Newcastle takeover???

[the wopster]

That’s why I asked someone smarter than me to have a look because what I’m reading is, Saudi have been found guilty of not punishing the piracy or stopping it, but there's a world of difference between that and actively engaging in it which is what everyone has been saying there doing.

 

[the wopster]

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the conclusion is a list of things the Saudi's done? If so then I don't believe so. It is what it is, a conclusion of the evidence that's been found.

I'm not going to pretend to have read the report but several journo's are reporting that the report has found direct links between the state and beoutQ. The section tweeted by Sean Ingle covers some of that.

But if there are direct links why aren’t they in the conclusions? Ie “the panel has found direct links to BeoutQ and the Saudi state“ surely if they found them they would be in the report conclusion.

 

[BaZ87]

But if there are direct links why aren’t they in the conclusions? Ie “the panel has found direct links to BeoutQ and the Saudi state“ surely if they found them they would be in the report conclusion.

I don't work for the WTO wopppy nor am I going to read the report for you. I'll stick to summaries from reputable journo's like the one below:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-wto-premier-league-pressure?CMP=share_btn_tw

According to Sean Ingle, the report found that the state were actively promoting public gatherings of beoutQ broadcasts. Imagine a goverment twitter account telling people to watch tomorrows PL games on illegal streams

 

[the wopster]

I don't understand the question. Are you asking if the conclusion is a list of things the Saudi's done? If so then I don't believe so. It is what it is, a conclusion of the evidence that's been found.

I'm not going to pretend to have read the report but several journo's are reporting that the report has found direct links between the state and beoutQ. The section tweeted by Sean Ingle covers some of that.

That’s what I’m asking as I don’t understand, I thought a conclusion was what someone is guilty of.

 

[BaZ87]

Any hopes of some sort of resolution between the Saudi's and Qatar/beIN appear slim. The Saudi's have doubled down stating that they will not interact with Qatar because of their political dispute.

 

[the wopster]

I don't work for the WTO wopppy nor am I going to read the report for you. I'll stick to summaries from reputable journo's like the one below:

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-wto-premier-league-pressure?CMP=share_btn_tw

According to Sean Ingle, the report found that the state were actively promoting public gatherings of beoutQ broadcasts. Imagine a goverment twitter account telling people to watch tomorrows PL games on illegal streams

That’s not what the article says, a Prominent Saudi National is not the state is it? It could be their version of Steve Gerrard or Gareth Southgate
“
The WTO report states the evidence it has seen supports Qatar’s assertions that: “a) beoutQ’s piracy was promoted by prominent Saudi nationals, (b) beoutQ targets the Saudi market, (c) beoutQ’s pirate broadcasts are transmitted via Arabsat satellite frequencies, and (d) beoutQ has received assistance from a Saudi content distributor in delivering its pirated broadcasts to Saudi consumers.

“Taking these conclusions together, and recalling the applicable standard of proof and evidentiary principles in WTO dispute settlement, the Panel considers that Qatar has established a prima facie case that beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia,” it adds.

 

[BaZ87]

That’s not what the article says, a Prominent Saudi National is not the state is it? It could be there version of Steve Gerrard or Gareth Southgate

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.

edit: and from a FT article:

According to the WTO ruling, beoutQ was promoted by government officials, including Saud Al-Qahtani, a key ally of Prince Mohammed who was sanctioned by the US for alleged involvement in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents. Mr Al-Qahani was cleared of wrongdoing by Saudi authorities in relation to the brutal murder.

The ruling also states the beoutQ network has been transmitted through satellites owned by Arabsat, the state-backed Saudi communications company.

https://www.ft.com/content/d437081c-353b-4f31-929c-92d1cd1e75e6

 

[the wopster]

edit: and from a FT article:


https://www.ft.com/content/d437081c-353b-4f31-929c-92d1cd1e75e6

Fair one, that’s not in the Guardian link though

 

[the wopster]

edit: and from a FT article:


https://www.ft.com/content/d437081c-353b-4f31-929c-92d1cd1e75e6

Different reporters saying different things

https://twitter.com/JacobsBen

Just to add, the WTO report is damning because it makes it clear that beoutQ: - Originated in Saudi & thus should be (and was not) subject to their courts - Was promoted by prominent (key legal word... rather than government) Saudi nationals - Was not shut down fast enough

PL knew a lot of the above already. This is hugely significant for beIN in fight against beoutQ. It opens door to a court hearing in Saudi or some kind of settlement. But in relation to #NUFC, unless the PL take a moral stance I don't see PIF being rejected based solely on this.

 

[BaZ87]

Forgive me if I pay more attention to journalists that specialise in football finance and these matters such as FT journalists, more than a football commentator that now works for talksport.

Fair one, that’s not in the Guardian link though

Yes it is. The FT snippet is referring to the same "governmental tweets" that's in the Guardian story.

To anybody that's followed the beoutQ stuff over the last few years it was already known but the WTO report appears very clear - the Saudi's facilitated, promoted and freely allowed widespread piracy of PL football and many other sporting events.

 

[the wopster]

Forgive me if I pay more attention to journalists that specialise in football finance and these matters such as FT journalists, more than a football commentator that now works for talksport.

Yes it is. The FT snippet is referring to the same "governmental tweets" that's in the Guardian story.

To anybody that's followed the beoutQ stuff over the last few years it was already known but the WTO report appears very clear - the Saudi's facilitated, promoted and freely allowed widespread piracy of PL football and many other sporting events.

