PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Kimbo]

3 hours ago, Stifler said:

Leak came from Ashley’s team, surprise fucking surprise, always, and forever a cunt.

 

Anyway, does it matter? There wasn’t, and I still think no rules preventing a nation state from owning a club. We already know number 10 were involved with it.

 

 

 

This is what I’ve never understood about the separation argument. There was, and is, no rule against state ownership of clubs, because the member clubs don’t want such a rule, because they may want to benefit from it at some point. It’s portrayed as this ‘gotcha’ as if it’s a reason the takeover shouldn’t have happened.

[Stifler]

2 minutes ago, Kimbo said:

This is what I’ve never understood about the separation argument. There was, and is, no rule against state ownership of clubs, because the member clubs don’t want such a rule, because they may want to benefit from it at some point. It’s portrayed as this ‘gotcha’ as if it’s a reason the takeover shouldn’t have happened.

Exactly.

 

’Got you!’

 

’On what? Doing something that there was no rules against, but the Premier League let you believe there was just to avoid the questions of why there was no rules against it, and to pacify it, and for 3 years you have been praying for this moment because you were gullible enough to fall for it’.

[SAK]

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by SAK

[Stifler]

4 minutes ago, SAK said:

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

MBS hasn’t been convicted of any crime, and has had state visits to the U.K. in recent years.

[Jackie Broon]

2 hours ago, SAK said:

Think that if MBS is regarded as a shadow director then he would have to undergo the owners and directors test. I doubt that would happen as they would have to prove he is involved in the running of NUFC which he isn’t. 
 

Just because MBS is involved in PIFs decision making in relation to investing in NUFC that does mean he’s involved in decisions in relation to us. As an example INEOS execs would have been in involved in their decision to invest in Man U, doesn’t mean the same ones are involved in running Man U or subject to the owners and directors test.

 

 

 

 

It wasn't actually MBS who the PL regarded as a director, it was the state of Saudi Arabia. He's the de facto head of state (although his dad is the official head of state) so, technically it could be said it was him, but in the letter released in the court case it was actually the state of Saudi Arabia they were saying should be subject to the owners and directors test, not MBS.

 

In the end, the PL dropped that subject to unknown "legally binding assurances".

 

 

Edited 11 minutes ago by Jackie Broon