Wandy Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 See Martin Samuel has a new piece out. As far as I can tell he's saying Prem havnt rejected deal but PIF pulled out because they didn't wish to list MBS as a director and rebuffed arbitration from PL. So seemingly trying to lay some blame at Buyers door. Not beyond the realms tbh Just read it. So basically the PL tried to set a bear trap for the Saudis. No wonder they declined the independent arbitrator. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 See Martin Samuel has a new piece out. As far as I can tell he's saying Prem havnt rejected deal but PIF pulled out because they didn't wish to list MBS as a director and rebuffed arbitration from PL. So seemingly trying to lay some blame at Buyers door. Not beyond the realms tbh this bit if true is really odd to me, why not go for arbitration if your getting nowhere with the PL itself? Overall (without reading it fuck going onto the mails ad filled website) it sounds from this article that PIF want the PL to accept things exactly as they laid out no compromise? Which isn't exactly a brilliant way to deal with things Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandy Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 I dont understand the paragraph below? "If an arbitrator had ruled in Newcastle’s favour, the Saudis would have been required to go ahead with owner registration. This would have given the League the right to call Newcastle’s ownership to account over TV piracy by network beoutQ." If the arbitration decision went in the Saudis' favour, why would that then allow the PL to link them to piracy? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Rocker does have a life I don’t have any proof of this TBF. () Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Duper Branko Strupar Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 I just hope rocker is right and things are moving forward. I'd hate for him to be filed under 'disappointing bellend' Look back a few years at his post history and you'll see otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 that article is such crap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Martin Samuel = Fat pig Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Seems odd that the premier league think it gets a say on who is on the board of a private company. I’m quite astounded by the level of interference from them. They are clearly over stepping the mandate the have given themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montey Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 I've been considering the need to write this for a few days and I now think it's necessary. I see a number of people on the forum(s), Twitter, and Facebook saying there is no point to the social media campaigning because it will not change the mind of the Premier League. They are actually correct, the social media campaign will not make the PL change there mind, and it is likely that the MP's getting involved won't either. But, that is not the point of the social media campaigning nor getting the MP's involved - but there is a purpose/strategy involved here and a reason why Staveley asked fans to get involved. In my opinion the buyers are hamstrung with regards to what further action they can take until the Premier League makes some sort of statement regarding the takeover not being approved and the reason why it was not approved. As long as the PL fail to make a formal decision the buyers are probably very limited in what else they can do; as long as the PL don't give a reason for failing the O&D Test then the buyers don't have a specific decision to dispute or, importantly, a specific decision they can argue against in a court room. I think this is why Staveley asked fans to start taking action. The mission of the social media campaigning and the letter writing to MPs is not to get the PL to change their mind, it is to try and force the PL to make a declaration that the buyers failed the O&D Test and why. Once the PL make a statement, saying that the buyers have failed the O&D Test and why, then the buyers have a basis for an appeal, and if that appeal fails to then they have a reason to take the PL to court and to get a court to order that the PL have not applied the O&D Test according to the rules of the PL. But, until the PL is forced to make such a statement the buyers have limited steps they can take. It is worth highlighting, however, that this is only about what the buyer can do. In my opinion, none of this has a bearing on any legal action that Ashley might take (on the basis of restraint of trade, natural justice, etc). But, ultimately, the strategy is to show the PL that whilst they may be concerned about what actions BeIN Sport might take they should be more concerned about where they find themselves in a scenario with Ashley, PIF, Staveley, and the Reubens teaming up against them in court actions. But, before PIF, Staveley, and the Reubens can push the legal angle they need something tangible to argue against. Which is why the social media and letter righting campaign is important, to pull the PL from hiding and to compell them to make a statement that PIF, Staveley, and the Reubens can use in a court room. Lastly, I just wanted to add, I think this is why the buyers also "officially" withdrew from the deal with Mike Ashley. The buyers didn't withdraw from the process Mike Ashley started by triggering the O&D Test with the Premier Leage, the buyers have only withdrawn from the agreement with Mike Ashley. This is likely with some level of agreement with Mike Ashley and I think it was to loosen the constraints of the NDA likely in place as part of the signed deal. By withdrawing from the deal with Ashley, the buyers are likely more able to communicate with interested parties to get other avenues moving (e.g. talking to NUST, etc). If things look like moving forward with the PL, then the deal between Ashley and the buyers will be re-established and the NDAs will be back in play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Samuels has added an opinion piece to article, clearly trying to put blame at consortium’s door. It would appear the PL are unofficially trying to get their side of story out. