given the organisation a better understanding of the varying reasons that people in different markets illegally stream sports content.

 

“APAC, as we see it, there is no single solution,” Plumb says. “The reason that people pirate in Singapore, in Malaysia, in Thailand, in Hong Kong, is different, so if the reasons that they pirate are different, then the best way of combatting that piracy is different. You can’t just take one size and try to make it fit all, so your expert team needs to be dedicated to a bespoke plan for each broadcaster, and a bespoke plan for each territory.

 

“On any objective measurement that you could have, in the UK, Premier League piracy is going down,” Plumb asserts. “Premier League viewing figures are going up, and that's what you hope goes hand in hand.

 

“Ultimately you can see the range and breadth and scope of activities that we do - you can always do more, but where we aim to be is the best anti-piracy organisation in the world. We want our broadcasters to think that - certainly in terms of sports rights owners - there's clear water between us and anyone else.

 

“There's so many different factors, but our job is ultimately for when our broadcast guys go into a sales negotiation, for piracy not to be mentioned.”

 

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Unless I mistake your meaning, in that no one has been convicted of anything yet, so linking them doesn't matter?

 

pretty much - PiF arent' accused of anything and there's little to no chance of the state of KSA being found guilty of being behind the piracy so not sure why doing what you're saying would benefit bein for legal action

 

could see how it helps the PL bounce the application if KSA had been found guilty of piracy, which they haven't, but not bein

 

 

[samag]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

[Raconteur]

Unless I mistake your meaning, in that no one has been convicted of anything yet, so linking them doesn't matter?

 

pretty much - PiF arent' accused of anything and there's little to no chance of the state of KSA being found guilty of being behind the piracy so not sure why doing what you're saying would benefit bein for legal action

 

could see how it helps the PL bounce the application if KSA had been found guilty of piracy, which they haven't, but not bein

 

 

 

If the PL can force the link, then it simplifies future cases that BeIn might bring against any of the Saudi actors. It seems the PL tried to force PIF to include MBS in the O&D test. By doing so, the PL are acknowledging the PIF had nothing to do with piracy, and that they wanted to bring some pirates into the crosshairs. Because, whilst not everyone will acknowledge it, we all think MBS was behind the decision to buy a football team, and he was also behind the BeOutQ piracy. And even if you don’t believe that, it seems the PL believe it enough to not approve a £300-340 million takeover.

 

You’re right to say PIF have never successfully been found guilty of piracy (do they even have a stake in BeOutQ or ArabSat?) but that’s partly because BeIn hasn’t been able to bring action in KSA, and both PL and BeIn action has been stymied in other jurisdictions as well.

 

The O&D test says, to the effect, that anyone guilty of a crime or would reasonably be felt to have committed a crime can’t be a director - going by the above article (or even the single quote) where would you say the PL’s definition of “reasonable” lands?

 

And again, I don’t think the strength of their legal case will be tested (re the takeover) - because the PL doesn’t want to fight BeIn. They both want to stop piracy.

[Montey]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

 

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action?

 

Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million).  So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs.

 

Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League.

 

So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford?  Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

[mrmojorisin75]

Unless I mistake your meaning, in that no one has been convicted of anything yet, so linking them doesn't matter?

 

pretty much - PiF arent' accused of anything and there's little to no chance of the state of KSA being found guilty of being behind the piracy so not sure why doing what you're saying would benefit bein for legal action

 

could see how it helps the PL bounce the application if KSA had been found guilty of piracy, which they haven't, but not bein

 

 

 

If the PL can force the link, then it simplifies future cases that BeIn might bring against any of the Saudi actors. It seems the PL tried to force PIF to include MBS in the O&D test. By doing so, the PL are acknowledging the PIF had nothing to do with piracy, and that they wanted to bring some pirates into the crosshairs. Because, whilst not everyone will acknowledge it, we all think MBS was behind the decision to buy a football team, and he was also behind the BeOutQ piracy. And even if you don’t believe that, it seems the PL believe it enough to not approve a £300-340 million takeover.

 

You’re right to say PIF have never successfully been found guilty of piracy (do they even have a stake in BeOutQ or ArabSat?) but that’s partly because BeIn hasn’t been able to bring action in KSA, and both PL and BeIn action has been stymied in other jurisdictions as well.

 

The O&D test says, to the effect, that anyone guilty of a crime or would reasonably be felt to have committed a crime can’t be a director - going by the above article (or even the single quote) where would you say the PL’s definition of “reasonable” lands?

