catcherintherye
Player Valuation: £80m
“People can also make their peace with Saudi ownership because the UK itself is at peace and in alliance with the regime, and only last month resumed arms sales to it after an official review concluded there were only “isolated incidents” of airstrikes on Yemen that breached humanitarian law.”
A “product associated with Saudi” is a piece of p1ss in comparison to a state (UK, and the US) arming the Saudis to the teeth.
The PL would look pretty ridiculous suggesting human rights abuses by the Saudis was a factor when the country it operates in is knowingly facilitating them.
The associations sit independently of one another.
The UK government is held to a different standard to the PL and ultimately not the same level of commercial scrutiny. The PL is far more liable to being sued than the UK government and is ultimately far more exposed. That not be right, or ethical, but it's the reality.
For whatever reason the UK government have (wrongly) in my view elected to arm the Saudi state. They have made the calculation it is necessary for a wider benefit for their interests. It's hard to see what the PL get out of associating with such a regime though? It would distort competition, and create a number of headaches as it tries to expand into other areas. It would also legitimise corruption and theft of it's product, and may have led to losing longstanding financial partners. It's hard to see much material benefit that covers for this.
In all honesty, the defence that the UK government may do a certain thing, would insulate the PL's branding from working with Saudi is for the birds. There doesn't seem to be any evidence they've made this judgement call, but had they have (and just rejected the takeover outright) it would really be hard to make a case that it was not a sensible economic decision for a product that wants to grow into commercial and liberal overseas markets.