The Chronicle

Answer poses new questions as league finally speaks out

- By LEE RYDER Chief Newcastle writer lee.ryder@reachplc.com @lee_ryder

IT ALL boiled down to a disagreeme­nt over who would have control.

According to Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, Amanda Staveley and the Reuben brothers it would have been Yasir Al-Rumayyan; in the eyes of top-flight chiefs, the connection­s to Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and the Saudi state were too strong to ignore.

With Richard Masters and the Premier League eager to ensure their own owners’ and directors’ test was completely fair, they wanted an independen­t panel to resolve the issue.

The league’s chief executive said this offer was declined by the consortium, who ultimately pulled out of the process altogether.

Difficult arguments over points from human rights and TV rights to geopolitic­s and sportswash­ing vanished, replaced by a demand for the truth, an explanatio­n, a statement.

Yesterday that arrived at last. While Staveley’s Saudi-backed consortium pointed the finger at the Premier League last month, a written letter finally came to enlighten a set of fans who have felt left in the dark about how their dream deal had turned nightmaris­h once more.

In a letter to Chi Onwurah, Masters said: “The Premier League asked each such person or entity to provide the Premier League with additional informatio­n, which then would have been used to consider the assessment of any possible disqualify­ing events.

“In this matter, the consortium disagreed with the Premier League’s determinat­ion that one entity would fall within the criteria requiring the provision of this informatio­n.

“The Premier League recognised the dispute and offered the consortium the ability to have the matter decided by an independen­t arbitral tribunal if they wished to challenge the conclusion of the Board.

“The consortium chose not to take up that offer, but nor did it procure the provision of the additional informatio­n.”

The bidding group claimed that frustratio­n on timescales pushed them to breaking point.

After 17 weeks, how could the Premier League not have made a decision? That was the argument made by the consortium, with the delays a major source of frustratio­n and consternat­ion with supporters throughout the whole process. However, Masters said: “There are no timescales prescribed by the Rules in relation to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test and they generally take considerab­ly longer than a month to complete.”

That being said, this could have been made clear a lot earlier in the process by the Premier League. Instead, they refused to comment on any aspect of the deal until yesterday, leaving everyone in limbo and leaving a city to stew. With expectatio­ns built up over a number of months and talk of a brave new world for United continued, tensions rose as the process dragged on. And on. And on. However, even back in April,

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom