Takeover (Covid-19/20)

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
The #Cans Master said:
Again not my area of law but as opposed to English law and also as opposed to Saudi law will it not be how the issue is viewed in International law that will determine whether PIF are viewed as a separate entity to the State. If PIF are viewed by the World as legally separated from the Saudi state which I vaguely seem to remember reading way back when then that should be conclusive to decide separation., I think.
Click to expand...

I think that would be the correct approach. It isn't my area of law, but if for arguments sake, the WTO view PIF as separate, then that is precedent for saying that should be position in English law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761
I asked a while back why KSA couldn’t own the club. They technically can, is the answer, but we now know they wouldn’t pass the OD test, is the issue.

Nothing is certain but I’d sway towards the path being cleared. The final irony is if Ashley’s negligence through Charnley/Bruce will either cause the deal to fail or actually lose him £100m.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheikh_of_Araby
Roland Deschain said:
I asked a while back why KSA couldn’t own the club. They technically can, is the answer, but we now know they wouldn’t pass the OD test, is the issue.

Nothing is certain but I’d sway towards the path being cleared. The final irony is if Ashley’s negligence through Charnley/Bruce will either cause the deal to fail or actually lose him £100m.
Click to expand...


Oh ****
 
Roland Deschain said:
I asked a while back why KSA couldn’t own the club. They technically can, is the answer, but we now know they wouldn’t pass the OD test, is the issue.

Nothing is certain but I’d sway towards the path being cleared. The final irony is if Ashley’s negligence through Charnley/Bruce will either cause the deal to fail or actually lose him £100m.
Click to expand...

KSA normally can't. A state cannot be a director. The PL's argument though is that KSA PIF are a person because of the level of control from the state. The person being MBS. If that position is correct, KSA would be named director under section A and so would be assessed through the ODT under section F.

Due to state piracy and beoutQ, KSA would almost certainly fail. Unless, a compromise is reached.

If the contrary approach is taken- KSA PIF being a separate entity, then the named directors under section A are Yasser Al Rumayyan and Bander Mogren only - PIF. They fly through the test under section F.

The high court judgement demonstrates that section A is disputed and so section F never took place.

The narrow role of arbitration is to decide the legal status of PIF. Two of the country's top judges make up the panel. Judges with years of experience of company and international law. This is one of the biggest sports law cases in years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Schlem Boogerman and magpie290761
Sheikh_of_Araby said:
KSA normally can't. A state cannot be a director. The PL's argument though is that KSA PIF are a person because of the level of control from the state. The person being MBS. If that position is correct, KSA would be named director under section A and so would be assessed through the ODT under section F.

Due to state piracy and beoutQ, KSA would almost certainly fail. Unless, a compromise is reached.

If the contrary approach is taken- KSA PIF being a separate entity, then the named directors under section A are Yasser Al Rumayyan and Bander Mogren only - PIF. They fly through the test under section F.

The high court judgement demonstrates that section A is disputed and so section F never took place.

The narrow role of arbitration is to decide the legal status of PIF. Two of the country's top judges make up the panel. Judges with years of experience of company and international law. This is one of the biggest sports law cases in years.
Click to expand...
Not only that but it also sets the standard for the future and is probably the first complex case to be under review.

Its interesting as well that none of it is matter of actual fact~!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheikh_of_Araby
TJR_NUFC said:
NDM knew exactly what he was doing and wouldn’t have expected a diffrent outcome.

Michael Beloff has worked with NDM more times than he has worked with the EPL. Even if that wasn't the case, NDM knows that no judge is ever going to rule that a top, highly experienced QC doesn't have the capacity to act impartiality when required.

On the second ruling, again NDM knows very well that arbitrations are private processes that aren't played out in public. Though the findings will of course be made public which is standard practice.

The purpose of both appeals was to further build the narrative that the EPL are a biased, untransparent organisation. The club statement effectively calling the EPL out further supports this.

Additionally it intensifies focus on the arbitration panel and creates grounds for an appeal if the panel are in any way not impartial. Therefore if the EPL were hoping that Beloff was in anyway going to be biased towards thier arguments, this now ensures that he can't be.

Also it works in our favour that arbitration is only focusing on who should be named as a director and therefore be subject to the O&D test. Piracy claims, chopping up journalists etc is all an irrelevance to the arbitration process and would only ever be relevant later down the line if the KSA is named as a director.

All NDM and SF have to prove is that the KSA PIF is a separate legal entity and is operated for the benefit of the KSA but not by the KSA per se. The WTO recognise this as being the case so I'm confident that NDM and SF will be able to present a convincing case.

Though I think the EPL will pull out of arbitration before the panel can make a decision and agree to list the KSA PIF and not the KSA as a director and then proceed with the O&D test. Especially if it is true that the EPL have acted improperly and discussed the takeover with the likes of BeIn.

The last thing the EPL will want is for the arbitration panel to conclude that they acted improperly during the process even if they find in thier favour in terms of listing KSA as a director. As this will open up the prospect of challenges in the courts and it'll get messy for the EPL.
Click to expand...

the best comeback post I’ve seen ever. Great to see you again fella. Hope you are well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJR_NUFC, magpie290761 and Sheikh_of_Araby
The #Cans Master said:
Again not my area of law but as opposed to English law and also as opposed to Saudi law will it not be how the issue is viewed in International law that will determine whether PIF are viewed as a separate entity to the State. If PIF are viewed by the World as legally separated from the Saudi state which I vaguely seem to remember reading way back when then that should be conclusive to decide separation., I think.
Click to expand...
I was forgetting the WTO interpretation too. So if WTO (independent organisation) and KSA has them as separate then the PL don’t have a leg to stand on.

I firmly believe that NDM knew exactly what he was doing and has set the scene perfectly for artibration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schlem Boogerman
The #Cans Master said:
Who would be happy to be relegated IF

1. The sale to the Saudi’s still went through.

2. Ashley had to lose £100M off the sale price to get the deal through.

3. Bruce was sacked.

4. We had a Championship winning season to get back to the PL next season

I would.
Click to expand...

100%. A season in the Championship under PIF would be season 1992/93 all over again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Albert's Chip Shop
The #Cans Master said:
Who would be happy to be relegated IF

1. The sale to the Saudi’s still went through.

2. Ashley had to lose £100M off the sale price to get the deal through.

3. Bruce was sacked.

4. We had a Championship winning season to get back to the PL next season

I would.
Click to expand...

I was saying the same today. Imagine if it actually suited all parties (PIF and Ashley) to drop down, get approval from EFL (Sheff Utd were sanctioned under Saudi rule in the EFL) then bounce back up. Perhaps Ashley pops in a clause saying he gets £50m more if we get promoted at the first attempt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Sheikh_of_Araby
One other thought at a stretch is that NDM may actually quite happy for his old boss to be the chair of the panel. He might be misdirecting the focus onto the chair being biased towards the PL to allow for a bit of ‘old chums’ help in the background from a chair who might actually want the deal to go through...
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761 and Sheikh_of_Araby
It doesn't matter what de marco presents they're going to judge in favour of the premier league.

The scales have been rigged

That's my opinion
 
captain wrong said:
It doesn't matter what de marco presents they're going to judge in favour of the premier league.

The scales have been rigged

That's my opinion
Click to expand...

Not correct. The arbitration panel are made up of a top QC and two of the country's top retired judges. The arbitration decisions are public and scrutinised. Lord Neuberger has form for hearing cases involving Saudi law.
 
Sheikh_of_Araby said:
Not correct. The arbitration panel are made up of a top QC and two of the country's top retired judges. The arbitration decisions are public and scrutinised. Lord Neuberger has form for hearing cases involving Saudi law.
Click to expand...


They'll have two arguments and both will be sound, but they'll favour the premier league
 
Sheikh_of_Araby said:
Not correct. The arbitration panel are made up of a top QC and two of the country's top retired judges. The arbitration decisions are public and scrutinised. Lord Neuberger has form for hearing cases involving Saudi law.
Click to expand...

This fella doesn't concern me but what does Dyson bring to the table, a vast knowledge of vacuum cleaners? :bandit:
 
  • Like
Reactions: magpie290761, Flash and Sheikh_of_Araby
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back