Newcastle takeover???

the wopster · 16 Jun 2020 at 18:33

I know BEin are a major broadcaster, but at the minute they still only hold the rights for the PL in MENA, so I’m not sure the best option is to try and publicly blackmail the PL to turn down the takeover, especially when Saudi are currently at the table with the PL and could easily say “don’t worry they paid £500m for the rights, we will give you £6-700m next time so you don’t lose out”.
It could also now get messy in court if it is turned down as PCP will no doubt say the PL we blackmailed into that decision by BEin.
https://twitter.com/NUFC360/status/1272937556955541506

BaZ87 · 16 Jun 2020 at 18:42

Do you have the full quotes @woppy101? The quote in those tweets doesn't say that they won't bid as much if the takeover goes ahead - it simply says they won't bid as much.

the wopster · 16 Jun 2020 at 18:45

BaZ87 said:
Do you have the full quotes @woppy101? The quote in those tweets doesn't say that they won't bid as much if the takeover goes ahead - it simply says they won't bid as much.

It’s behind a pay wall, this is from the chronicle website so it must be word for word
"These are not allegations,” said Sophie Jordan, general counsel at beIN Media Group. “This is a decision from one of the most important international tribunals.

and

David Sugden, director of corporate affairs at beIN Media Group.“The next cycle of rights we will not bid anything near what we currently [pay],” he said, adding that if Saudi Arabia secured a place at English football’s top table, that would be “letting the fox into the henhouse”.

It adds that BeIN will 'reconsider' bidding for the TV rights if the takeover goes ahead despite the WTO ruling.

BaZ87 · 16 Jun 2020 at 19:06

Ok, it's from the FT article I've got in front of me. It was the quotes on the TV rights I was interested in - the first quote is just a statement of fact that the WTO have ruled on these allegations.

If these are the only quotes then she doesn't clearly state that their decision to lower their bid will be determined by the takeover, although it's very possible that will be the case. I'd guess that beIN agreed their deal with the PL around about the same time that the Saudi's blocked beIN from being sold in Saudi - it's perfectly logical that beIN will bid less this time around as their customer base is now 35m people less than it was. You can't really call that blackmail.

You really shouldn't be so dismissive of beIN's importance to the League either. Look at how Sky have dropped La Liga and rights to other Leagues and sports over a number of years, focusing on keeping their primary rights that drive their business. The major broadcasters all around the world will be facing similar decisions that Sky face(d) and rights holders need new broadcasters, such as beIN, entering these markets to prop up and grow the value of rights. As soon as that competition isn't there, the value of rights drop. This situation has never been more important than right now, with broadcasters losing millions due to a lack of content and unfortunately for the PL, they're right in the middle of negotiations to sell rights for 2022-2025.

edit: I've found some more quotes.

[T]he only way for tens of millions of Saudi sports fans to watch most major international sport - including Newcastle United matches - is via illegal means.

Sport cannot grow while Saudi Arabia continues to promote the theft of sports rights and ignore the international rule of law - hopefully one day that will change, for the benefit of everyone.

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/...iracy-could-affect-newcastle-united-takeover/

Sounds to me like beIN's aim is for the Saudi's to lift the block, allowing them to sell in Saudi Arabia. Will the Saudi's do it?

the wopster · 16 Jun 2020 at 19:21

BaZ87 said:
Ok, it's from the FT article I've got in front of me. It was the quotes on the TV rights I was interested in - the first quote is just a statement of fact that the WTO have ruled on these allegations.

If these are the only quotes then she doesn't clearly state that their decision to lower their bid will be determined by the takeover, although it's very possible that will be the case. I'd guess that beIN agreed their deal with the PL around about the same time that the Saudi's blocked beIN from being sold in Saudi - it's perfectly logical that beIN will bid less this time around as their customer base is now 35m people less than it was. You can't really call that blackmail.

You really shouldn't be so dismissive of beIN's importance to the League either. Look at how Sky have dropped La Liga and rights to other Leagues and sports over a number of years, focusing on keeping their primary rights that drive their business. The major broadcasters all around the world will be facing similar decisions that Sky face(d) and rights holders need new broadcasters, such as beIN, entering these markets to prop up and grow the value of rights. As soon as that competition isn't there, the value of rights drop. This situation has never been more important than right now, with broadcasters losing millions due to a lack of content and unfortunately for the PL, they're right in the middle of negotiations to sell rights for 2022-2025.

