You will not believe it, but in the end it was Saudi Arabia who bought Newcastle

When they bought Newcastle, Saudi Arabia said they weren’t buying Newcastle, the Premier League thought Saudi Arabia wasn’t buying Newcastle, which puts them in a very awkward position at the moment because Saudi Arabia admitted in a nice court case, behold, the shocker, bought Yes, Newcastle.

The story begins with the first deal that Mike Ashley, one of the worst owners in the history of English football, closed with a consortium led by the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, in April 2020. The news was greeted with celebration. By Newcastle fans, not only because of the high investment that could be promised, but because they hate Mike Ashley with all the strength of their hearts – and it has also generated some moral dilemmas.

But the sale did not take place, and at a certain point in time, the consortium withdrew. There were two obstacles. One was the dispute over television rights between Qatar’s beIN Sports, one of the English Premier League’s biggest partners, and a Saudi Arabian-backed piracy network. The second is the famous English Premier League test for the approval of the owners and directors because representatives of the Saudi government will have to pass it, perhaps even high-ranking members, and some disturbing questions will arise, such as, for example: Did you have the journalist Jamal Khashoggi killed?

The negotiation ended only in October 2021. Saudi Arabia improved relations with Qatar and promised to shut down the pirate network. The fund gave “legally binding assurances” that “Saudi Arabia will not take control of Newcastle United Football Club”. The previous sentence is written in formal language and jargon in quotes as it is taken from an official Premier League statement announcing the transfer of ownership.

A hearing to determine the relationship between the Public Investment Fund and Saudi Arabia was scheduled for January 2022, but it was not required. For two reasons: the Premier League was content with “legally binding safeguards” and it would in fact be a pointless exercise because we do not need a hearing to determine the relationship between the PIF and the government of Saudi Arabia. .

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the current acting ruler of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Public Investment Fund. Six of the other eight The members of the board of directors are ministers. One is the “Royal Counsellor”. The last and only one who, in theory and in theory, has nothing to do with the government, is Yasir Al-Rumayyan who, perhaps not coincidentally, has become a non-executive chairman of Newcastle.

Then a funny thing happened.

LIV Golf, a golf circuit established in 2021 and is part of Bin Salman’s project to use sports to provide indoor entertainment, diverting public attention from the atrocities of his regime and trying to convey an image of modernity, He joined a lawsuit by some golfers against the PGA Tour, the highest professional league in the United States, alleging “anti-competitive practices”. The PGA Tour has decided that athletes participating in LIV Golf events cannot compete in their championships. Golfers were jockeying for commentary.

It was kind of a shot in the foot because the PGA Tour I decided to sue LIV Golf And in January, Adopt a new strategy: It was alleged that the CEO of the league, Greg Norman, does not have the independence to make decisions without the approval of the Public Investment Fund that supports the joke, and our friend Yasser Al-Rumayyan. The next natural step was to start calling them to obtain documents about the actions that had been taken to launch the league. On February 17, a federal judge He won the PGA Tour He said the head of the fund could be removed under an exception to the US Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act.

And you won’t believe what the Public Investment Fund claims it refuses to do. in Document submitted last Tuesday, he said: “This matter is an extraordinary violation of the sovereignty of a foreign country and is far from justified in this case. The Public Investment Fund and His Excellency Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan are not ordinary third parties subject to basic standards related to the collection of evidence. They are a sovereign tool of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and an acting minister in the Saudi government They cannot be compelled to give testimony and documents in an American case unless their conduct is the main focus of the case.”

huh?

Therefore, to evade the English Premier League test, the Public Investment Fund and Al-Rumayyan are not seen as the government of Saudi Arabia, or have a direct connection with it, but to evade a legal statement in the United States, the Public Investment Fund. And Al-Rumayyan “sovereign tools” of the government of Saudi Arabia?

“Imagining that the Saudi state was not directing the purchase of Newcastle with the end goal of using the club as a component of a wider sporting laundering project has always stretched credulity to its breaking point,” said Amnesty International UK’s economic director. Peter Frankenthal.

“There is an unmistakable irony in asking a sovereign wealth fund to emerge from a dispute between another arm of Saudi Arabia’s growing sports empire, but the simple fact is that Saudi sports washing affects many sports, and that governing bodies need to respond more effectively.” .

“The English Premier League will certainly need to reconsider the assurances made regarding the non-participation of the Saudi authorities in the Newcastle deal, and there is also a proposal from Qatar to buy Manchester United on the table.”

According to The Guardian, Premier League clubs are furious With this statement from the fund and it wouldn’t be unreasonable to imagine that they would put pressure on the chief executive of the Premier League, Richard Masters, to take some action. Because look what he told the BBC in November 2021When asked how the Premier League would know if the consortium was taking orders from the crown prince:

“In that case, I don’t think we would know. I don’t think that will happen. There are legally binding guarantees that the state will not be liable for the club. If we discover evidence to the contrary, we may remove the association as the owner of the club. That is understandable.”

If the evidence were a snake, Richard, it would have bitten you already.

Wanted by independent and by guardianThe Premier League declined to comment. The fund also declined to make a statement to guardian and l the athlete.