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

[Paulie Walnuts]

Tyler is back at the PL offices again [emoji16]. 

 

MP letter sent.  Very straightforward.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53662771

 

I can't help but note that in this report (and when they first reported it) they totally completely skip over that the PL are being called corrupt by fans, that that hashtag is trending, and why it is felt that they are corrupt. Can't put it down to libel either as all they would be reporting on is what is being posted.

 

I love the BBC, but this is just lip service.

[Penn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53662771

 

I can't help but note that in this report (and when they first reported it) they totally completely skip over that the PL are being called corrupt by fans, that that hashtag is trending, and why it is felt that they are corrupt. Can't put it down to libel either as all they would be reporting on is what is being posted.

 

I love the BBC, but this is just lip service.

 

Why would the BBC report completely evidence-less accusations of corruption aimed at the Premier League from randoms on Twitter? It would be an absurd thing to write. "Twitter user MBSIZOURKING tweeted 'Masters ur a corrupt Qatari cunt m8 fuck off!11'"

[Hudson]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53662771

 

I can't help but note that in this report (and when they first reported it) they totally completely skip over that the PL are being called corrupt by fans, that that hashtag is trending, and why it is felt that they are corrupt. Can't put it down to libel either as all they would be reporting on is what is being posted.

 

I love the BBC, but this is just lip service.

 

That's because we may think it is but until its legally proven to be the BBC would leave themselves open to a libellous law suite

[Greg]

Correct. The NUST stance is also carefully positioned:

 

"The Premier League may have sound reasons for drawing out the takeover process for more than four months and the Premier League may have done everything they needed to do to protect their business and Newcastle United.

 

"However, there must be transparency after the process has completed. Answers must be provided about decisions which affect millions of people in our region.

 

"So far, the silence from the Premier League suggests they believe the people of the north east don't matter and that we don't deserve answers."

[Happinesstan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53662771

 

I can't help but note that in this report (and when they first reported it) they totally completely skip over that the PL are being called corrupt by fans, that that hashtag is trending, and why it is felt that they are corrupt. Can't put it down to libel either as all they would be reporting on is what is being posted.

 

I love the BBC, but this is just lip service.

 

Why would the BBC report completely evidence-less accusations of corruption aimed at the Premier League from randoms on Twitter? It would be an absurd thing to write. "Twitter user MBSIZOURKING tweeted 'Masters ur a corrupt Qatari cunt m8 fuck off!11'"

 

They're forever reporting shite accusations on twitter.

[Stal]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53662771

 

I can't help but note that in this report (and when they first reported it) they totally completely skip over that the PL are being called corrupt by fans, that that hashtag is trending, and why it is felt that they are corrupt. Can't put it down to libel either as all they would be reporting on is what is being posted.

 

I love the BBC, but this is just lip service.

 

 

That's because we may think it is but until its legally proven to be the BBC would leave themselves open to a libellous law suite

 

Don't think so. It's not repeating what was said, it's reporting on what people are saying. As long as they make that clear. Plus, they could even say something as innocuous as "many fans have taken to twitter, flooding every PL tweet with their thoughts".

 

 

 

You're right in that this part of libel law is a grey area, but there will be ways and means around it. Or just ignore it outright as they have done. I havent studied American law in any great depth, but I think that you can sue for that there, but not under UK law. Which brings the question of it being an internationally renowned organisation (the BBC) that can be viewed all around the world, so there could be implications there. Alas, this is as much as I can remember from Uni and laws tend to change, depending on legislation, verdicts and appeals so you could be right.

 

EDIT: just seen Greg's response and wanted to say that I loved the wording on your statement. Top class work by NUST, as per.

[mouldy_uk]

At least the BBC are running the story though, it helps get the message out and they have copied the message that Greg[/member] has posted.

 

SSN so far nothing at all on this. I don't listen to Talksport but I would be surprised if they mention it.

 

Disappointingly Total Sport were quite dismissive of it all last night.

 

I'm suspicious of any media outlet not giving this at least some coverage at the moment.

[The Prophet]

Sky didnt want to know about Wigan either, it should have been the biggest story in English football.

[Hudson]

At least the BBC are running the story though, it helps get the message out and they have copied the message that Greg[/member] has posted.

 

SSN so far nothing at all on this. I don't listen to Talksport but I would be surprised if they mention it.

 

Disappointingly Total Sport were quite dismissive of it all last night.

