‘Assume’ is doing some heavy lifting there like. Firstly, you say evidence of trying to influence the PL’s decision process. What element of competition law precludes an actual stakeholder in the league itself putting forward their opinion on the whether a State that has clearly been involved in piracy of the leagues product, would be a good thing for the league or not? The formal due diligence process of the O&D’s test is separate to a stakeholder having an opinion. Secondly, the PL decision was never made. They asked for further clarification in terms of ownership structure, didn’t think that what they’d been provided was sufficient, told them this, and then the Saudis withdrew from the process add issued a statement citing a delay in the decision being reached, plus the COVID crisis and the global economic outlook as their reasons for withdrawing. So what decision has been influenced that has broken competition law? The broadcaster has literally been financially harmed by the actions of the Saudi state, as they were refused access to a market they’d paid for, due to a geopolitical dispute. Them expressing their opinion to stakeholders of the league is perfectly valid imo, as the State in question had facilitated piracy of the leagues own product. It seems that there’s a leap from these perfectly valid reasons to a narrative that the clubs have somehow cartel’d in order to gain a competitive advantage. By competitive advantage in this context, you can only mean stopping the new owners potentially lobbing cash at Newcastle beyond its current limitations of turnover. Which is quite ironic tbh, as imo the actual PL rules are anti competitive in this area. As any owner is limited by the maximum 3 year operating loss that the PL have set for all clubs, which is £105m (£35m per season), which caps off non infrastructure investment at that level. But he’s not going after them for that, he’s claiming that the rest of the league cartel’d against the Saudis as they felt their mere presence was something the rest presumably feared and wanted to stop for their own gains. I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that he’s got no evidence of what would constitute genuine anti competitive behaviour and a legal breach, and I’d be happy to wager that this case won’t succeed.
If they have colluded in anyway, including getting their stories straight, and there is evidence they are in trouble.
I hope the letter did only go to 6 clubs. It pours petrol on the flames for me In terms of cartel behaviour.
It is always going to be down to interpretation. Nobody is going to write “because we have to make sure Newcastle United don’t upset our cartel arrangements.” Or something similar.
Honestly lads this NCST guys having a laugh. I mean do you not think it's kinda enlightening that he's out here only 2 days ago acting like he's found evidence of holy grail and it happens to be a letter we read on here over a year ago?
I was just thinking the same thing mate. 13 clubs NOT getting a letter is potentially more damming than the 6 who allegedly did! I hope this goes ****ing nuclear I really do! Ashley will want his cake and eat it. Takeover + Masters and Hoffman sharing a cell with big leroy, getting anally split in half every night is a result and a half like!
But you fail to realise that the Saudi State isn’t buying NUFC. It’s a separate Investment Fund that’s doing the buying that have played no part in the activities that are being complained about. So why have BEin written to the others and the PL?
A ba lanced argument I like it. It’s kind of ironic coming from a Man City fan given the rules where effectively changed following your takeover and here we are. Additionally (I’m sorry I have to do this and I appreciate this isn’t you mate) given that your club and 5 others wanted to create a ESL outside of the PL which would have seriously damaged the IP value. The impact which would have been devastating for world football backs up the cartel mantra and is anti competition by very nature. The piracy issue was real, granted. However Saudi wasn’t implicit in it (Remember PIF is completely separate to SA btw) they merely didn’t provide the means to shut the piracy down. How it can then be linked through Saudi-government-government officials-PIF- NUFC Inv ltd (uk company with different directors) and to the takeover is a tedious link at best.
A ‘separate’ investment fund headed up by the actual head of State, that reports to a state dept, set up by him. Which was the reason behind the entire issue, that of supposed separation, that is being dealt with by the arbitration panel. Clearly beIN don’t accept that separation and the PL were yet to be convinced of it.
I’m not a City fan mate, it’s me - Tobes. The Saudis were integral to the piracy issue, for 2 reasons, firstly whom else barring them could have blocked the beIN signal? And the illegal broadcasts were made via one of their satellites weren’t they?
The separation argument arose following the Bein interference/influence and was created to facilitate an outcome to please Bein and the big six. Without the letter the conjectural opinion of separation wouldn’t have been there. The PL just wanted the desired outcome, go block the takeover and worked backwards from there. Came up with a loose link to the piracy which fits in nicely with there rules. The rules that where amended following advice from no other than 1 of the 3 arbitration panel members (Beloff) who just so happens to have the deciding vote. Interesting that eh!
They didn’t block the signal because of the geopolitical defences. I agree they probably should have and now have done. As for the satellites being owned by Arabsat I believe. I don’t believe they owned by the SA government or PIF or MBS. So that’s another issue altogether.
I think that letter just forms the basis start point to then generate the evidence thereafter. It’s flimsy mind I give you that. But the delay by the PL and their request to have MBS as a director was 100% to fit the purpose of then being able to block the takeover.
Okay, to tackle this. The PL ODT under Rule F is a confidential objective process. They will have been cognisant of beoutq, the WTO investigation report, the findings and identified inconsistencies with TRIPS. They did not need BEin Sports to point out the obvious. The stakeholder has no say in who can be the owner of another member club/ competitor. It is a decision for the PL alone based on information given by the potential new owners and evidence they have obtain through their own due diligence. The issue I have is that Saudi/ Qatar is bigger than football. It is a geo political spat between two awful regimes trying to show who is the less evil. The fact that BEin has the broadcasting rights to the MENA region is a bit ironic given their terrible human rights record. No better than Saudi's. I digress though. Due dilligence is separate, but once a commercial partner gets involved that immediately calls into question the impartiality. They use the words ' I would strongly advise.' Reading their letter it appears to be an implicit veiled threat - " we do not want the. Do the necessary or else." If that is the correct interpretation then that is persuasive in suggesting that BEin have tried to influence the PL and assessors minds when considering the Saudi proposal. The test - Objective in theory, but it is subjective in nature. The disputed issue is separation between PIF and KSA. There is well established academic legal commentary on the MENA region relating to the position of sovereign wealth funds. They are viewed as quasi companies with a legally separate identity. Shaheed Fatima QC has written on this issue as she is an expert. She is also representing NUFC in arbitration. The PL view PIF/ KSA as the same. That opinion is subjective and without seeing correspondence, I cannot comment on why they came to this decision. PIF were set up by Royal Decree and the highest Court in Saudi allegedly wrote to the PL to confirm separation. The PL however allegedly requested further proof and the argument is that they knew that it could not be supplied. They then sat on making a decision for several months until PIF publically withdrew their bid. If you believe Amanda Staveley, and I have no reason to doubt her, the PL were insisting that KSA be named director due to the level of control exercised. A state cannot be a director and that would have been an automatic fail. The PL will have known this. They wanted the consortium to appoint a 'director who they knew they could safely fail. That didn't happen so what did the PL do? They sat on making a decision. The failure to make a decision on the evidence before them may have been unfair. If they were asking for the impossible as an example. Again, without seeing the evidence I am just guessing. Piracy - covered by Articles 41.1, 42 and 46 of TRIPS. Failed to stop beoutq or allow a legal remedy. No evidence that PIF were involved, hence why separation is key. The Saudi's have now implemented the findings of the WTO report. They have introduced a legal framework to enforce IP rights under the Saudi legsl system. Beoutq has also been closed down. Yes, that was a legitimate grievance. Whether it was state sponsored is open to debate. It was linked to a member of the Royal family, but it would be equivalent to the Duke of Kent supporting a pirate TV station and blaming the Queen. The Saudi Royal family is huge. Piracy has not been linked to MBS, but a cousin. Marketing advantage - you can argue that the takeover would facilitate healthy competition within the PL. The Saudis were not intending to plough billions into the team a la Man City. They had a plan to invest in infrastructure and the local economy. Others saw/ see them as a threat per se and so wish to prevent their ownership. The real issue in this case is KSA and PIF. if there is separation then the takeover goes through and the competition case disappears. The merits of the competition case are for the president of CAT to decide.
(You should then drop the microphone and walk of stage like a rock and roll star). I like it. You sure your not NDM?
