PL to block owners guilty of "human rights abuses"

[bluenova]

Now, I'm not a fan of state ownership, but in our case see it as pretty much a necessary evil as the only way we'd ever have caught up.

But surely any real human rights abuse rule would rule it out completely - every nation in the world would surely fall foul of it.

EDIT: The article has now been expanded - I saw a brief summary with "more follows..." and it looks like it's aimed at individuals, so anyone involved in the running of a state would likely be caught up (e.g. our owner). However it also looks to be based on UK Govt legislation, so I wonder if it's something the PL have to do, and they can use it as an excuse to take no action (i.e. if the govt isn't sanctioning someone, then the PL isn't getting involved).

Premier League to block owners guilty of human rights abuses under new rules

Individuals found to have committed human rights abuses will be unable to be an owner or director of a Premier League club under beefed-up rules

www.theguardian.com

 

[mexico1970]

Now, I'm not a fan of state ownership, but in our case see it as pretty much a necessary evil as the only way we'd ever have caught up.

But surely any real human rights abuse rule would rule it out completely - every nation in the world would surely fall foul of it.

Premier League to block owners guilty of human rights abuses under new rules

Individuals found to have committed human rights abuses will be unable to be an owner or director of a Premier League club under beefed-up rules

www.theguardian.com

Human rights are poor and you're right every country could be pointed at and accused with good reason.

Apart from of course the yanks, this is corruption in our game and in plain sight.

 

[chaddblue]

Now, I'm not a fan of state ownership, but in our case see it as pretty much a necessary evil as the only way we'd ever have caught up.

But surely any real human rights abuse rule would rule it out completely - every nation in the world would surely fall foul of it.

Premier League to block owners guilty of human rights abuses under new rules

Individuals found to have committed human rights abuses will be unable to be an owner or director of a Premier League club under beefed-up rules

www.theguardian.com

No idea on the timescale but this would screw up any chance of Qatar getting their hands on the rags

Or will they be given special dispensation?

 

[BrianW]

It says 'individuals'.
So that implies an individual is found guilty of a human rights abuse by a competent tribunal.
Allegations won't cut it. Wide open to legal challenge.

 

[mexico1970]

No idea on the timescale but this would screw up any chance of Qatar getting their hands on the rags

The decision IMHO has more to do with throwing the Saudis out of Newcastle.

 

[kaz7]

Now, I'm not a fan of state ownership, but in our case see it as pretty much a necessary evil as the only way we'd ever have caught up.

But surely any real human rights abuse rule would rule it out completely - every nation in the world would surely fall foul of it.

Premier League to block owners guilty of human rights abuses under new rules

Individuals found to have committed human rights abuses will be unable to be an owner or director of a Premier League club under beefed-up rules

www.theguardian.com

We are not owned by a state ffs

 

[Corky]

It is one of several crimes in a new test which is unlikely to apply to existing directors and owners. How many people guilty of human rights abuses are likely to buy a club?

 

[Centurions]

We are not owned by a state ffs

Is the correct answer, it's always disappointing to see a Blue repeat this lie.


"A person or a company subject to government sanctions is also a disqualifying event, and the range of criminal offences that could result in disqualification has been extended to include offences involving violence, corruption, fraud, tax evasion and hate crimes."

That would see half the Bayern board disqualified, would it not?

 

[bluenova]

We are not owned by a state ffs

It's actually aimed at individuals, and let's face it, if our owner doesn't bear any responsibility for things that the UAE govt do, then I'm not sure who would qualify.

However, it does appear to be based on Govt legislation, so I wonder if it's more a box ticking exercise, which allows the PL to say that if these owners aren't being sanctioned by the govt already, then it's not the PL league's business to be stopping them?

 

[kaz7]

It's actually aimed at individuals, and let's face it, if our owner doesn't bear any responsibility for things that the UAE govt do, then I'm not sure who would qualify.

However, it does appear to be based on Govt legislation, so I wonder if it's more a box ticking exercise, which allows the PL to say that if these owners aren't being sanctioned by the govt already, then it's not the PL league's business to be stopping them?

You said we are state owned , we are not