Jump to content

Alvaro - fraudulent bid by third party, Newcastle never interested.


Baggio

Recommended Posts

I still think we will get Barnes.

 

We made a verbal offer, i.e an enquiry. Thats what every club does before a formal offer and by that time we will know his valuation.

 

We made an offer. They turned it down. We're not going back for him.

 

Thanks for the info Mr Mort...

 

:D

 

I'm right though, as I've been about all of these deals in the last few weeks ;)

 

Its still nothing but guess work whether you end up right or not :)

 

Not always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that missed it in the big thread, the Levante president says on Marca that we sent a fax at 5pm with a €3m bid for him, they accepted it, and we didn't reply back. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that missed it in the big thread, the Levante president says on Marca that we sent a fax at 5pm with a €3m bid for him, they accepted it, and we didn't reply back. :lol:

 

"Any word on the Alvaro bid, Chris?"

 

"Yeah Mike, got a fax over here somewhere, haven't read it... SHIT! they accepted!"

 

"So what now?"

 

"Don't know, never got past third base before, best wait a few days to mull it over"

 

"Sorted"

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that missed it in the big thread, the Levante president says on Marca that we sent a fax at 5pm with a €3m bid for him, they accepted it, and we didn't reply back. :lol:

 

"Any word on the Alvaro bid, Chris?"

 

"Yeah Mike, got a fax over here somewhere, haven't read it... SHIT! they accepted!"

 

"So what now?"

 

"Don't know, never got past third base before, best wait a few days to mull it over"

 

"Sorted"

 

 

mackems.gif

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that missed it in the big thread, the Levante president says on Marca that we sent a fax at 5pm with a 3m bid for him, they accepted it, and we didn't reply back. :lol:

 

"Any word on the Alvaro bid, Chris?"

 

"Yeah Mike, got a fax over here somewhere, haven't read it... SHIT! they accepted!"

 

"So what now?"

 

"Don't know, never got past third base before, best wait a few days to mull it over"

 

"Sorted"

 

LMAO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? :lol:

 

just send a txt or email

 

cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x

 

It was an e-mail, just "fax" seems the journalistic word when it comes to Deadline Day so thought I'd use that. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Erich von Manstein

why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? :lol:

 

just send a txt or email

 

cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x

 

What on earth posessed you to post that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest nufcfan76

why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? :lol:

 

just send a txt or email

 

cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: brilliant

 

 

;D ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? :lol:

 

just send a txt or email

 

cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x

it's the FA we are talking about.

 

surprised it's not triplicate parchment sent on horseback

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a legal thing.  I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document.

 

 

 

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? :lol:

 

just send a txt or email

 

cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x

 

A fax is a legal document, an email invariably is not, unless under litigation. You can sign a fax and therefore under law, this means the document can be seen as legally binding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a legal thing.  I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document.

 

 

 

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

 

Wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a legal thing.  I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document.

 

 

 

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

 

Wrong.

 

correct.

 

Plus the security issues with e-mail. Imagine old 'Arry sat there on a chair behind his team of komputer 'ackers.....

 

"you wot? intercepted a message? nookarstle? defow? 7 mill? bollocks to that! Alex....Defow, Yids, 8 big ones, sharpish"

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? :lol:

 

just send a txt or email

 

cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x

 

It was an e-mail, just "fax" seems the journalistic word when it comes to Deadline Day so thought I'd use that. :lol:

 

Email :D

 

Good potential for complete chaos. Doesn't take a genius to work out the chairmans email address if you know anyone who works at the club, and seeing as addresses are so easy to spoof......

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a legal thing.  I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document.

 

 

 

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

 

Wrong.

 

correct.

 

Plus the security issues with e-mail. Imagine old 'Arry sat there on a chair behind his team of komputer 'ackers.....

 

"you wot? intercepted a message? nookarstle? defow? 7 mill? bollocks to that! Alex....Defow, Yids, 8 big ones, sharpish"

 

Nope. Not wrong, and not Correct

 

E-mail can be considered as a legal document, and an E-mail contract can be as legally binding as any FAX copy. E-mails are admissable as court evidence too. Why do you think that companies put all those legal disclaimers all over the bottom of them.