I wasn’t being dismissive that’s why I said “ I know they are a major broadcaster” but putting out a press release that really sounds and reads like blackmail probably wasn’t the best idea. Your right I would be ****** off too, as you say they had probably planned and budgeted on 200m subs but because of being blocked by SA are probably only getting 150m so that would be a big hit to the pocket. As for the rights, I know it comes across as a “deal with the devil” but surely the PL will want SA bidding for broadcast rights not stealing them, the only way they will get top dollar for the rights is if they own a club and at the minute they have them at the table, so should be able to get guarantee’s about those rights.

the wopster · 16 Jun 2020 at 19:32

BaZ87 said:
edit: I've found some more quotes.

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/...iracy-could-affect-newcastle-united-takeover/

Sounds to me like beIN's aim is for the Saudi's to lift the block, allowing them to sell in Saudi Arabia. Will the Saudi's do it?

There is no doubt about that as it would have cost them a fortune, for all we know that could have been why this has taken so long, discussions to get PL broadcast legally in SA, by either SA unblocking bein or SA paying the PL rights to show those games and bein getting a refund from the PL from the loss of rights in SA

the wopster · 17 Jun 2020 at 09:18

How ironic, Paris Saint-Germain president Nasser Al-Khelaifi and Fifa’s former secretary general Jerome Valcke will be tried in September in a corruption case linked to the attribution of broadcasting rights, the Swiss judiciary said Tuesday.

The two will be tried in the southeastern Swiss city of Bellinzona along with a third, unnamed man, for criminal mismanagement, incitement to criminal mismanagement, falsifying documents and corruption, the federal criminal court said.

Al-Khelaifi, who is also the boss of Qatari television channel beIN Sports, is suspected of giving inappropriate gifts to Valcke in order to secure broadcast rights to prestigious events, including the 2026 and 2030 World Cups".

How funny would it be if Bein boss is found guilty of Corruption

Ayahuasca · 17 Jun 2020 at 09:58

Just keeps getting better

the wopster · 17 Jun 2020 at 10:19

Ayahuasca said:
Just keeps getting better

Aye, someone that doesn’t have any money bids £50m over a price already agreed for a sale, that stinks of what the glazers did to manu. to me this is released by people that don’t want the Saudi deal done, trying to tempt the PL to turn the Saudi deal down” look there is another bidder”. Where was he in March with his £350m bid and it just so happens to be released the day after the “now not so damaging” WTO report is released. Yeah what ever.

Stumble Bum · 17 Jun 2020 at 12:33

Newcastle fans desperate for this corrupt Saudi money.

Bigpig · 17 Jun 2020 at 12:35

@BaZ87 Routers good enough for you? 26K court fees then 6k compo from the French courts.

This has been an ever changing story and more about geopolitics than the ownership test.

There was already investigations from the the USA proving the piracy was being broadcast on Arabsat. Which then lead to it getting took off the airway's. That information was already known before the WTO broke in the tabloids.

Many reporter's were claiming the Saudi's government set up BeoutQ and the WTO report would prove this. Which it hasn't.

I don't blame the other countries from the Gulf falling out with Qatar. They were supporting terrorism after all.

Can remember it Getting brought up years ago when PSG started to progress in the Champions league. You don't hear it now as they pretty much embedded them self's in world football at the highest level.

the wopster · 17 Jun 2020 at 12:42

Bigpig said:
@BaZ87 Routers good enough for you? 26K court fees then 6k compo from the French courts.

This has been an ever changing story and more about geopolitics than the ownership test.

There was already investigations from the the USA proving the piracy was from Arabsat. Which then lead to it getting took off the airway's. That information was already known before the WTO broke in the tabloids.

Many reporter's were claiming the Saudi's government set up the BeoutQ and the WTO report would prove this. Which it hasn't.

I don't blame the other countries from the Gulf falling out with Qatar. They were supporting terrorism after all.

Can remember it Getting brought up years ago when PSG started to progress in the Champions league. You don't hear it now as they pretty much embedded them self's in world football at the highest level.

