ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 It may shock some of you to learn I'm not actually a trade expert but from a glance at the conclusion it seems to me that they've scolded Saudia Arabia for not letting Bein have any access to the Saudi judicial system? That doesn't seem too bad tbh. @Isegrim would be better qualified to interpret the judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I think it also says they've failed to criminally prosecute BeOut which they should have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Yeah, but what they don't appear to have said is that SA are in control of and running BeOutQ. Which I think would be the big sticking point to the takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8868 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, ewerk said: It may shock some of you to learn I'm not actually a trade expert but from a glance at the conclusion it seems to me that they've scolded Saudia Arabia for not letting Bein have any access to the Saudi judicial system? That doesn't seem too bad tbh. @Isegrim would be better qualified to interpret the judgement. I only had a quick glance at it. Most important seems to be section 7.2.3.3 (p. 73 pp) which deals with the prima facile evidence of BeoutQ being based in Saudi Arabia and therefore should have been dealt with by Saudi courts. But there neither seems to be a smoking gun and a direct responsibility by the Saudi State. I can’t see this report preventing a takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 More in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Again, no concrete link to the Saudi government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/16/newcastle-takeover-latest-saudi-arabia-tv-piracy-ruling-released-by-wto-premier-league-pressure The guardian appears to believe that there are concrete links: The ruling notes that at the 2018 World Cup there were 294 public gatherings in Saudi Arabia where games were shown on beoutQ and that it was also supported by “governmental tweets” by Saud al-Qahtani, close confidante to the Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. The channel was also carried on Arabsat, which was based in Riyadh and majority owned by the Saudi government, before being taken off the service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper 940 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 So will the takeover be approved ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 It being based in SA and being promoted and maybe even protected is different to it being owned and operated by anyone associated with PIF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, Rayvin said: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/16/newcastle-takeover-latest-saudi-arabia-tv-piracy-ruling-released-by-wto-premier-league-pressure The guardian appears to believe that there are concrete links: The ruling notes that at the 2018 World Cup there were 294 public gatherings in Saudi Arabia where games were shown on beoutQ and that it was also supported by “governmental tweets” by Saud al-Qahtani, close confidante to the Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman. The channel was also carried on Arabsat, which was based in Riyadh and majority owned by the Saudi government, before being taken off the service. None of that is concrete. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 4949 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Just now, NJS said: It being based in SA and being promoted and maybe even protected is different to it being owned and operated by anyone associated with PIF. I wholly agree, but the press seem convinced they're on the right side of this. Admittedly, the guardian could just be doing it's utmost to derail it by whipping up a storm because it's politically unpleasant for them. I still think this is going to go through because I can't for the life of me understand how any INDIVIDUAL who is buying NUFC, can be associated directly with any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Quote The World Trade Organisation has ruled that Saudi Arabia was behind a pirate satellite TV and streaming service that illegally broadcast sporting events – and in doing so has increased the pressure on the Premier League to reject a controversial £300m deal for Newcastle. That's the opening paragraph from the Guardian article. From what I can see there was no such ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 6766 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Rayvin said: I wholly agree, but the press seem convinced they're on the right side of this. Admittedly, the guardian could just be doing it's utmost to derail it by whipping up a storm because it's politically unpleasant for them. I still think this is going to go through because I can't for the life of me understand how any INDIVIDUAL who is buying NUFC, can be associated directly with any of this. Given it's nowhere near a "slam dunk" report pointing at PIF, the diplomatic fallout from Prem League snubbing KSA's heir apparent would be something. Just can't see them having the bottle, the future KING of a close ally (however dodgy that ally is) not deemed fit and proper - yikes !!!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30257 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 The Guardian were so quick off the mark it makes me think it’s click bait on their part. I don’t think they’ll be immediate approval of the deal though as the PL will want their lawyers to take a look at it before approving it. I think it goes through because the lack of a concrete link would almost certainly lead to the sort of legal process the PL can do without before you even get started on the diplomatic fallout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 6 minutes ago, ewerk said: That's the opening paragraph from the Guardian article. From what I can see there was no such ruling. Quote The problem for PIF is that under the Premier League’s owners’ and directors’ test there is a reference to digital piracy being a no-no, as well as a clause requiring any prospective owner or director to have never provided “false, misleading or inaccurate information” in their dealings with the league. Also, I still can't find any reference to digital piracy in the fit and proper test. