Shearergol Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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... 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 More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. Our fax machine must be out of ink Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. "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 More sharing options...
Incognito Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. "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 More sharing options...
Guest Immsy7 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 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. "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 More sharing options...
gray Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? just send a txt or email cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? just send a txt or email cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x :lol: :lol: brilliant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 someone e mail man u and offer them 100m for ronaldo, just set up [email protected] and use that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Erich von Manstein Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? 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 More sharing options...
Guest nufcfan76 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? just send a txt or email cn we av alvaro 4 3m yuro? ta, nufc x :lol: :lol: brilliant ;D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Fucks sake i bet we have accepted bids for Berbatov and Deco sitting in the junk mail file Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? 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 More sharing options...
womblemaster Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 its a legal thing. I believe a fax (signed one) can pass as a legal document. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant1815 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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 More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? 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 More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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 More sharing options...
WhatTheFunk Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Guest Li3nZ Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 why are premier league clubs faxing things around in 2008? 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. Email 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 More sharing options...
Ant1815 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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 More sharing options...
slaya_cz Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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. "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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Ant1815 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 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 More sharing options...
ChezGiven Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So what you are saying is that if you want to sign a player, a fax with a signature on it is much better than an email, text or verbal agreement? Thanks for clearing that up for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now