Don’t forget Nasser Al-Khelaifi bein’s boss is in court in Switzerland in September on corruption charges, I wonder what the PL will do if he is found guilty

the wopster · 17 Jun 2020 at 13:42

We should be getting a new fiance letter any day now, that’s the way the opposition to this takeover normally goes isn’t it
1. Piracy
2. Letter from fiance
3. Rival bid
Rinse and repeat

BaZ87 · 17 Jun 2020 at 14:32

Bigpig said:
@BaZ87 Routers good enough for you? 26K court fees then 6k compo from the French courts.

These were the massive, unprecedented fines you were talking about?

Weren't these just court fees and a tiny percentage of Arabsat's legal fees after beIN failed to get Arabsat signals blocked in France? The court didn't, as you claimed, clear Arabsat of broadcasting beoutQ - in fact the court did find that Arabsat were doing so, just that it didn't pose a financial threat to beIN in France. So again, you can't turn round and say we knew everything that has come out in the WTO report when you were disputing it just a few weeks ago.

edit: Out of interest, do you have any info on the "They were supporting terrorism after all" line? Are you saying this as fact because the Saudi's said it?

I'm sure you're aware that the same accusations that the Saudi's have made against Qatar have also been made against the Saudi's and various other Arab states? And that this whole dispute is around who is going to be the leader of the Arab world and disagreements over religion.

Bigpig · 17 Jun 2020 at 16:09

Gees you are relentless lol you have already corrected me the whole french court when I first said it. Can't you remember? I'm just pointing out there was compo in favour of the Saudi's. You know I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong you should take note.

There was also an investigation by the USA about the piracy issues and they confirmed it was comming from Saudi's which lead to BeoutQ being removed from Arabsat before the WTO news broke out.

I have always maintain that PIF have nothing to do with BeoutQ and now that's probably been harder to prove now there was no clear evidence of the government involvement.

I'm pretty dam sure now the PL don't want this going to court.

Why do you think the US backed the Saudi's in the WTO report about national security?

Many US investigation. You can find stories in the NYtimes and the BBC and many more if you sieve through the propaganda. Yes the other countries have their problems also but Qatar are labelled as the worst.

In 2014, then-US Treasury Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen noted : "Qatar, a long-time US ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability. Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria."

He also drew attention to the "permissive" environment in Qatar that allowed fundraisers to solicit donations for extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and so-called Islamic State.

BaZ87 · 17 Jun 2020 at 16:29

I can remember the thing about the French case, yes. I found the way you tried to dismiss the WTO report, as a storm in a tea cup that everybody knew about, strange as you yourself didn't know about it until I went through it. In fact I'd suggest that the vast majority of people following the Newcastle takeover didn't know about it. The argument that PIF have nothing to do with beoutQ can only possibly be made on legal, technicalities - something which the PL are no doubt trying to work through now. Saudi Arabia is controlled by one man. MBS might not be hands on, running PIF day to day but he has the ultimate power to dictacte where they invest and where they do not. If he decided tomorrow that the Newcastle takeover wasn't happening then it wouldn't happen. In the same way he had total control over the whole beoutQ situation.

As for Qatar and terror links. To be clear, I am not defending them. My point was in regards to you seemingly just posting Saudi propaganda as fact and stating that is the reason for the blockade being put on Qatar by Saudi and a few other Arab states. The accusations made by the Saudi's are both hypocritical and a smokescreen for the real reason why they and other smaller Arab states are in dispute with Qatar.

The Saudi's (as well as the UAE and others) have been accused of funding & supporting terrorism - in fact WikiLeaks revealed that Hilary Clinton (when she was secretary of state) stated that Saudi Arabia were the biggest source of funding for Islamist terror groups (link below). Saudi Arabia are/were the dominant force in the Arab world and directly or indirectly lead the policies of a number of smaller Arab states. The dispute between Saudi and Qatar is because Qatar stopped doing what Saudi Arabia want(ed).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

MissChief · 17 Jun 2020 at 16:46

Much of the Saudi terrorism funding seems to come from private individuals. SA accused Qatar of state funding of Iranian terrorists but as you said KSA expects everyone in the Middle East to follow their lead and many are unhappy to do so.

the wopster · 17 Jun 2020 at 17:06

Bigpig said:
Gees you are relentless lol you have already corrected me the whole french court when I first said it. Can't you remember? I'm just pointing out there was compo in favour of the Saudi's. You know I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong you should take note.

