West Ham vice-chairman Karren Brady has claimed it is a 'very unclear' situation - but Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince would only have to undergo the independent football regulator's test if there were 'grounds for concern'.

Baroness Brady was speaking during a House of Lords debate on the football governance bill, which will establish the independent football regulator, on an evening Newcastle United were namechecked a whopping 20 times inside the chamber.

Although the Premier League received legally-binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would not control Newcastle, after the PIF bought a majority stake in the club in 2021, Lord Moynihan stated the bill went further in granting powers to the regulator that are not just about control. An individual 'has to be considered who has a higher degree of influence over the ownership of a club' as a result.

READ MORE: Newcastle United land stunning seven-figure sums as early STACK profits emerge in PSR boost

READ MORE: I snubbed Newcastle United because it rains a lot but my career has gone downhill ever since

Lord Moynihan asked Baroness Twycross, the parliamentary under-secretary of state at the department for culture, media and sport, if Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman would therefore be subject to an ownership test. The minister said yes before Baroness Brady went on to stress that 'clarity on the scope and purpose of the ownership test was essential'.

"Not just for the regulator, but the entire football ecosystem, including investors, leagues and clubs," she said. "Noble lords have already highlighted serious issues with the current drafting - not least the lack of definition of significant influence.

"On the very unclear situation of Newcastle United, the minister confirmed that the Crown Prince would be subject to the owners’ test, and the issue of significant influence would mean that this is the case. At least that situation was clarified and he knows where he stands."

However, Baroness Twycross later felt moved to clarify who the regulator will test and 'apologised' if she caused any confusion. As previously reported, the minister insisted that an incumbent individual simply meeting the definition, including if they exert significant influence or control, did not mean that the regulator was 'required or obliged to test them'.

"It may test an incumbent owner if there are grounds for concern about their suitability," she added.