according to what ive seen, the rejection boiled down to - whether the state was the owner or Pif (as a separate entity to the state). the PL decided not to accept the saudis evidence that PIF was a separate entity
Printable View
Did UEFA not say last week that it was not against their rules for a state to be involved in a club.
They did, but school of thought is if Saudi state is named as an owner it could lay open accusations of piracy etc?
However apart from that the Saudis say pif is independent if the govt and would therefore be lying if they now named the state or prince as director. Joe can. They name someone who , has asserted that they will not have anything to do with everyday running of the club. Can of worms
Indeed it is, and it is of their own making.