There was also an investigation by the USA about the piracy issues and they confirmed it was comming from Saudi's which lead to BeoutQ being removed from Arabsat before the WTO news broke out.

I have always maintain that PIF have nothing to do with BeoutQ and now that's probably been harder to prove now there was no clear evidence of the government involvement.

I'm pretty dam sure now the PL don't want this going to court.

Why do you think the US backed the Saudi's in the WTO report about national security?

Many US investigation. You can find stories in the NYtimes and the BBC and many more if you sieve through the propaganda. Yes the other countries have their problems also but Qatar are labelled as the worst.

In 2014, then-US Treasury Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen noted : "Qatar, a long-time US ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability. Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria."

He also drew attention to the "permissive" environment in Qatar that allowed fundraisers to solicit donations for extremist groups such as al-Qaeda and so-called Islamic State.

BaZ87 said:
I can remember the thing about the French case, yes. I found the way you tried to dismiss the WTO report, as a storm in a tea cup that everybody knew about, strange as you yourself didn't know about it until I went through it. In fact I'd suggest that the vast majority of people following the Newcastle takeover didn't know about it. The argument that PIF have nothing to do with beoutQ can only possibly be made on legal, technicalities - something which the PL are no doubt trying to work through now. Saudi Arabia is controlled by one man. MBS might not be hands on, running PIF day to day but he has the ultimate power to dictacte where they invest and where they do not. If he decided tomorrow that the Newcastle takeover wasn't happening then it wouldn't happen. In the same way he had total control over the whole beoutQ situation.

As for Qatar and terror links. To be clear, I am not defending them. My point was in regards to you seemingly just posting Saudi propaganda as fact and stating that is the reason for the blockade being put on Qatar by Saudi and a few other Arab states. The accusations made by the Saudi's are both hypocritical and a smokescreen for the real reason why they and other smaller Arab states are in dispute with Qatar.

The Saudi's (as well as the UAE and others) have been accused of funding & supporting terrorism - in fact WikiLeaks revealed that Hilary Clinton (when she was secretary of state) stated that Saudi Arabia were the biggest source of funding for Islamist terror groups (link below). Saudi Arabia are/were the dominant force in the Arab world and directly or indirectly lead the policies of a number of smaller Arab states. The dispute between Saudi and Qatar is because Qatar stopped doing what Saudi Arabia want(ed).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-terrorist-funding

MissChief said:
Much of the Saudi terrorism funding seems to come from private individuals. SA accused Qatar of state funding of Iranian terrorists but as you said KSA expects everyone in the Middle East to follow their lead and many are unhappy to do so.

As someone that has served and has seen terrorism close up and first hand, can we please leave that subject out of the takeover thread please.

Bigpig · 17 Jun 2020 at 17:06

I'm just pointing out that it's not all propaganda from the Saudi's.

Qatar was named as the biggest supporter's of terror in 2018/19 by the US.

A lot of it probably due to how close to Qatar is to Iran.

As for the WTO report it's just basically confirmed what I said previously that it was about Saudi's Government failure to do do enough to stop it and not that they started it. Yes and before you start I know that's a bit of an understatement.

I linked Ben twitter posts a couple of weeks ago stating this when people and reporter's were saying the Government started it up and that's not what the report was about.

There's has been a massive clear up on Twitter with blue check marks from well known outlets deleting pervious tweets.

The guy for the BBC was the worse one.

BaZ87 · 17 Jun 2020 at 17:07

MissChief said:
Much of the Saudi terrorism funding seems to come from private individuals...

The accusation against the Saudi's is that they allowed this funding. A further WikiLeak, that ironically couples Qatar and SA together:

“While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL [Isis] and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Ms Clinton reportedly wrote.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rabia-qatar-isis-podesta-latest-a7355466.html

Just reading a bit more on the Qatar/Saudi dispute, it appears that one of the first break downs in their relationship came when Qatar allowed the US a base in Qatar for their war in Iraq & Afghanistan, something the Saudi's refused.