 

I'm suspicious of any media outlet not giving this at least some coverage at the moment.

 

time to start attacking sky sports then with @skysportsnews

[mouldy_uk]

Sky didnt want to know about Wigan either, it should have been the biggest story in English football.

 

I guess in our case they want to keep the PL sweet for the next round of TV deals

[NE27]

At least the BBC are running the story though, it helps get the message out and they have copied the message that Greg[/member] has posted.

 

SSN so far nothing at all on this. I don't listen to Talksport but I would be surprised if they mention it.

 

Disappointingly Total Sport were quite dismissive of it all last night.

 

Caught a snippet of Steve harmison(cricket lad?) Talking about it yesterday on talksport.

 

He pushed a good message and came across quite well until he said something about fans don't really understand all of the piracy and human rights stuff attributed to SA.

 

I'd say people have had to become quite educated in it now.

[Hudson]

Sky didnt want to know about Wigan either, it should have been the biggest story in English football.

 

I guess in our case they want to keep the PL sweet for the next round of TV deals

 

Maybe, but as we are one there main pulls for live TV games you would hope it was worth mentioning

[Greg]

At least the BBC are running the story though, it helps get the message out and they have copied the message that Greg[/member] has posted.

 

SSN so far nothing at all on this. I don't listen to Talksport but I would be surprised if they mention it.

 

Disappointingly Total Sport were quite dismissive of it all last night.

 

Yes - I briefed them last night. BBC Sport have been very good to NUST.

[TBG]

At least the BBC are running the story though, it helps get the message out and they have copied the message that Greg[/member] has posted.

 

SSN so far nothing at all on this. I don't listen to Talksport but I would be surprised if they mention it.

 

Disappointingly Total Sport were quite dismissive of it all last night.

 

Caught a snippet of Steve harmison(cricket lad?) Talking about it yesterday on talksport.

 

He pushed a good message and came across quite well until he said something about fans don't really understand all of the piracy and human rights stuff attributed to SA.

 

I'd say people have had to become quite educated in it now.

 

He's from Ashington iirc. The place is on par with Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights.

[Jackie Broon]

No one else seems to be picking up that this could be useful point to raise but Richard Masters may have mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee, and in doing so avoided scrutiny of the Premier League's indecision.

 

When asked about how long the process has taken by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee he said "there is no timetable set as part of the rules".

 

The video of this can be seen here, the specific question is at 1:28

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184

 

In relation to the Owner's and Director's test rule F.4.2 in the Premier League Handbook states that “within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6”.

 

https://www.premierleague.com/publications

 

The rule is explicit that a decision will be confirmed within five working days of receipt of the declaration of intention to appoint a new director / a new owner taking control.

 

The Premier League appear to have breached the letter of their own rules by not issuing a decision within that timescale.

 

The stock answer coming from government is that it is not for them to intervene in the O&D process, but the misleading of a Parliamentary Select Committee is a matter for government.

 

It's easy for government and the PL to bat away unsubstantiated claims of corruption or concerns about lack of transparency in what is a confidential process, but this is an actual demonstrable case of the PL not acting in accordance with their own rules and possibly misleading a Parliamentary Select Committee about that.

[Raconteur]

No one else seems to be picking up that this could be useful point to raise but Richard Masters may have mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee, and in doing so avoided scrutiny of the Premier League's indecision.

 

When asked about how long the process has taken by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee he said "there is no timetable set as part of the rules".

 

The video of this can be seen here, the specific question is at 1:28

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184

 

In relation to the Owner's and Director's test rule F.4.2 in the Premier League Handbook states that “within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6”.

 

https://www.premierleague.com/publications

 

The rule is explicit that a decision will be confirmed within five working days of receipt of the declaration of intention to appoint a new director / a new owner taking control.

 

The Premier League appear to have breached the letter of their own rules by not issuing a decision within that timescale.

 

The stock answer coming from government is that it is not for them to intervene in the O&D process, but the misleading of a Parliamentary Select Committee is a matter for government.

 

It's easy for government and the PL to bat away unsubstantiated claims of corruption or concerns about lack of transparency in what is a confidential process, but this is an actual demonstrable case of the PL not acting in accordance with their own rules and possibly misleading a Parliamentary Select Committee about that.

