PIF and RB Sports & Media

[St. Maximin]

Probably asking a really basic year old question here… but what’s the issue with the KSA being director anyway? Why would they not pass the test? Or maybe I have completely misunderstood stuff 

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, St. Maximin said:

Probably asking a really basic year old question here… but what’s the issue with the KSA being director anyway? Why would they not pass the test? Or maybe I have completely misunderstood stuff 

 

Would fail it due to piracy issues.

[NE27]

28 minutes ago, Ketsbaia said:

Can't wait to see what bread De Marco bakes tonight.

 

Victory stottie

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

Probably asking a really basic year old question here… but what’s the issue with the KSA being director anyway? Why would they not pass the test? Or maybe I have completely misunderstood stuff 

 

No state would agree to that, certainly not one like the KSA, it would essentially bind them to abide by English law.

[et tu brute]

9 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Would fail it due to piracy issues.

 

To which the WTO report and a French Court did not directly link to KSA, only 'individuals' located in the Saudi area. If WTO and a court don't have the evidence, then I fail to see how the Premier League would. I think it's more the case KSA just do not want to be a director.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by et tu brute

[Fantail Breeze]

31 minutes ago, Ketsbaia said:

Can't wait to see what bread De Marco bakes tonight.

 

[B-more Mag]

6 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

Probably asking a really basic year old question here… but what’s the issue with the KSA being director anyway? Why would they not pass the test? Or maybe I have completely misunderstood stuff 

 

KSA would have to admit it's a director and submit a declaration about a laundry list of issues laid out in the rules-- which it hasn't done and presumably doesn't want to do.

[Decky]

Wraith reading out a Kate Stewart message on this show of his. Was she not proven to be a fake account?

[christ]

1 minute ago, Decky said:

Wraith reading out a Kate Stewart message on this show of his. Was she not proven to be a fake account?

Yeah but he’s a daft cunt so…

[Chris_R]

23 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

 

To which the WTO report and a French Court did not directly link to KSA, only 'individuals' located in the Saudi area. If WTO and a court don't have the evidence, then I fail to see how the Premier League would. I think it's more the case KSA just do not want to be a director.

 

 

 

 

I've been saying it for 2 years, but they don't need evidence. Read the PL's own rules, they just need reasonable suspicion. 

[et tu brute]

3 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

I've been saying it for 2 years, but they don't need evidence. Read the PL's own rules, they just need reasonable suspicion. 

 

And I've been saying for 2 years that a reasonable suspicion has got to be based on factual evidence in law. Let's say KSA did agree to become Director and were declined due to reasonable suspicion of piracy. NUFC disagree, go to arbitration and the judges presiding the case will ask the Premier League what evidence do you have to back up your reasonable suspicion.  

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

I've been saying it for 2 years, but they don't need evidence. Read the PL's own rules, they just need reasonable suspicion. 

 

They would still have to be able to provide evidence to back that up if it went to appeal, arbitration or other judicial process.

 

They couldn't rely on the WTO report because that is being appealed and there is no prospect of that appeal happening in the near future. There is an exemption for convictions under appeal in the O&D test.

[Rosenrot]

8 minutes ago, Chris_R said:

 

I've been saying it for 2 years, but they don't need evidence. Read the PL's own rules, they just need reasonable suspicion. 

The suspicion still needs to be objectively reasonable and justifiable though.

[Chris_R]

5 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

 

And I've been saying for 2 years that a reasonable suspicion has got to be based on factual evidence in law. Let's say KSA did agree to become Director and were declined due to reasonable suspicion of piracy. NUFC disagree, go to arbitration and the judges presiding the case will ask the Premier League what evidence do you have to back up your reasonable suspicion.  

 

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

They would still have to be able to provide evidence to back that up if it went to appeal, arbitration or other judicial process.

 

They couldn't rely on the WTO report because that is being appealed and there is no prospect of that appeal happening in the near future. There is an exemption for convictions under appeal in the O&D test.

 

5 minutes ago, Rosenrot said:

The suspicion still needs to be objectively reasonable and justifiable though.

 

Must be why the takeover has sailed through. Thanks for explaining it. 

[Shearergol]

Just now, Chris_R said:

 

 

 

Must be why the takeover has sailed through. Thanks for explaining it. 

 

I guess if you ignore the actually reason, which has been re-iterated today, yeah. 

[Mattoon]

1 minute ago, Chris_R said:

 

 

 

Must be why the takeover has sailed through. Thanks for explaining it. 

 

I think its more to do with a royal family not wanting the PL pawing through their private information.

[ED209]

3 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

 

I think its more to do with a royal family not wanting the PL pawing through their private information.

whats Prince Andrew got to do with it? 

[Fantail Breeze]

I’m feeling slightly more optimistic after today. Although it still requires a positive outcome from arbitration.

 

The fact we heard arbitration may not even happen in January could be good (i.e. the PL and club come to a settlement outside of it) or it could be crap and more delays expected.

[BennyBlanco]

Interesting to note that the premier league today couldn’t differentiate between Newcastle United and St James Holdings but is adamant that it knows there is absolutely no difference between PIF and Saudi Arabia.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2021 by BennyBlanco

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, BennyBlanco said:

Interesting to note that the premier league today couldn’t differentiate between Newcastle United and St James Holdings but is adamant that it’s know there is absolutely no difference between PIF and Saudi Arabia.

 

I thought it the admission that the PL considers SJH to be a director but the company hasn’t been through the test was interesting.  

 

Plus the fact neither has Justin Barnes, who has substantial control over the club, more than Mike Ashley in fact.

 

Sort of ridicules the whole process. I still doubt arbitration will go our way, because it’ll be as bent as everything else, but it’s a farce.

[Jinky Jim]

I wonder if there will be any report about today’s proceedings in the national press….very much doubt owt will be on BBC or Sky news……scandalous really?

[BennyBlanco]

A fair few of the papers are running with the line of them threatening us with expulsion from the league. Seen it in the mail and the telegraph now. Hopefully more pick it up. 
 

That was not a good look for the league today, turn the fucking screw on the cunts I say.

[RS]

3 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

I wonder if there will be any report about today’s proceedings in the national press….very much doubt owt will be on BBC or Sky news……scandalous really?

If they’d threatened to hoy man united out there would have been News flashes on all channels. 

[number9shirt]

Did the premier league deny being influenced by Qatar,Bein & other pl clubs

[Jinky Jim]

21 minutes ago, Jinky Jim said:

I wonder if there will be any report about today’s proceedings in the national press….very much doubt owt will be on BBC or Sky news……scandalous really?

I eat my words?…..from BBC……”Premier League 'abused position' in Newcastle takeover, tribunal hears”