 

And again, I don’t think the strength of their legal case will be tested (re the takeover) - because the PL doesn’t want to fight BeIn. They both want to stop piracy.

 

but the state of KSA haven't even been accused of being behind the piracy afaik, just not doing enough to stop it and/or not allowing bein to pursue people through the courts - i'm just not seeing this MBS link at all personally, i don't see where or what it gets them as there is no chance on the face of the earth anyone takes MBS to court over piracy like   and that's the only benefit for them of getting MBS linked isn't it?

 

you could see there being more mileage in that from the other directors of PiF as wasn't one of them tentatively linked to it in some way?  but they were offered that and refused apparently, idk

 

surely they'd not be so bold as to claim him ordering the khashoggi murder constitutes a reasonable crime and disqualify him on those grounds

[bealios]

I’m not sure the threat of Ashley legal action will have the PL running for the hills. They’re not really a separate commercial entity - they’re the representation of a club of English clubs, to maximise income for those clubs, and let’s face it, what we really mean here are the top 6 or so clubs.

 

If Ashley claims £100m, it isn’t going to bankrupt the premier league, it would just mean that the premier league clubs will get a little bit less out of the next TV deal (including NUFC). £5m each would cover it.

 

What is it worth for most of those clubs to not have a competing club join the Champions League challenging teams? Whatever it is, it is a hell of a lot more than £5m.

 

Hence why I agree that this is a case of vested interests, and pressure from the top clubs. And why I don’t think this would ever end up in a court. It would settle long before that. Accompanied by a statement that the parties have settled for an undisclosed sum, with the PL standing by its application of the test; but recognising procedural issues could have been improved etc. Etc.

 

 

 

 

[samag]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

 

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action?

 

Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million).  So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs.

 

Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League.

 

So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford?  Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

Good points , i had no idea  that even 17 million  could bankrupt  them .

[Judge Holden]

 

Here we gan..

[gdm]

There’s optimism people

[Stifler]

Thing is, if Ashley has his eyes on £300m, or £350m as it’s rumoured now, there isn’t a settlement the Premier League are going to be able to offer.

This isn’t some sort of compo deal that me and you would go for when we have had an accident where we want £50k, but in the end settle for £5k because we can’t afford a decent lawyer and don’t have the ability to take time out of work to fight the case in court.

This is a billionaire who during times of economic struggle could have invested huge sums of money to increase his portfolio at discount prices.

This isn’t just about £300m to Ashley, this is about £300m which could make him £500m in a few years, and about £1bn long term.

This is also about him being able to trade freely.

Ashley has a history of wanting to be able to trade freely, be it from claiming his stores are closing down when in reality the company is being reorganised off renamed, to shopping in other retailers who were wanting to undercut him.

He’s now being told that his single biggest asset that he owns 100% outright, is no longer an asset he can cash in on. He’s being told that he can trade that in for a company or various companies which would likely give him a higher return.

By his very nature, Ashley isn’t going to be happy with that.

[Jackie Broon]

If Ashley  takes legal  action action against the premier league.  I  wonder  if they would rather offer Ashley a decent out of court settlement than get dragged though the courts .

 

I'm sure the PL would much rather paying Ashley a settlement fee than getting dragged through court, but could the PL afford a fee substantial enough to make Ashley not pursue legal action?

 

Ashley is out of pocket anything up to and around at least £100 million - this number comes from the determination that the current takeover agreement was for £300 million and the estimate is that any new valuation (post COVID19) for NUFC would likely be substantially less than that (e.g. around £200 million or less, the difference being the £100 million).  So, if he pursued the PL in the courts then he would likely seek damages of around £100 million + legal costs.

 

Other conversations have suggested that the buying consortium might sue the PL to recover their £17 million deposit (I won't address the legitimacy or otherwise of that claim here), but there have also been suggestions that having to pay out £17 million would likely bankrupt the League.

 

So, if the PL wanted to pay out Ashley (to prevent a court case), how much could the PL afford?  Could the PL afford a large enough payout to make Ashley go away (e.g. £10 million would only be 10% of Ashley's likely/potential claim), without bankrupting themselves?

 

The PL have assets of around £400,000 and a turnover of around £3m (their acounts are freely available on Companies House).

 

It could be that the clubs would be asked to step in to bail them out but the Premier League Ltd would not be likely to be able to afford to pay out much.

[Manxst]

The PL would have insurance, surely, for such an eventuality?