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

[OpenC]

Feel like this might not go through now actually.

 

[St1pe]

 

Probably the most informative set of tweets I’ve seen for a while on the current issues. Again, I feel like I’ve flipped entirely negative on this now, but I don’t see how you’re getting around this set of problems. They’re issues bigger than football and the Premier League have got us and them wrapped up in something it never should have.

 

Edit* just realised this was posted and discussed in the old thread.

 

 

[r0cafella]

His tweet doesn’t make much sense to me honestly. The deal fails because SA have revoked BEins right to broadcast in the kingdom?

 

 

[r0cafella]

Also interestingly, I find the Saudis really have very little influence on our media.

 

I can’t help but think the entire media narrative has a Qatar spin which to me demonstrates the Saudis lack of influence here.

[Hhtoon]

People need to give it a rest with the "there will be a legal battle if it fails" bollocks. There will be no legal repercussions. All parties will say nothing and try to pretend that the whole farce never happened, allowing it to fizzle out with barely a murmur of complant. Meanwhile we will be left to pick up the pieces once again.

 

I get why people keep peddling the legal action line. Its because they feel that someone, somewhere needs to pay a price for making us fans suffer like this. But its not going to happen. Unfortunately we are the ones who will be in bits about this and all of the other parties will just walk away with a shrug.

This. And as Ben Jacobs put in one of his tweets "Sometimes I think NUFC fans just want to hear 'it's happening' regardless of truth/context" - we even had people claiming the Saudis banning Bein was positive news ffs.

 

When you realise that Staveley's track record isn't very good, and that she has been the only one confident of this happening, then sadly this falling though has looked the most likely outcome for a while now.

 

You don't think the other buying parties weren't confident of passing? They just thought they'd spend months of their time and significant financial outlay on a punt? Plus Ashley thought he'd entertain them for the lolz.

 

Your hated of Staveley is mysoginistic and creepy. What was the name of the woman that hurt you so badly?

[mouldy_uk]

Not feeling it with this thread, I think the next one has more chance of success

[Whitley mag]

Boy do we need some positive Saudi spin on this today.

 

I’m still not out yet, the Qatari’s clearly have some info that makes them confident and yesterday’s headlines reflect  what they’ve leaked out.

 

Whilst the PL may be stalling on making a decision and be concerned with decision to ban bein, I’m still not convinced their going to outright reject this.

 

Think we’ll see a lot more spinning before end of this week.

 

 

[Guest chopey]

Masters messed right up getting involved in the broadcasting rights situation and he was a fool to think he could sort it and an even bigger fool siding with Qatar, TV rights in that part of the world will be a huge problem for the next 10 years (the Asian games TV rights are kicking up a right stink) Barhain and the UAE will side with Saudi along with many others in that region.

 

He needs to go back and redo the test on face value to work out if these guys have enough funds to purchase the club and not rack up a load of debt that could put the club in financial trouble like Manchester United.

 

Just pass the fucking thing and let the middle east sort their own issues.

[Colos Short and Curlies]

Boy do we need some positive Saudi spin on this today.

 

I’m still not out yet, the Qatari’s clearly have some info that makes them confident and yesterday’s headlines reflect  what they’ve leaked out.

 

Whilst the PL may be stalling on making a decision and be concerned with decision to ban bein, I’m still not convinced their going to outright reject this.

 

Think we’ll see a lot more spinning before end of this week.

 

 

 

Or they have heard something to suggest the PL are about to pass it and are putting out noise in an attempt to derail

[Kasper]

Yeah, the Chief Executive of PL is a fool because he sided with one of their biggest broadcasting partners over a country that is blocking it's population from watching the same league. Cool cool cool...

[Whitley mag]

If this gets rejected I’m out for good, it’ll finally prove where 2nd class citizens as far as PL are concerned, and I want no part.

 

I’ll also hope the Saudis reinstate BeoutQ with immediate effect, the premier league lose millions on tv deals, and bein go f***ing bust.

[Doctor Zaius]

If those tweets are to be believed its dead in the water like

 

[Guest neesy111]

Masters messed right up getting involved in the broadcasting rights situation and he was a fool to think he could sort it and an even bigger fool siding with Qatar, TV rights in that part of the world will be a huge problem for the next 10 years (the Asian games TV rights are kicking up a right stink) Barhain and the UAE will side with Saudi along with many others in that region.

 

He needs to go back and redo the test on face value to work out if these guys have enough funds to purchase the club and not rack up a load of debt that could put the club in financial trouble like Manchester United.

 

Just pass the fucking thing and let the middle east sort their own issues.

 

This is so unbelievably naive and shows a lack of context to what is going on and what is at stake for the PL.

[Cronky]

 

Probably the most informative set of tweets I’ve seen for a while on the current issues. Again, I feel like I’ve flipped entirely negative on this now, but I don’t see how you’re getting around this set of problems. They’re issues bigger than football and the Premier League have got us and them wrapped up in something it never should have.

 

Edit* just realised this was posted and discussed in the old thread.

 

 

 

re Ben Jacobs, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the PL to ask questions and then proceed anyway, despite not getting any answers.

 

I wonder whether the banning of BeIn was an aggressive gesture by the Saudis, made in the hope of putting pressure on the PL. The reasoning may have been that by hurting the broadcasting partner, they would also threaten the PL's income in the long term.

 

Not a sensible move at all, I'd say, but we can't assume that the decision-making process over there is always well-informed and free from the whims of an individual.

[Shearergol]

Masters messed right up getting involved in the broadcasting rights situation and he was a fool to think he could sort it and an even bigger fool siding with Qatar, TV rights in that part of the world will be a huge problem for the next 10 years (the Asian games TV rights are kicking up a right stink) Barhain and the UAE will side with Saudi along with many others in that region.

 

He needs to go back and redo the test on face value to work out if these guys have enough funds to purchase the club and not rack up a load of debt that could put the club in financial trouble like Manchester United.

 

Just pass the fucking thing and let the middle east sort their own issues.

 

WTF man?

[St1pe]

I could really do with a Caulkin update today saying the buyers side are still confident of getting it done. Just so I can pretend all these big problems aren’t happening.

[Guest Butcher]

I could really do with a Caulkin update today saying the buyers side are still confident of getting it done. Just so I can pretend all these big problems aren’t happening.

 

 

Nothing has changed from the buyers side.

[St1pe]

That’ll have to do ?

[mickthemagpie]

Yeah, the Chief Executive of PL is a fool because he sided with one of their biggest broadcasting partners over a country that is blocking it's population from watching the same league. Cool cool cool...

 

Doesn't the Bein deal only last for one more season? Hardly something to hang your hat on especially if it pisses off the richest potential bidder for the next round due to start in the not to distant future.

[Guest chopey]

Masters messed right up getting involved in the broadcasting rights situation and he was a fool to think he could sort it and an even bigger fool siding with Qatar, TV rights in that part of the world will be a huge problem for the next 10 years (the Asian games TV rights are kicking up a right stink) Barhain and the UAE will side with Saudi along with many others in that region.

 

He needs to go back and redo the test on face value to work out if these guys have enough funds to purchase the club and not rack up a load of debt that could put the club in financial trouble like Manchester United.

 

Just pass the fucking thing and let the middle east sort their own issues.

 

This is so unbelievably naive and shows a lack of context to what is going on and what is at stake for the PL.

 

Explain

[manorpark]

I’m on team manor park.

 

 

Welcome to the team young fella.

 

That makes two of us !!!

[morpeth mag]

Yeah, the Chief Executive of PL is a fool because he sided with one of their biggest broadcasting partners over a country that is blocking it's population from watching the same league. Cool cool cool...

 

Doesn't the Bein deal only last for one more season? Hardly something to hang your hat on especially if it pisses off the richest potential bidder for the next round due to start in the not to distant future.