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8624965/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Newcastles-300m-takeover-died-failure-answer-one-easy-question.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 His opinion is worthless honestly. The premier league should reject if they are so confident. The fact they haven’t speaks volumes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Seems odd that the premier league think it gets a say on who is on the board of a private company. I’m quite astounded by the level of interference from them. They are clearly over stepping the mandate the have given themselves. Don't understand this at all. The owners test is all about making sure people who control a club match up to the leagues standards how can they do that by ignoring directors. They clearly feel mbs is in a position of authority over PIF and this the consortium and do should be named on it. You may disagree with that but it's completely within their remit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Seems odd that the premier league think it gets a say on who is on the board of a private company. I’m quite astounded by the level of interference from them. They are clearly over stepping the mandate the have given themselves. Don't understand this at all. The owners test is all about making sure people who control a club match up to the leagues standards how can they do that by ignoring directors. They clearly feel mbs is in a position of authority over PIF and this the consortium and do should be named on it. You may disagree with that but it's completely within their remit Subjecting him to the test Is within the remit. Dictating who is on the board of directors isn’t. If they want to subject him to the test that’s fine, if he fails said test that’s also fine. But that isn’t what’s happening here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingcrofty Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 This response was given on 10 August 2020 Football clubs have a unique social value; it is vital they are protected. The Government has committed to a fan-led review of governance that includes consideration of the Owners’ & Directors’ Test. Wigan Athletic is a club with a rich history and of great importance to the local community. The Government is aware of the serious allegations that have surfaced around the club and we will continue to engage with the English Football League (EFL) to fully understand the facts of the case as they emerge. The Government has committed to a fan-led review of football governance, which will include consideration of the Owners’ and Directors’ Test. We will engage with all the football authorities, including the EFL, during this review. The Government is currently deciding on the scope and structure of the review but can confirm that engagement with fan groups will be central to the review process. It is vital that fans’ perspectives and interests are at the heart of the review. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UncleBingo Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Samuels has added an opinion piece to article, clearly trying to put blame at consortium’s door. It would appear the PL are unofficially trying to get their side of story out. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8624965/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Newcastles-300m-takeover-died-failure-answer-one-easy-question.html The owners/directors of the club were known at the very start of the process, why did this suddenly become an issue 4 months down the line? Seems like an utter nonsense to me, and this definitely looks like PL PR work. That Ben Jacobs has been at it to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bealios Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Reason this is such an issue is that the O&D test involved providing a shed load of information (including but not limited to financial) on those to whom it applies. Politically, proving a body in another country with that information on a world leader is going to be incredibly difficult. If the state pension fund of Russia (just an example) wanted to buy a club, and the PL said that Putin had to fill in a form and provide all of his personal and financial data, you can see why this would be an issue. Essentially the O&D test itself doesn’t really lend itself to state-type acquisitions. But PL are applying it regardless. My issue with the whole thing is that this is not what the O&D test is for. It should be to stop unscrupulous owners with insufficient funds ruining a community asset, a football club. It is actually being applied here to do the reverse. Samuels piece is complete nonsense. How he can compare an unknown Saudi owner of dubious wealth to one of the world’s largest investment funds with a track record of legitimate investments and keep a straight face is beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Seems odd that the premier league think it gets a say on who is on the board of a private company. I’m quite astounded by the level of interference from them. They are clearly over stepping the mandate the have given themselves. Don't understand this at all. The owners test is all about making sure people who control a club match up to the leagues standards how can they do that by ignoring directors. They clearly feel mbs is in a position of authority over PIF and this the consortium and do should be named on it. You may disagree with that but it's completely within their remit Subjecting him to the test Is within the remit. Dictating who is on the board of directors isn’t. If they want to subject him to the test that’s fine, if he fails said test that’s also fine. But that isn’t what’s happening here. That is exactly what is happening, MBS will not be on the board, PIF are claiming he has no influence but the PL are saying he has. He needs to be part of the owners test because obviously he is going to be the decision maker if he so wishes to be. He may never get involved but he has the power to do so. For some reason he is not being put forward for the test and the PL quite rightly are saying he should. I think Samuels price is on the money except for the paragraph about the Saudis winning, I think he has that but wrong. Samuel is assuming if the arbitration sides with the PL then MBS will take the test and fail it due to piracy. I can’t see why that would happen though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Reason this is such an issue is that the O&D test involved providing a shed load of information (including but not limited to financial) on those to whom it applies. Politically, proving a body in another country with that information on a world leader is going to be incredibly difficult. If the state pension fund of Russia (just an example) wanted to buy a club, and the PL said that Putin had to fill in a form and provide all of his personal and financial data, you can see why this would be an issue. Essentially the O&D test itself doesn’t really lend itself to state-type acquisitions. But PL are applying it regardless. My issue with the whole thing is that this is not what the O&D test is for. It should be to stop unscrupulous owners with insufficient funds ruining a community asset, a football club. It is actually being applied here to do the reverse. Samuels piece is complete nonsense. How he can compare an unknown Saudi owner of dubious wealth to one of the world’s largest investment funds with a track record of legitimate investments and keep a straight face is beyond me. Agree and if this is as good as PL have got it’s no surprise they’ve bottled out of rejecting it. Be nice if the consortium came out and tore this article to shreds, but also hoping wheels are turning in background which prevents them at minute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Seems odd that the premier league think it gets a say on who is on the board of a private company. I’m quite astounded by the level of interference from them. They are clearly over stepping the mandate the have given themselves. Don't understand this at all. The owners test is all about making sure people who control a club match up to the leagues standards how can they do that by ignoring directors. They clearly feel mbs is in a position of authority over PIF and this the consortium and do should be named on it. You may disagree with that but it's completely within their remit Subjecting him to the test Is within the remit. Dictating who is on the board of directors isn’t. If they want to subject him to the test that’s fine, if he fails said test that’s also fine. But that isn’t what’s happening here. That is exactly what is happening, MBS will not be on the board, PIF are claiming he has no influence but the PL are saying he has. He needs to be part of the owners test because obviously he is going to be the decision maker if he so wishes to be. He may never get involved but he has the power to do so. For some reason he is not being put forward for the test and the PL quite rightly are saying he should. I think Samuels price is on the money except for the paragraph about the Saudis winning, I think he has that but wrong. Samuel is assuming if the arbitration sides with the PL then MBS will take the test and fail it due to piracy. I can’t see why that would happen though. You raise an interesting point re the piracy. The problem for the premier league and bein is piracy has only been linked to the Saudi state via media allegations. The WTO and the French court both didn’t go as far to pin it on the state. It’s easy to repeat what the media says but given the standard of journalism in the UK is particularly poor we should often be dubious about what they report. Also, let us consider the easy solution floated of the Saudis apologise for piracy and make good isn’t a viable solution for 2 main reasons. 1; the Saudis aren’t going to lose face to Qatar. 2; by accepting liability for any piracy the Saudis leave themselves open to lawsuits from every other broadcaster/league (NFL, NBA etc). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Essentially the O&D test itself doesn’t really lend itself to state-type acquisitions. But PL are applying it regardless. My issue with the whole thing is that this is not what the O&D test is for. It should be to stop unscrupulous owners with insufficient funds ruining a community asset, a football club. It is actually being applied here to do the reverse. this is a good summary, in fact i'd have some sympathy with the PL if there was any track record of MBS interfering in PIF and what it gets up to but as far as i understand it he's handed it over to the lad al rumayyan (sp) and he is in complete control, have never heard anyone suggesting MBS has any practical involvement with PIF, has anyone else? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Novocastrian Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Story re-cycled by Ashley via his favourite journo to absolve himself of any blame. Not sure why anyone thinks this was leaked by the PL, it was already in public domain after Staveley’s interview. The heat will be on Mike very soon as new season approaches and the lack of preparation. He needs a fall guy. Indicates things are still at an impasse with the PL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 This could easily be resolved by the PIF if MBS resigns his position as Chairman and PIF appoint Al Ruumyaan as Chairman of PIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paully Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Looking forward to the replies! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 Such a patronising wanker. Quite typical attitude of the press towards this Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 This could easily be resolved by the PIF if MBS resigns his position as Chairman and PIF appoint Al Ruumyaan as Chairman of PIF. This is just an investment for them, though. I've posted this a few times before but I think people need to remember that their intention here is not to turn Riyadh black and white. This means a good deal more to us than it does to them. I don't suppose they're that interested in changing the structure of their organisation just so they can make a relatively small investment in a football team a quarter of the world away Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts