I beli eve they have to see it through unless it sets a new president. Plus they have to be seen to be doing what they can for the big six and also Bein. I don’t know what evidence they can have.
Well they can pull up the PIFs website and point at who the chairman is for a start. There's actually a big assumption and that is that the premier have actually been breaking rules... We don't know that.. Its just been taken as a given... It may or may not have happened and even if it had they have to prove it beyond doubt... That is not easy.
The arbitration is the PL's own internal dispute resolution. Ashley can pursue a claim independent of this under competition law. They can rule differently. They can rule that the whole process is anti competition.
And what difference does that make? Again genuine question. The company that will run operations for nufc have completely different directors. PIF would own the company. He just is chairman.
The entire argument is whether pif is connected to the state. MBS is the chairman and the money is all a pot of funds set aside by the State to make accusitions for the state of Saudi Arabias 2030 vision. So how thar isn't connected to the state I simply do not know... Its the states 320 billion and the Prince and soon to be king is the chairman. You get me?
Chairman is irrelevant and a red herring. It is about control and whether MBS/ the state are one and the same and whether if so, the state is a person with control to the extent that they should be a director. A state cannot be a director. Alternatively, it is whether MBS exercises a level of control requiring him to be classed as a director under company law. If so, he would be assessed under the ODT. The argument is that the state and PIF are separate. That being the case, MBS is not a person with significant control nor are the state. PIF are an independent wealth fund set up to benefit the state, but not run or controlled by it. Again whether he is chairman or not is irrelevant. It is his level of control.
Because the PL has adopted an interpretation that they are sticking to. They believe MBS/ the state to be a director and so should be included in the test. That would be an automatic fail and the PL knows this.
The PL are telling the consortium who they believe should be directors and so are trying to influence their own test.
And if he was classed as a person with significant control and he was thus made a director. Provided the IP issue is resolved (which it looks like it is) then I see no issue with him personally passing the O and D test?
The whole premise of anti competition is that the PL are telling the consortium who they think should be director. They are trying to achieve a pre-detetmined outcome that prevents competition within their own brand. That is why Mike Ashley is suing them.
The point being that the consortium have their named directors and are peeved that the PL are trying to tell them who they think should be part of the test.