Two years I think

[Guest chopey]

I’m on team manor park.

 

 

Welcome to the team young fella.

 

That makes two of us !!!

 

Three, I've been 100% in from day one. (the rest of them just don't want to get their hopes up in case they get let down, must have had a lot of disappointment in their lives)

[Guest godzilla]

 

Yes I have thank you. Read my answer again explaining that the premier League can be taken to court by the consortium (once the appeal process has been undertaken) if they feel that they have been disqualified due to events outside of the D&O test, which is what I was stating that they can. They could do this even with events within the D&O test if they feel they have the evidence to support this and that the decision was made incorrectly. That's what the courts are there for (civil as not criminal offence), and as mentioned above was administered recently by the Court of Sport Arbitration between Man City and UEFA.

 

Let's entertain you though about the piracy, please show me one bit of evidence (including the WTO Report) where it states that either the state of KSA or PIF are directly responsible for the transmission of the piracy streams. They were concluded by the same report as being responsible for not doing enough to stop the streams, but that is a totally different to being directly responsible. The WTO Report also concluded that it was the states right to do this under TRIPS. KSA Minister of Sport has now taken steps to address this by the statements made a couple of weeks ago. Obvious has nothing to do with anything you need evidence to back that up.

 

The issue now which is being reported as the problem is due to KSA banning beIN from providing network coverage within Saudi Arabia. This is NOT part of the D&O test and as such is an event outside of the remit.

 

I don't believe you when you say you have read the test.

 

If you had, you would know the bolded part is immaterial.

 

Firstly, this fixation that PIF need to be directly tied to piracy is fallacious. The O&D Director test applies to not just PIF/PCP/RB directorial nominees, it applies to anyone whom the PL believes can exert influence (direct or indirect) over the club. Like so:

 

 

“Control” means  the  power  of  a  Person  to  exercise,  or  to  be  able  to  exercise  or acquire, direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination) and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without  prejudice  to  the  generality  of  the  foregoing,  Control  shall  be  deemed  to include:

 

(a)the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the members of that board; and/or

 

(b)the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to  exercise  the  voting  rights  applicable  to,  Shares  in  the  Club  (whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club.For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of  an  Associate  of  any  Person  or  of  a  Connected  Person  to  any  Person  shall  be attributed to that Person;

 

 

(from the PL handbook linked above)

 

I can appreciate that is very dense legalese, but there's no way the separation between PIF and the Saudi government can survive that definition. And it doesn't even need to be proven - just "reasonable opinion". Sure, they need to provide written explanations, and certainly they can try their luck in civil courts and international tribunals. But, reading back, it seems that's what you're hanging your hat on. I can only shake my head in disbelief that you have any faith in those institutions.

 

 

There's also the incredibly broad and nebulous disqualification clause that similarly requires only reasonable belief.

 

 

F.1.6 in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in  Rules  F.1.5.2  or  F.1.5.3,  if  such  conduct  had  taken  place  in  the  United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction;

F. 1 . 5 . 2 .in  respect  of  any  offence  involving  any  act  which  could reasonably  be  considered  to  be  dishonest  (and,  for  the avoidance  of  doubt,  irrespective  of  the  actual  sentence imposed); or

F. 1 . 5 . 3 .in  respect  of  an  offence  set  out  in  Appendix  1  (Schedule  of Offences)  or  a  directly  analogous  offence  in  a  foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed);

 

 

So I come back to my belief that while the PL could (and probably should) reject it according to its own rules. That they haven't indicates to me that they want to approve it, but there's a lot of massaging their aggravated half-billion pound commercial partner before that can happen.

 

Reasonable opinion has to be based on evidence for a start. The bit you put in bold which is evidence and was requested in part by the Premier League and you're saying it's immaterial  Then you go on about PIF and control when I clearly put in my answer either the state of KSA or PIF 

[xLiaaamx]

If this does fail I never want to hear from Staveley in regards to us again.