Fair enough I’m not questioning who you listen to nor would I, i was just saying loads of journalists are saying different things, the way I have read it gives me hope that the takeover will go through(but that might change in a few days )

https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1272900392104460288

and from a barrister
https://twitter.com/rjrosser1

 

[BaZ87]

Fair enough I’m not questioning who you listen to nor would I, i was just saying loads of journalists are saying different things, the way I have read it gives me hope that the takeover will go through(but that might change in a few days )

Journo's that are drawing the link between beoutQ and the Saudi state are saying they still think the takeover going through is more likely than not too. You need to stop interpretting reports that criticise the Saudi's over beoutQ as saying the deal definitely won't go through. It's a massive complication and makes it a lot harder than it would have been. beIN are hugely important to the PL - I've explained before, they're growing into one of the biggest broadcasters of sport around the world.

There's nothing in the report that's news to the PL though. Anybody that's followed the situation has known that the Saudi's have been behind beoutQ either directly or indirectly. Imagine being freely able to buy illegal streaming services in Currys, this service being transmitted by a UK government owned business and Jacob Rees Mogg promoting public gatherings that are broadcasting this illegal service. And then when the rights holders of the content that's being illegally broadcast attempt to take legal action, the UK government block it. I'm fairly sure anybody with an ounce of sense would be critical of the UK governments involvment and would be forgiven for accussing them of facilitating it.

 

[the wopster]

Journo's that are drawing the link between beoutQ and the Saudi state are saying they still think the takeover going through is more likely than not too. You need to stop interpretting reports that criticise the Saudi's over beoutQ as saying the deal definitely won't go through. It's a massive complication and makes it a lot harder than it would have been. beIN are hugely important to the PL - I've explained before, they're growing into one of the biggest broadcasters of sport around the world.

There's nothing in the report that's news to the PL though. Anybody that's followed the situation has known that the Saudi's have been behind beoutQ either directly or indirectly. Imagine being freely able to buy illegal streaming services in Currys, this service being transmitted by a UK government owned business and Jacob Rees Mogg promoting public gatherings that are broadcasting this illegal service. And then when the rights holders of the content that's being illegally broadcast attempt to take legal action, the UK government block it. I'm fairly sure anybody with an ounce of sense would be critical of the UK governments involvment and would be forgiven for accussing them of facilitating it.

Mate I’m not disagreeing with anything you have just said, this has been one massive ********* from the get go, made even worse by everyone being at home with nothing else to do.
We will know if the official publication of the report was what the PL were waiting for from the outset of the deal is passed/rejected in the next few days(by Friday is my guess) or if the PL are trying to come up with some sort of compromise between all parties of it drags on into next week.

 

[BaZ87]

I'm sure the PL hope to find some sort of compromise but the Saudi's response, claiming the WTO report as some sort of victory and insisting that they won't interact with beIN, are a large obstacle to that happening.

 

[Bigpig]

So this whole WTO was a storm in a tea cup. Nothing that wasn't already known.

Lots of journalists are now deleting tweets.

 

[BaZ87]

So this whole WTO was a storm in a tea cup. Nothing that wasn't already known.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. You had previously disputed the Saudi links to beoutQ in this very thread.

The WTO report formally proves what was already known to most people that followed the issue and or who don't blindly believe Saudi propaganda.

 

[Bigpig]

That's an interesting way of looking at it. You had previously disputed the Saudi links to beoutQ in this very thread.

The WTO report formally proves what was already known to most people that followed the issue and or who don't blindly believe Saudi propaganda.

Not 100% sure what I said and I don't want to trawl through pages of your response's to find out.

I'm pretty sure I said there no clear link between BeoutQ and PIF. PIF is a separate legal entity.

Also I don't think the report states that the Government set up BeoutQ like everyone is raving about even you. You still are. There's a clear difference and that's probably why the PL is trying to work with both parties.

 

[BaZ87]

Below were your replies to posts relating to the Saudi/beoutQ. You were just relaying Saudi propaganda that you read on twitter.

I believe this as already been taken to court in France with Bein getting massive fines.

Not 100% sure trying to type on phone and not get caught by my boss lol.

I believe there was a very big case in France BeIN Vs Arabsat and he didn't end very well for BeIN.

I still think it will go through as Arabsat has been in court multiple times and have been rewarded unprecedented compensation. I think it's a battle they don't want to take on since it's been cleared multiple times in courts.

 

[Bigpig]

Below were your replies to posts relating to the Saudi/beoutQ. You were just relaying Saudi propaganda that you read on twitter.

They were fined mate go check. You might be shocked at how little but there was a fine!!!. So please quote me some more.

 

[BaZ87]

They were fined mate go check. You might be shocked at how little but there was a fine!!!. So please quote me some more.

I've never seen anything reliable or independent reporting that beIN were fined (feel free to provide a independent source supporting this though) but that's besides the point. When the beIN story broke you were very quick to dismiss it with your Saudi propaganda and now today, when the WTO have ruled on the issue and concluded everything that was first reported you say it's a storm in the tea cup and everybody knew it already. Well you clearly didn't.

And I've just seen your edit to your last post. I'm not sure I've ever said that the government directly set-up beoutQ, let alone I still am. I do certainly believe that, directly or indirectly, they did though and the findings of this report would both support that view and mean that even if they didn't set it up, they're still as guilty as ****. As I said earlier, imagine if our government freely allowed the sale of an illegal service, hosted the illegal service on a goverment owned platform, members of government actively promoted this illegal service and then blocked any legal attempts to shut this service down.