Why are people responding to other clubs fans? They clearly wandered over here as they have too much time This thread is over 2000 pages. Let them start at the beginning.
Okay, assume that St James Holdings has evidence that outside parties have tried to influence the PL's decision making process. A process that is supposed to be objective and free from interference and bias. Outside party can be a major broadcast partner and or one or more of the other clubs whom NUFC would be in direct competition with. They (the clubs and/ or broadcast partner) try to stifle a takeover of a competitor/ rival because they see them as a threat and so wish to retain an advantageous marketing advantage. Be that financial and/ or sporting advantage. If evidence exists of collusion between those parties (the ESL being strong persuasive evidence of a cartel) for marketing advantage then that can be highly suggestive of anti competition behaviour. That is where disclosure is key. I don't have access to NUFC's case, but taking a case to CAT is expensive and a waste of time unless you have very strong evidence.
Here's the letter if you want to avoid listening go wraith etc. This letter isn't some big scoop from NCSL.. This was put in public a year ago, but here it is. This isn't evidence any of the clubs actually did anything and for all we know the clubs and the premier did respond appropriately. We're assuming things a tad I feel
The use of the words 'i would strongly advise that you interrogate this deal' is potential evidence of interference or pressure. By itself it is not evidence of wrongdoing. That is where disclosure comes in. What was the response of all concerned? Emails and letters will demonstrate that. Telephone discussions unless recorded won't discharge the allegation. No marketing partner or member club of the PL has any right to suggest that. The PL should also not liaise with member clubs or broadcast partners to seek views. All parties should have replied to BEin immediately clarifying their position - that it is was for the PL to assess under Rule F of the handbook and no-one else. If they didn't like that then they should have been reminded that the letter could be contrary to both the Competitions Act 1998 and Enterprise Act 2002. The key questions to ask are 'what steps did you take in response?'
You ****ing tell em Sheikh….I knew we could rely on you to put them infiltrators in their places! If you’re not prepared to start reading this thread from page 1 then **** right off! This thread is the thread to end all threads and it’s shall never be defeated/closed!
Deletion of evidence is a criminal offence with severe penalties. It can be forensically retrieved if there are strong suspicions. If deletion has occurred that will be an automatic referral to the CMA. It wouldn't just be the PL under investigation - executives within BEin, the PL and any clubs in receipt of that letter would then be subject to investigation. Hence my original comment that this could be massive.
I would strongly advise you interrogate this deal. This was said in public, to the Premier league clubs. That is evidence of them having an influence in proceedings. Their reasoning was because they had a motive to do so. Bein are implying that the piracy is being done by... A company, beoutQ Which isn’t backed by the government, Or MBS Which isn’t connected to PIF But the takeover should be interrogated because they want it too. There is no denying the piracy happened but as far as I can tell it hasn’t legally been stuck on anyone yet?
Correct. They are saying that they do not want the deal because it is Saudi Arabia. They are then attempting to direct interested parties to IP theft - a matter for a Court of law. It is influence and/ or a veiled threat from a broadcast partner. The marketing advantage is implicit. Did BEin write to all clubs or just six? If six that is persuasive in demonstrating that they are protecting a cartel.
It is persuasive evidence of influence. Like I said, if that was indeed sent out and the legal teams have evidence of this, it for the recipients to discharge the burden of proof.
Don't get me wrong in sure things went on, but even if they actually know it went on then proving it is an entirely different beast. They've got prove it and the other teams had along time to get their story together.
