should be easy to prove. House of Saud is large so stick a puppet in... then a year down The line do a switcheroo. Easy.
Your knowledge of the English language needs work. Has been - present perfect Had been - past perfect Also your comment should read either: Has been may indicate past tense OR Has been may have indicated past tense. @Darren Peacock's Ponytail to confirm.
Oh my god. Can we just close this **** down. I’m sick of it. It’s over. Why can’t we just ****in move on.
I thought you were from Manchester? How did u learnt to spell? Wot next... correcting sentences starting with a little letter
Its a sovereign wealth fund so its State owned and identifying beneficial owners is difficult. Ultimately its the government which in this case is effectively the Saudi Royal Family which is led by the current ruler. Can see why it might cause some issues as its not like there are a list of shareholders but if it works with Qatar and UAE for PSG and Man City then cant see why this would be a problem here.
Nice we have some real news, the concern from BBC is very similar to what many fans were questioning. This is an odd consortium mix, first of all the PIF is ****ing huge, then we have Stavely and co. Then we have Reubens. Who's in charge, who runs it all, who is going to be spending the cash and such. Its a cluster **** for them, that's for sure. I think it will pass this week. If that is their only concern then we really have nothing to worry about.
Sounds like there's no link. Trying to hide behind saying theres a lack of info. They want to fail it
There's a fairly obvious link - it's a sovereign wealth fund and he is the sovereign! Normally with a business you can indicate the shareholders, the beneficial owners and the registered controllers and that is a required submission from most businesses - the beneficial owners could be difficult to actually define for a sovereign wealth fund (?The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be too vague). Think the question is over control.
Was about to say the exact same thing. The problem is who actually IS in control. PIF isn’t under the control of any one person. It’s there for the whole of SA. And is ran by presumably directors. This control issue is IMHO another PL deflection bid to effectively “get out” of the issue. The ****ing clue is in the name of the entity PUBLIC. For the state. I just think wow, it’s not human rights, piracy, murder or anything else. The PL have pulled a legal loop hole on this one. It’s like saying who is in control of HMRC. Does anyone really think the queen has any actual involvement with how her own revenue and customs.