 

I have followed this argument closely, and you've come very close to convincing me. However, I would suggest that the PL have a strong argument has kept to the rules - because you didn't include the whole of rule F.4:

 

F.4 .If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

 

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6;

 

and F.4.3.  he  shall  not  become  a  Director  until  the  Club  has  received  confirmation  from  the  Board  pursuant  to  Rule  F.4.2  above  that  he  is  not  liable  to  be  disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1.

 

So, what the PL appears to have done is bounce between F4.1 and F4.2 - telling the club we can't satisfactorily resolve F4.2 until the would-be directors complete F4.1 to our satisfaction.

 

A case could even be made that the consortium, if they failed to accept the PL's request to include Saudi government officials to the O&D test, that they never successfully completed F4.1 and therefore all those mad Geordies should pipe down. (Not saying that's my opinion. Just the case could be made)

[duo]

Just ducking to answer any question.  Did they not ask him if he's had any pressure to go a certain direction from a state?

 

[gdm]

[Sima]

Mackems hammering her for not directing her attention to COVID, getting kids back to school and the economy instead of this.

 

Not sure how much influence a Labour MP can have on government policy, like.  Particularly when Parliament is in recess,

[Whitley mag]

Petition has topped 80k now.

[Jackie Broon]

No one else seems to be picking up that this could be useful point to raise but Richard Masters may have mislead a Parliamentary Select Committee, and in doing so avoided scrutiny of the Premier League's indecision.

 

When asked about how long the process has taken by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee he said "there is no timetable set as part of the rules".

 

The video of this can be seen here, the specific question is at 1:28

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1277905522382045184

 

In relation to the Owner's and Director's test rule F.4.2 in the Premier League Handbook states that “within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6”.

 

https://www.premierleague.com/publications

 

The rule is explicit that a decision will be confirmed within five working days of receipt of the declaration of intention to appoint a new director / a new owner taking control.

 

The Premier League appear to have breached the letter of their own rules by not issuing a decision within that timescale.

 

The stock answer coming from government is that it is not for them to intervene in the O&D process, but the misleading of a Parliamentary Select Committee is a matter for government.

 

It's easy for government and the PL to bat away unsubstantiated claims of corruption or concerns about lack of transparency in what is a confidential process, but this is an actual demonstrable case of the PL not acting in accordance with their own rules and possibly misleading a Parliamentary Select Committee about that.

 

I have followed this argument closely, and you've come very close to convincing me. However, I would suggest that the PL have a strong argument has kept to the rules - because you didn't include the whole of rule F.4:

 

F.4 .If any Person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

 

F.4.1. the Club shall, no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated that such Person shall become a Director, submit to the Board a duly completed Declaration in respect of that Person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory, at which point that Person shall be bound by and subject to the Rules;

 

F.4.2. within five Working Days of receipt thereof the Board shall confirm to the Club whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions in Rule F.1, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule F.6;

 

and F.4.3.  he  shall  not  become  a  Director  until  the  Club  has  received  confirmation  from  the  Board  pursuant  to  Rule  F.4.2  above  that  he  is  not  liable  to  be  disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule F.1.

 

So, what the PL appears to have done is bounce between F4.1 and F4.2 - telling the club we can't satisfactorily resolve F4.2 until the would-be directors complete F4.1 to our satisfaction.

 

A case could even be made that the consortium, if they failed to accept the PL's request to include Saudi government officials to the O&D test, that they never successfully completed F4.1 and therefore all those mad Geordies should pipe down. (Not saying that's my opinion. Just the case could be made)

 

That circumstance is covered by Rule F.1.1.1.

 

F.1.1. in relation to the assessment of his compliance with Rule F.1 (and/or any similar or equivalent rules of The Football League or The Football

Association) at any time, he has:

 

F.1.1.1. failed to provide all relevant information (including, without limitation, information relating to any other individual who would qualify as a Director but has not been disclosed, including where he or they are acting as a proxy, agent or nominee for another Person);

 

By the letter of their rules they still should have issued a decision within five working days.

 

I'm not saying that holds much weight, other than them acting unreasonably by ignoring it (there's no rule that says it will be automatically approved after five days for example) but the rule does give a specific timescale and Richard Masters told the Select Committee that there is no timetable in the rules. That potentially brings this within the government's remit.

[mouldy_uk]

 

Good work everyone, all helps to ramp up the pressure. Surely the PL have to put out some statement to at least try and attempt to defuse the situation.

[Whitley mag]

[Rafalove]

I like how we’re still spamming everyPremier  league tweet