Whitley mag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Wonder what the outcome of those meetings were Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlito Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Wonder what the outcome of those meetings were Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 That’s the issue we are led to believe why this all stalled. The Premier League are trying to link PIF with those governmental officials that supported the piracy (state sponsored acts) off their product and PIF argue they are a separate entity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Didn’t PIF provide what they thought was proof from government officials that PIF was a separate entity. Maybe it had something to do with that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
manorpark Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? That’s the issue we are led to believe why this all stalled. The Premier League are trying to link PIF with those governmental officials that supported the piracy (state sponsored acts) off their product and PIF argue they are a separate entity PIF stated they had provided the proof that they were a separate entity, and it is this aspect that I feel De Marco will be able to prove (again) in the Legal Action (not the arbitration) should it end up in court. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 The Public Investment Fund (PIF) was established in 1971 as the sovereign wealth fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The fund’s objective is to provide financial support for projects and investments aligned with the strategic expansion of the Kingdom’s economy through the expansion and creation of new sectors. Does not sound unlinked to me.... But I trust in De Marco Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government They changed the rules after that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government They changed the rules after that Then citeh owners should be forced to sell. It states that the test is applied to every club every season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. I suppose its a bit like having a limited company over here. I am the sole director and shareholder of my company, i earn its money, i spend it, i have complete control over the business, its direction and its finances. But legally, its separate to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government They changed the rules after that Doesn't matter, the test is ongoing, directors have to undergo it before the start of every season and can be disqualified at any time if the PL becomes aware of any disqualifying circumstances. The immunity from disqualification from the old rules only applies to one very limited circumstance which is: "the Disqualifying Event is a Conviction imposed between 19th August 2004 and 5 June 2009 for an offence which would not have led to disqualification as a Director under the Rules of the League as they applied during that period". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Pundit Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 I know it's like most things in that they take as long as they take and a lot of the time that's fair enough, but I'd love to know what's actually causing the whole process that we find ourselves in to take so long. What does it take to get the main people involved around a table (albeit virtually) to get a resolution and the takeover sorted. What exactly are they waiting for? They've had months upon months and it just dribbles on while in the meantime the club goes further and further down the pan. With the people and amounts of money involved you'd think it could be prioritised to some degree, it's mental. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 It’s as unlinked as Man City’s ownership is to their government They changed the rules after that Then citeh owners should be forced to sell. It states that the test is applied to every club every season. They can't be forced to sell but they can be expelled from the league. Along with Chelsea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Nearly a year. Burnley was what, 6 weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. I suppose its a bit like having a limited company over here. I am the sole director and shareholder of my company, i earn its money, i spend it, i have complete control over the business, its direction and its finances. But legally, its separate to me. That's where a problem arises though surely. As the owners and directors test has to find the parties who are have control over said company. With PIF describing themselves as the sovereign wealth fund of the state then the state surely has control over PIF. So it doesn't really matter if it's a separate legal entity in itself in that respect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. I suppose its a bit like having a limited company over here. I am the sole director and shareholder of my company, i earn its money, i spend it, i have complete control over the business, its direction and its finances. But legally, its separate to me. That's where a problem arises though surely. As the owners and directors test has to find the parties who are have control over said company. With PIF describing themselves as the sovereign wealth fund of the state then the state surely has control over PIF. So it doesn't really matter if it's a separate legal entity in itself in that respect. And there he is! Laugh a minute this lad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 More evidence for De Marco and co to show our takeover was subjected to far stricter scrutiny than any previous. I would have thought the government would have pushed for them to accept the bid. Premier league went to them.... I think they would, but the point is why did they feel they had to go to them. It’s meant to be a confidential process and if scrutiny of our takeover has been shown to be different to others, it all plays into the narrative that we have been treat differently. I expect to tell them that they are going to reject the bid and wanted to explain why (Piracy) or get more info on the buyers. Also we probably have been treated differently but I can't think of any club being bought while at the same time running an illegal sports stations that steals games. I'm still confused by this. Is it PIF that are illegally streaming games? Is this still going on? https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2020/6/16/explainer-the-piracy-case-against-saudis-beoutq-channel Think we all know if the Saudis wanted to shut it down they could. Probably could have but its still got nothing to do with PIF. Separate legal entity which is what do marco is trying to prove. I suppose its a bit like having a limited company over here. I am the sole director and shareholder of my company, i earn its money, i spend it, i have complete control over the business, its direction and its finances. But legally, its separate to me. That's where a problem arises though surely. As the owners and directors test has to find the parties who are have control over said company. With PIF describing themselves as the sovereign wealth fund of the state then the state surely has control over PIF. So it doesn't really matter if it's a separate legal entity in itself in that respect. And there he is! Laugh a minute this lad. Why is he wrong here though? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts