Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Colos Short and Curlies said:

 

He got one thing wrong - unless the arbitration is set for the w/c 3rd January then it will be delayed as the 3rd is a bank holiday

 

Pendants 1 - 0 Journalists

It's pedant. 

 

Pedants 1 - 0 Pendants

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Joey said:

Mental people claiming they don't put this much time and money into a case they don't believe they can win.

Sure the other side are of the same belief.

The premier league really has no choice though did they once we went down that route ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dokko said:

Reflecting back I didn't expect it to go as well as it did. Seemed very one sided and from my view quite a simple judgement. Even some flickers from the press, including the BBC and bien Jacobs suggesting such. 

 

If it doesn't go our way then nothing will IMHO. I don't see how we can spell it out any clearer and if it's rejected then the PL has it sewn up and untouchable. 

Not necessarily.  If we lose arbitration we wont know how or why we lose.  If we win the jurisdiction challenge the CAT case will go ahead regardless of the outcome of arbitration, and will be in public and as such may disclose how and why we lost arbitration in order to establish whether the PL's reasons for blocking the move were anti- competitive!  It may be that the CAT hold some of the hearing in private regarding the arbitration findings being confidential, but if the CAT subsequentely find in our favour that the EPL acted uncompetitively the EPL may then have to reverse their decision to block the takeover!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

”For the Premier League to win the arbitration, they only have to prove that they followed and applied their own rules correctly.”
 

firstly, it shouldn’t be about them “winning”. Secondly, it’s not about applying their rules, it’s about whether their is separation between KSA and PIF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

”For the Premier League to win the arbitration, they only have to prove that they followed and applied their own rules correctly.”
 

firstly, it shouldn’t be about them “winning”. Secondly, it’s not about applying their rules, it’s about whether their is separation between KSA and PIF.

 

The two are basically the same though.

 

If separation is proven, the PL haven’t applied their rules correctly as they are demanding to put someone through the test who isn’t required.

 

If separation isn’t proven, the PL have applied their rules correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

The two are basically the same though.

 

If separation is proven, the PL haven’t applied their rules correctly as they are demanding to put someone through the test who isn’t required.

 

If separation isn’t proven, the PL have applied their rules correctly.

What a load of shite, if the PL knew they had followed their rules correctly they would have failed the takeover last year. The fact that have kicked the can down the road for the last 18 months and chose not to reject it tells you they haven’t followed their own rules. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, nufcnick said:

What a load of shite, if the PL knew they had followed their rules correctly they would have failed the takeover last year. The fact that have kicked the can down the road for the last 18 months and chose not to reject it tells you they haven’t followed their own rules. 

 

I wasn’t suggesting that isn’t the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

The two are basically the same though.

 

If separation is proven, the PL haven’t applied their rules correctly as they are demanding to put someone through the test who isn’t required.

 

If separation isn’t proven, the PL have applied their rules correctly.


[emoji38]

 

Are you kidding me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think the only positive outcome for us in this whole thing is if we manage to settle before arbitration. Hopefully the CAT gets the go ahead and that forces the PL’s hand to just let this go through. I will never understand why the PL are fighting so strongly against takeover when it is clearly the best thing for one of their member clubs - it makes no sense whatsoever 

Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

The whole “PL winning” is the very reason this whole thing is bullshit. They shouldn’t be winning or losing.

 

Infact them winning should mean they are actually losing given the lost investment and exposure. Their guy using the words 'fighting arbitration' was a massive insight  

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone of minimal knowledge to this case here, I feel this whole ‘proving separation’ crap should really be irrelevant. Irrespective of Bin Salman’s role, we’d be owned by the state; just not directly. It’s the decision to make a whole state a ‘director’ I find weird though and I don’t see where the basis for this is for unless they wanted to make this really difficult for us. 
 

If it’s any relevance, I work in the fun anti-financial crime world and so I’m very familiar with the phrase ‘ultimate beneficial owner’ that I’ve seen used here in relation to what the PL wanted the KSA state to be. From what I’ve seen a country shouldn’t be the UBO. Maybe that’s all a bit irrelevant here but does seem interesting the PL makes it’s own idea of a UBO seemingly when there’s an awkward takeover situation for them. 

 

 

Edited by St. Maximin

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, St. Maximin said:

unless they wanted to make this really difficult for us. 

 

Well that's the crux of it isn't it. 

 

'top' clubs don't want it, qataris don't want it.... Snakey masters is so deep in their pockets that he simply can't let it go through.  I feel like it's lose lose for masters at this point, hopefully. Let it go through and a few 'leaks' come out about him and his practices, continue kicking the can.... A lot of dirty laundry gets air time. 

 

I think the latter will be his preferred choice. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, St. Maximin said:

As someone of minimal knowledge to this case here, I feel this whole ‘proving separation’ crap should really be irrelevant. Irrespective of Bin Salman’s role, we’d be owned by the state; just not directly. It’s the decision to make a whole state a ‘director’ I find weird though and I don’t see where the basis for this is for unless they wanted to make this really difficult for us. 
 

If it’s any relevance, I work in the fun anti-financial crime world and so I’m very familiar with the phrase ‘ultimate beneficial owner’ that I’ve seen used here in relation to what the PL wanted the KSA state to be. From what I’ve seen a country shouldn’t be the UBO. Maybe that’s all a bit irrelevant here but does seem interesting the PL makes it’s own idea of a UBO seemingly when there’s an awkward takeover situation for them. 

 

 

 

 

The issue is that the definition of a person in control of a club in their rules is so broad that it technically allows them to do that, even if the KSA wouldn't be considered to be a director or owner in either UK or Saudi law.

 

I think the arguments in terms of 'separation' are going to be that the PL have been inconsistent in how they have applied the definition of 'control' in relation to other clubs and it is so broad that it results in unfair trading conditions being imposed on the consortium.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't need to. I don't think it is so much a broad conspiracy as such that Saudi Arabia buying a club (and it helps it's us and not Man United or something) gives them a good chance to get some goo PR blocking a crazy immoral bid, allows them to pretend to have the moral high ground (while Man City and Chelsea are in the league lololol). 

 

Saudi Arabia are piling money into other sports like formula 1 etc. The thing is, this is all really actually wrong, there is no way saudi arabia should own a football club! But it's the picking and choosing when to have morality. You either have a moral premier league and have fan ownership to some level accross the board and restrict ludicrous spending severely or you don't. I was discussing this with another fan who was against the takeover in horror at Saudi Arabia which I have a huge amount of sympathy for. But I can't really stand and boo at somethign that will bring much needed investment into the area and give the fans some joy again. I will remain a morally compromised fan if this goes ahead.

 

And still for the record, I still just can't see it not being blocked by obstinancy from the PL, no matter what 'should' happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...