According to The Chronicle, Newcastle United chiefs are ‘confident’ that the Premier League will NOT re-investigate the approval of the Saudi takeover, stressing that ‘legally binding assurances’ have already confirmed separation between the Saudi state and Public Investment Fund.
As you may have seen, there’s been calls to revisit the 2021 deal after a messy court case between Saudi-backed golf organisation LIV Golf and the PGA Tour flagged up potentially conflicting information. Essentially, they told the Premier League they are not the government 18 months ago, but it’s believed they’ve been arguing the exact opposite in this recent US court case.
Speaking from Westminster today for a DCMS evidence session following the fan-led review of football governance, Premier League chief Richard Masters has been quizzed about the £300m deal.
When quizzed by MP for Eltham, Clive Efford, Masters insisted he could not comment on the matter, saying he could only do so if the club in question was charged. Watch the interaction below, followed by full quotes:
Clive Efford: “Is this going to prompt you to revisit the Newcastle United Football Club arrangement?”
Richard Masters: “I’m afraid I can’t really comment on it. Even to the point of saying ‘is the Premier League investigating it?’, we can’t really comment.
“Obviously we are completely aware and you’re correct about the general nature of the undertakings we received at the point of takeover. But I can’t really go into it at all.
“The only time the Premier League comments publicly on regulatory issues is when it is charged. At the end of the process when an independent panel has decided whether rule breaching has taken place. The investigatory process we don’t talk about at all.”
A bit of paraphrasing there Olly?
There is no “separation” between the Saudi State and PIF, and there was never claimed to be any.
The “legally binding assurances” that were received were that the Saudi state would not “take control” of the club.
In the LIV case PIF are not arguing that they ARE Saudi Government – they are arguing that they are a “sovereign instrumentality”, with the difference being clearly laid down in the in the US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Efford made a mistake in his questioning, he should have been pulled up on it.
BykerBill(Quote)