Abu Dhabi might not have committed the war crimes of the Saudi's but lets not pretend that they're any less backwards. One of the Abu Dhabi Sheikh's was filmed torturing somebody (shooting them, setting them on fire, electrocuting them etc etc etc) and when the case was brought to court, he was of course cleared of any wrong doing and instead some of his servants were convicted on the basis that they had drugged the Sheikh and they, not he, was responsible for his actions.
Newcastle takeover???
- Thread starter Bigpig
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
This thread is funny, Newcastle fan's absolutely desperate for the deal to go through despite it being Saudi's buying them, fan's of other teams hopeful for the deal to fall through and throwing "Saudi Arabia is the devil incarnate" accusations around and choosing to ignore some misgivings of their own owners.
One things for certain is that football sold it's soul many moons ago and it's almost laughable that the PL (who's proven to be more interested in money above everything else) wouldn't want the investment the Saudi's would bring.
One things for certain is that football sold it's soul many moons ago and it's almost laughable that the PL (who's proven to be more interested in money above everything else) wouldn't want the investment the Saudi's would bring.
Just been doing a lot of browsing and seems the PL owners test only looks into Crimes such as money laundering and fraud etc....... I think!!
It's brilliant lol people love climbing up on that high horse when something happens that doesn't suit their agenda.
What agenda might that be? That we think Saudi Arabia is a backwards country and should be given less publicity, not more? It's that simple.
Please go right ahead and show me something the Glazers or FSG have done that are comparable to murder/torture/general barbarism?
I would have the same issue if they were buying Man Utd. Sure it may be good from a finance perspective, but they are deeply unpleasant people and I'd be uncomfortable with it in that respect.
You needn't worry though, the UK government have been dealing with the Saudis for ages and don't seem to care about what they do, money talks.
No but I find it amusing that the biggest back lash has came from BeIN sports the sporting media arm from Qatar. Who have quite a few issues themselves. A country who is part of the corruption in football at the highest level and every single club in the premiership is getting money from.
So yeh I guess sportwashing does work when you have people like Keys the face of beIN telling me how I should feel or act.....
So yeh I guess sportwashing does work when you have people like Keys the face of beIN telling me how I should feel or act.....
You clearly dont visit these forums often then. City are criticised all the time.
As om pointed out city is heavily criticised frequently in here and most likely will continue to be
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,296
- Location
- newcastle
As I said a few pages back, I don’t think it will make a difference the premier league will find a reason to block it
Nobody pays any attention to Richard Keys, he's become a parody of himself. beIN sports/Qatar's issue with the takeover has nothing to do with the Saudi's human rights charges either.
There is a long stading political dispute between the Saudi's (along with the UAE and a few others) and Qatar. This political dispute is why the Saudi's openly allowed and supported widespread piracy of beIN sports coverage for years. This is Qatar getting its own back, so to speak. Whether they're as bad as each other or not, the beIN sports issue does put the PL in a very difficult position. Yes, we've had unfit owners in the past (although never to the extent of the Saudi's) however the PL has never been faced with a potential owner that has directly ripped off PL content for years and cost PL clubs 10s if not 100s of millions of pounds.
The Times have a follow-up article on the beIN issue today:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...remier-league-in-newcastle-takeover-ljdzzgj0f
It's bloody amazing tho that this will come down to money and not the Human rights issues.
Qatar Vs Saudi's is much deeper than simple issues over TV.
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.
Also I believe BeIn is only 10% of the PL income. Who's knows how much money this deal could bring into the premiership. You just have to look at the French league with the Qatar involvement.
Qatar Vs Saudi's is much deeper than simple issues over TV.
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.
Also I believe BeIn is only 10% of the PL income. Who's knows how much money this deal could bring into the premiership. You just have to look at the French league with the Qatar involvement.
You should really stop taking Arabsat statements as fact - they're nothing more than propeganda. Arabsat only avoided paying damages to beIN because beIN couldn't demonstrate lost earnings, the court found that Arabsat were broadcasting beoutQ. Fwiw beIN sport also claimed victory in the court cases too. Courts, FIFA and numerous top PL Leagues have found that Arabsat were broadcasting beoutQ and released a joint statement stating as much.
So how do
Also Arabsat is not a state owned business. It's owned by a few countries in the gulf. Qatar being one of them.
Also it's not part of the ownership tests.
Main point being how does the PL prove loss of earnings in court when it's failed multiple times already?
Also Arabsat is not a state owned business. It's owned by a few countries in the gulf. Qatar being one of them.
Also it's not part of the ownership tests.
Last edited:
Huh? I think you've misunderstood what the French court case was about and the entire situation. beIN have the exclusive middle east rights for the PL and lots of other Leagues and compeitions. beoutQ is a widespread piracy operation in the middle east with their set-top boxes being freely available to buy in high street stores in Saudi. Pretty much every football authority has known that the Saudi's are/were behind beoutQ and the only way to shut them down would be through the courts in Saudi Arabia. The PL have tried on numerous ocassions to hire legal teams in Saudi Arabia to do this however none would take the case - we can all use our imagination to figure out why a Saudi law firm wouldn't take legal action against a Saudi state owned company. In recent years beIN have expanded from just the middle east to Europe and now have the rights to numerous competitions in European countries, France being the main one. beIN attempted to have Arabsat signals blocked in France - their argument being that beoutQ was being broadcast on Arabsat and that beIN have or would lose earnings in France. The court agreed that Arabsat were broadcasting beoutQ and had a case to answer in that regard but as beoutQ wasn't a thing (at least not a big thing) in France, there wasn't enough evidence to prove loss of earnings to justify blocking Arabsat signals in France.
And yes it absolutely is part of the owernship test. From the Times link above:
Thank you for clearing that up I'm no expert.
Now how do you go about proving PIF is linked to Arabsat and that they had involvement in the piracy?
From my understanding the PIF is well regarded with investments in major companies around the world.
Now how do you go about proving PIF is linked to Arabsat and that they had involvement in the piracy?
From my understanding the PIF is well regarded with investments in major companies around the world.
This is the million dollar question and is why the PL will be cautious of blocking the deal unless they have a solid case, although as the PL rules state it does only need to be the "reasonable opinion" of the board. The reality is that the biggest shareholder of Arabsat is the state of Saudi Arabia and PIF is the Saudi sovereign wealth fund, both ultimately controlled by one man. The key will be the PL's appetite for a legal challenge and how confident they are of winning it. *edit* If it was just the human rights issues being put forwards then I don't think the PL would give a **** however the beIN issue puts them in a very difficult position because of how much money they pay the PL for tv rights. I have also seen it reported that beIN have only raised this issue as an attempt to force the Saudi's hand into stamping out the piracy in the middle east, in which case beIN would drop their objections.
As for being well regarded, I'm not too sure what your point is. Just like the other middle east funds, PIF has been set up to invest all the billions of oil and gas money these states have so that when the world is no longer relying on oil/gas, these states don't go bust. They have and will invest in all sorts of major businesses, that doesn't change the fact that they're controlled by the state and the same people controlling them have and are committing all sorts of crimes and human rights abuses.