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19743 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 FT take: It "complicates" the takeover WTO piracy ruling raises new doubt over Saudi takeover of Newcastle Gulf kingdom ruled responsible for television piracy of Premier League matches The £300m Saudi Arabia-led takeover of Newcastle United football club faces renewed scrutiny after the World Trade Organization ruled the Gulf kingdom was responsible for television piracy including the improper screening of English Premier League matches. The Saudi government had “infringed” international trade agreements because of the country’s involvement with beoutQ, an Arabic language network, the WTO said on Tuesday in a ruling that capped an 18-month legal case. Qatar had brought the WTO case, arguing beoutQ was streaming content rightfully owned by beIN Sports, a Doha-based broadcaster that has paid billions of dollars for exclusive rights to major sporting events. The judgment complicates the Newcastle takeover, which is led by the Public Investment Fund, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund steered by the country’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. https://www.ft.com/content/d437081c-353b-4f31-929c-92d1cd1e75e6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16500 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Fucking hell, BOOOOOOORED just fuck them off ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 16500 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorthernsoul 1221 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 Cans on ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26192 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: FT take: It "complicates" the takeover WTO piracy ruling raises new doubt over Saudi takeover of Newcastle Gulf kingdom ruled responsible for television piracy of Premier League matches The £300m Saudi Arabia-led takeover of Newcastle United football club faces renewed scrutiny after the World Trade Organization ruled the Gulf kingdom was responsible for television piracy including the improper screening of English Premier League matches. The Saudi government had “infringed” international trade agreements because of the country’s involvement with beoutQ, an Arabic language network, the WTO said on Tuesday in a ruling that capped an 18-month legal case. Qatar had brought the WTO case, arguing beoutQ was streaming content rightfully owned by beIN Sports, a Doha-based broadcaster that has paid billions of dollars for exclusive rights to major sporting events. The judgment complicates the Newcastle takeover, which is led by the Public Investment Fund, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund steered by the country’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. https://www.ft.com/content/d437081c-353b-4f31-929c-92d1cd1e75e6 If anything I think it's made it more straightforward. No direct link to the Saudi state in operating or backing beoutQ so looking at it from a legal standpoint I don't see how this takeover can be stopped now. This isn't a matter of the PL thinking 'these guys are a bit dodgy', it about what facts have been established and how they fit in with the rules already in place for PL ownership. What was published today shouldn't be enough to stop it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19743 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I still think the PL is highly unlikely to block the deal. Go team willy wavers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1115 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 This all shows the so called experts up for what they are. The Saudi's are posting press releases saying they've won, some are saying that it says they've the kingdom is responsible for the piracy and others saying it just says they didn't do enough to stop it. I've absolutely no doubt that the Qatari's via Bein will soon be releasing a statement saying the report proves everything they have been saying and there's no way the Saudi's can be allowed to buy us. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12447 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 I mean they’d have to be willing to take on the absolute shit storm that comes with calling a key trading ally with the Government not fit to buy a club. That’s a fucking massive stance. The little note from the Government the other day was the first hint/nudge that points to that. Nothing new I’m saying here I know, I just feel it’s always worth mentioning when outlets like the Guardian seem to gloss over that absolutely massive factor. If that report doesn’t provide a completely clear link between BeoutQ and the main stakeholders subject to the O & D test, that would legally stand up in court, then I don’t see how they can reject it and have that rejection be sustained. If the report is saying they didn’t do enough to prosecute those responsible for the now shut down organization I really don’t see that being anywhere near enough. The PL need to pull their fucking fingers out and just make a fucking decision as soon as possible. It’s shambolic that it has went on this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isegrim 8868 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 If all the evidence is some Tweets from people with public offices that’s a bit meh tbh. So far I can only see that the state is responsible for a lack of protection of BEIN‘s intellectual property by preventing them to file claims. But that’s totally different to being actively involved in digital piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston 41 Posted June 16, 2020 Share Posted June 16, 2020 How do you conclude anything from that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now