LFEE Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 5 minutes ago, Kanji said: all the talk of Brighton is well and fine but remember they have taken a massive risk on the manager choice. They usually get it right but lot to prove out there. Exactly. Thats why I think this window Brighton will spend bigger than normal to help him as much as they can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 We get scrutinised for selling a player to Saudi but Man United can flog a rapist for 40m. Aye nee bother. Rules are fucked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 44 minutes ago, LFEE said: Think it will be tricky to one for them to win if it’s went to arbitration? 3 man panel … City get to choose someone… opposition get to choose one… PL get to choose the 3rd so logic dictates they’ll lose 2-1 without a cast iron case/dirt to chuck. This is against UK competition law though, so they can't on this occasion make a decision based on their loyalty. Any decision has got to be based on the laws of the land. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 28 minutes ago, et tu brute said: This is against UK competition law though, so they can't on this occasion make a decision based on their loyalty. Any decision has got to be based on the laws of the land. Maybe I misunderstood but I thought this isn’t a legal court case… it’s went to a two week arbitration case through the PL channels? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donut Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Hi. WHEN LEAKS??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 2 minutes ago, LFEE said: Maybe I misunderstood but I thought this isn’t a legal court case… it’s went to a two week arbitration case through the PL channels? You still have to apply to what is in British law. If they don't, then they're going to be well fucked down the line Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny1403 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 57 minutes ago, STM said: We get scrutinised for selling a player to Saudi but Man United can flog a rapist for 40m. Aye nee bother. Rules are fucked. I mean if you ignore the rapey part (which Spanish clubs seem happy to do) he’s quite clearly a 40m player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
STM Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 21 minutes ago, jonny1403 said: I mean if you ignore the rapey part (which Spanish clubs seem happy to do) he’s quite clearly a 40m player. Quite an important part to ignore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 (edited) While we all agree he's as guilty as sin, he's not been convicted. That's their (we'll just overlook the mountains of unpleasantness you can actually hear him say) get out. Football clubs have no morals at times, they really don't. Edited July 8 by Bimpy474 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpeth mag Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 2 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said: While we all agree he's as guilty as sin, he's not been convicted. That's their (we'll just overlook the mountains of unpleasantness you can actually hear him say) get out. Football clubs have no morals at times, it really doesn't. I expect Man U will be donating the fee to a charity to support rape victims Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 (edited) 2 hours ago, LFEE said: Think it will be tricky to one for them to win if it’s went to arbitration? 3 man panel … City get to choose someone… opposition get to choose one… PL get to choose the 3rd so logic dictates they’ll lose 2-1 without a cast iron case/dirt to chuck. The PL are the opposition, City choose one, PL choose one and one Independent with the agreement of both parties. Edited July 8 by FloydianMag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 14 minutes ago, STM said: Quite an important part to ignore. While I agree he’s clearly a scumbag but his personal life has no relevance to his price tag unfortunately but fuck Man Utd for being happy to loan him out then cash in on him. He should have been sacked. Money talks tho Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimpy474 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 3 minutes ago, morpeth mag said: I expect Man U will be donating the fee to a charity to support rape victims I bet they feckin don't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Well I'd think that man united can still sell a player who was accused of rape because he's innocent until proven guilty. Just a wild guess. Meanwhile us selling players to Saudi is a compliance issue and not a matter of law (right now anyway). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 27 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: The PL are the opposition, City choose one, PL choose one and one Independent with the agreement of both parties. What's the point of that? Might as well just have the one independent bloke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andycap Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 No itk on here? Wheres ando when you need a morsal of transfer news whether that be shite or legit. 😂 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny1403 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, STM said: Quite an important part to ignore. As I said, not for Spanish clubs willing to buy him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 I'm ok with it being quiet. Just waiting for an Isak-like bomb out of nowhere. (Though part of me is skeptical of how much we're going to spend this summer) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, loki679 said: What's the point of that? Might as well just have the one independent bloke. Clearly it’s been agreed that 3 person panel of very experienced legal experts was the way to go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LFEE Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 3 hours ago, et tu brute said: You still have to apply to what is in British law. If they don't, then they're going to be well fucked down the line Are you saying that with 100% certainty? I think they just go off the PL rule book hence being able to keep it all confidential. Hence why we didn’t bother and a CAT case was the one that would everything out in the open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 16 minutes ago, LFEE said: Are you saying that with 100% certainty? I think they just go off the PL rule book hence being able to keep it all confidential. Hence why we didn’t bother and a CAT case was the one that would everything out in the open. Of course you have to apply everything to British law. That is the law of the land and supersedes everything else. Why do you think city are putting up a case, because it contradicts uk competition law and is also restraint of trade. So yes I'm saying that with 100% certainty Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 15 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Of course you have to apply everything to British law. That is the law of the land and supersedes everything else. Why do you think city are putting up a case, because it contradicts uk competition law and is also restraint of trade. So yes I'm saying that with 100% certainty I'm not so sure. In English Cricket there are rules on the amount of overseas players which would seem to be in contravention of UK employment law. Similarly both Rugby codes have salary caps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McDog Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Just now, madras said: I'm not so sure. In English Cricket there are rules on the amount of overseas players which would seem to be in contravention of UK employment law. Similarly both Rugby codes have salary caps. In the USA these sort of exceptions were specifically and narrowly applied by law. They can be retracted by lawmakers at any time. Is this not the case in the UK? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 4 minutes ago, McDog said: In the USA these sort of exceptions were specifically and narrowly applied by law. They can be retracted by lawmakers at any time. Is this not the case in the UK? I'm not sure as teams can break the rules whenever they want without breaking the law but they would face a sanction by the sports governing bodies. Could a player claim it's against the law because he's been sent off and banned for two games, losing appearance money ? No, it's a sporting sanction not a restriction of trade I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 12 minutes ago, madras said: I'm not so sure. In English Cricket there are rules on the amount of overseas players which would seem to be in contravention of UK employment law. Similarly both Rugby codes have salary caps. There must be something in the law which caters for this. Possibly as they're not British nationals. You can't just contravene UK laws, which are the laws of the country. The salary caps I would imagine have been agreed by the players union. 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