 

Of course the standard rules of proof need to be applied. Hard copy documents can be forged too, and e-mail can be just as secure as FAX if you use something like PGP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that missed it in the big thread, the Levante president says on Marca that we sent a fax at 5pm with a €3m bid for him, they accepted it, and we didn't reply back. :lol:

 

"Any word on the Alvaro bid, Chris?"

 

"Yeah Mike, got a fax over here somewhere, haven't read it... s***! they accepted!"

 

"So what now?"

 

"Don't know, never got past third base before, best wait a few days to mull it over"

 

"Sorted"

 

That's what I call "flexible solution"  ;D ;D ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a legal thing.  I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document.

 

 

 

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

 

Wrong.

 

correct.

 

Plus the security issues with e-mail. Imagine old 'Arry sat there on a chair behind his team of komputer 'ackers.....

 

"you wot? intercepted a message? nookarstle? defow? 7 mill? bollocks to that! Alex....Defow, Yids, 8 big ones, sharpish"

 

Nope. Not wrong, and not Correct

 

E-mail can be considered as a legal document, and an E-mail contract can be as legally binding as any FAX copy. E-mails are admissable as court evidence too. Why do you think that companies put all those legal disclaimers all over the bottom of them.

 

Of course the standard rules of proof need to be applied. Hard copy documents can be forged too, and e-mail can be just as secure as FAX if you use something like PGP.

 

Thats why i said 'unless under litigation'. Of course they are evidence and when my last company was under investigation by the FDA, my email account was submissable evidence. An email has theoretical legal consequences but saying 'yes' by email binds you to nothing in a court law. It is evidence though.

 

When i set up contracts with my agencies, i email a copy for them to sign-off on content. Once you have verbal or email agreement on content then signed hard copies are sent. A fax is an acceptable alternative but not water-tight. An email is next to worthless.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a legal thing.  I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document.

 

 

 

So can e-mail. I think a preference for using hard copy FAX, if it was used, is probably more to do with (possibly perceived) security concerns.

 

Wrong.

 

correct.

 

Plus the security issues with e-mail. Imagine old 'Arry sat there on a chair behind his team of komputer 'ackers.....

 

"you wot? intercepted a message? nookarstle? defow? 7 mill? bollocks to that! Alex....Defow, Yids, 8 big ones, sharpish"

 

Nope. Not wrong, and not Correct

 

E-mail can be considered as a legal document, and an E-mail contract can be as legally binding as any FAX copy. E-mails are admissable as court evidence too. Why do you think that companies put all those legal disclaimers all over the bottom of them.

 

Of course the standard rules of proof need to be applied. Hard copy documents can be forged too, and e-mail can be just as secure as FAX if you use something like PGP.

 

Thats why i said 'unless under litigation'. Of course they are evidence and when my last company was under investigation by the FDA, my email account was submissable evidence. An email has theoretical legal consequences but saying 'yes' by email binds you to nothing in a court law. It is evidence though.

 

When i set up contracts with my agencies, i email a copy for them to sign-off on content. Once you have verbal or email agreement on content then signed hard copies are sent. A fax is an acceptable alternative but not water-tight. An email is next to worthless.

 

 

 

No. You are not entirely correct.

 

You seem to be mixing up two separate concepts. Legally binding and burden of proof. The two aren't entirely the same.

 

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that if you can get away with murdering somebody then it isn't a crime. clearly that isn't the case.

 

I'm not sure what country you're in as there seem to be a fair few people on here from abroad, but In England and Wales a verbal agreement and an e-mail is just as legally binding as a written document. The problem is proof.

 

Verbal agreements can clearly be very fragile because no hard evidence is present. They are just as legally binding.....but the catch 22 is that you've probably got no proof that you have one in the first place, and so they frequently are in practical terms pretty useless.

 

E-Mail is on a slightly higher level. You have more proof than verbal, but again, because of likelihood of forgery, hacking etc then there is still an increased burden of proof.

 

Written and signed contracts are used not because they are more legally binding than e-mail, or even a verbal contract, but because there is less burden of proof. You can usually clearly show that you've got a written contract without too much problem. Although, it isn't foolproof...these can still be contested in certain circumstances.

 

But then that's probably what you meant all along and I'm just being a bit anal about it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...