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

[Guest reefatoon]

We need Henry Mauriss to come galloping in on his 3 legged donkey to save the day. Hurry up American Mike and put this farce to bed. The slippery Saudis have had it.

[TK-421]

It is amazing how, the PL have said all along 'no comment' and the nearest we've gotten to any sort of real comment, is Masters stating he hoped for it to be sorted shortly (or similar) a few weeks ago.

 

Yet, we keep getting the negative stories that the PL are standing by their rights holding partners, and set to reject the takeover, and these 20-100 MP's are all against it, and this new letter/document/evidence is putting the takeover in doubt.

 

But these leaked stories are never positive. That tells me a lot, and that the negative stories are probably being leaked by people with an agenda for this to fail.

 

GC reckons the buying side are still positive, and that they've done/answered all that's been asked up to now, and they could be spinning that for their own purposes.

 

However, until something definite comes out one way or the other, I'd be inclined to stick to the positive side, and ignore those with an obvious agenda in the hope for PIF/Staveley/Reubens to be given the green light.... eventually.

[deejeck]

We need Henry Mauriss to come galloping in on his 3 legged donkey to save the day. Hurry up American Mike and put this farce to bed. The slippery Saudis have had it.

 

Just like Pixelated Henry, there are only two pictures of his donkey available on the internet.  This is the best quality one:

 

http://pixelartmaker.com/art/983cfdf99c90b58.png

[Happinesstan]

 

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.

 

Its all very well saying the PL only need "reasonable belief", but that opens another can of worms regarding the definition of "reasonable". 

 

I do know that certainly in the Health and Safety regulations in the UK, the courts have refused to define the term "reasonable", so any adverse decision by the PL based upon a "reasonable belief" is certainly open to a legal challenge..

 

What is "reasonable" to the PL will almost certainly not be "reasonable" to the consortium, accordingly I would think the PL would have to provide concrete evidence to support their "reasonable belief", which would probably have to be clear documented evidence that MBS has exerted an adverse influence over any of the other companies owned by PIF, and that may be exceedingly difficult for the PL to prove.

 

We've passed that stage. They're now discussing the definition of definition.

[The Prophet]

It is amazing how, the PL have said all along 'no comment' and the nearest we've gotten to any sort of real comment, is Masters stating he hoped for it to be sorted shortly (or similar) a few weeks ago.

 

Yet, we keep getting the negative stories that the PL are standing by their rights holding partners, and set to reject the takeover, and these 20-100 MP's are all against it, and this new letter/document/evidence is putting the takeover in doubt.

 

But these leaked stories are never positive. That tells me a lot, and that the negative stories are probably being leaked by people with an agenda for this to fail.

 

GC reckons the buying side are still positive, and that they've done/answered all that's been asked up to now, and they could be spinning that for their own purposes.

 

However, until something definite comes out one way or the other, I'd be inclined to stick to the positive side, and ignore those with an obvious agenda in the hope for PIF/Staveley/Reubens to be given the green light.... eventually.

 

The reporting the morning of the WTO report pretty much confirmed, a lot if the media including the Guardian, the BBC and Edwards, are being leaked information from the Qatari side. Both parties will be at it you'd imagine.

[Happinesstan]

Off by page 17

 

On again by page 24.

[Guest godzilla]

 

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 

 

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too.

 

You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial.

 

You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial.

 

Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity.

 

I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

 

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;

 

That is the important part, none of the issues raised in the WTO report would result in anything equivalent to an actual offence in this country.

 

Of course it wouldn't

[BlueStar]

PIF are clearly wrong'uns and would fail any reasonable test, but the Premier League have shown before they're willing to turn a blind eye on many things so we just have to hope that extends to this.

[Raconteur]

 

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;

 

That is the important part, none of the issues raised in the WTO report would result in anything equivalent to an actual offence in this country.

 

I disagree - the important part was the words immediately following the bold. It's also why I included f 1.5 in my initial response:

 

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;

 

For reference:

 

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);

 

Therefore, all the PL has to do is reasonably establish that anyone with any "control" over the club has engaged in a "dishonest offence".

 

The findings in the WTO report establish dishonest conduct and it is a very small step to say established dishonest conduct, while different from a dishonest offence, will be enough to reasonably say "no".

 

[Guest chopey]

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...

 

Not a country tho, it's a whole region now, Qataries are knackered

[Guest godzilla]

 

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 

 

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too.

 

You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial.

 

You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial.

 

Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity.

 

I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

 

An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence.

 

Let's just see what happens then if the takeover is rejected.

 

 

[ScottishMagpie]

The same points that were debated to death on the last 1000 page thread on this are being debated again. Please stop.

 

It will be approved, it quite possibly has already. It’s a totally confidential process and no journalist has an up to the minute update to give us. They haven’t had one from a source in months. Yet look at all the bollocks written.

 

Also, do not get upset by other journos and politicians linked to Qatar. They will write their lies regardless.

 

Just wait until the season is over and there will be movement then.

 

Hello Kate Stewart. 

[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...

 

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.

 

Don't think it's very likely that Saudi Arabia would set up a company from nothing that would buy the bundled MENA rights and start setting up broadcasting all through the region. Yes they probably would be bidding for KSA rights but that doesn't seem to be how PL want to sell them.

 

Plus I'm not sure how well the Saudis come out of this as potential broadcasting partners. I'd be a bit wary.

 

[Guest chopey]

I dont think they would, I think they would follow the model they used for the Joshua fight and Spanish super cup, remember the rest of MENA have basically annexed Qatar

[NE27]

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.

 

Don't think it's very likely that Saudi Arabia would set up a company from nothing that would buy the bundled MENA rights and start setting up broadcasting all through the region. Yes they probably would be bidding for KSA rights but that doesn't seem to be how PL want to sell them.

 

Plus I'm not sure how well the Saudis come out of this as potential broadcasting partners. I'd be a bit wary.

 

Qatar aren't coming out looking too good either!

 

Come on lads, be big boys and settle some differences. Qatar could probably do with KSA onside for their broadcasting/income and KSA wanna do a bit sports washing.

 

And Scrooge McMasters would like to dive into a vault of middle Eastern spondoolies.

 

 

[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...

 

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.

 

Don't think it's very likely that Saudi Arabia would set up a company from nothing that would buy the bundled MENA rights and start setting up broadcasting all through the region. Yes they probably would be bidding for KSA rights but that doesn't seem to be how PL want to sell them.

 

Plus I'm not sure how well the Saudis come out of this as potential broadcasting partners. I'd be a bit wary.

 

Qatar aren't coming out looking too good either!

 

Come on lads, be big boys and settle some differences. Qatar could probably do with KSA onside for their broadcasting/income and KSA wanna do a bit sports washing.

 

And Scrooge McMasters would like to dive into a vault of middle Eastern spondoolies.

 

From PL's point of view, what are the bad things Qatar have done here?

[NE27]

Nothing as far as PL are concerned.

 

Although their reach into media to sway decisions and/or thinking is borderline embarrassing tbh.

 

 

[Kasper]

By the way...can someone try to explain to me why KSA couldn't wait a month or so to block Bein?

 

What on earth was the point of doing it while this whole thing was in progress?

 

Are they just a bit thick?

[Dokko]

By the way...can someone try to explain to me why KSA couldn't wait a month or so to block Bein?

 

What on earth was the point of doing it while this whole thing was in progress?

 

Are they just a bit thick?

 

Well, looks like you were right and they are thick. No other explanation now.

 

I’ve slept on it, expected to feel different once I digested it all but I’m still of the opinion it’s fucked. A bit late to the it’s over party, but here I am.

[Miggys First Goal]

Maybe we dodged a bullet. They do seem a bit temperamental.

[Teasy]

By the way...can someone try to explain to me why KSA couldn't wait a month or so to block Bein?

 

What on earth was the point of doing it while this whole thing was in progress?

 

Are they just a bit thick?

 

The ban was the result of a court process from a case that's been going on since long before this takeover started.  I doubt it's really reasonable to tell a court to delay its decision based on the takeover of a Football club.

[deejeck]

Regardless of where the PL are going with this, Qatar have played a blinder here.  Everyone is focusing on the supposedly odd actions of KSA banning BeIN, and nobody seems to be mentioning BeIN's cuntish behaviour of having irrational subscription packages which screw their customers over, the thing that they've actually been found guilty of.  Saw a few conversations about this well before the banning was announced by KSA, so it was obviously an issue.  It's possible that their actions did indeed break Saudi trade regulations, in which case, maybe the punishment is justified?  Timing seems very odd, but fuck knows what is going on behind the scenes.  It's clear that nobody outside the PL really knows where this is going.  When the PL say that they have no plans to sub-divide MENA for the next lot of rights i'm taking it with a pinch of salt.

[madras]

I wonder how long midds had been sitting on the thread title.?

[OpenC]

 

I'm pleased it's changed, was sick of the sight of the old thread title like

[Ankles Bennett]

It would be ironic if the takeover was rejected because of the Reubens rather than the PIF.