Due dilligence says that, when you buy a company, you take on all the existing responsibilities, liabilities etc when you do, so it is up to you to decide whether you're prepared to or not. There are exceptions, of course - you can only be liable for those things which you could reasonably have known and/or found out about beforehand, but I'd have thought the MSI contracts would come under that broadly.Hambrosia Stu wrote: Spot on
As the current owners played no part in the dodgy dealings (and from what we've seen so far, would have had nothing whatsoever to do with Kia Charlatan and his shady partners), surely it's only right and fair that any punishment should be paid for by Brown.
I can't imagine Brown will volunteer to pay the fine, so suing the slimy scumbag has to be the way to go
As for points deductions, I'd be surprised if anything is imposed this season, but then again I'm hardly an expert in these sort of things
PL Trial Verdict: £5.5m fine, no pts deducted, Tevez safe
Moderator: Gnome
- ShanghaiHammer
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:59 pm
- Total likes: 3 likes
- Hambrosia Stu
- Posts: 18222
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
- Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia
That's what I don't understand about these adjournments.Ben wrote:sorry, silly question but does adjournement mean that all evidence has been presented, hearings heard etc and they are now going away to decide on it, or does it mean its been postponed for some reason and will now happen on friday?
Why adjourn it? I mean it's only until tomorrow, so it's not like they've delayed it by a week/month to get more evidence. So why not just carry on today, and take it up again tomorrow where they left off?
I reckon they're all off for an afternoon in a nice beer garden somewhere. 'Now we've got the thing started, we might as well knock off early and enjoy the rest of the day'. 'Motion carried!'
- Hambrosia Stu
- Posts: 18222
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
- Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia
Good point!uctpa08 wrote: Due dilligence says that, when you buy a company, you take on all the existing responsibilities, liabilities etc when you do, so it is up to you to decide whether you're prepared to or not. There are exceptions, of course - you can only be liable for those things which you could reasonably have known and/or found out about beforehand, but I'd have thought the MSI contracts would come under that broadly.
I guess then it depends to what degree the new owners were able to view the Argies contracts. If everything the FA are looking at was on the table for Eggy to look at when buying the club, maybe suing seems less likely
But that said, both the contracts, and this current situation are hardly the norm. I guess you could maybe argue that the club facing heavy sanctions as a result of these contracts is not something Eggy would have 'reasonably known and/or found out about beforehand'
I don't know enough about Law to know one way or the other, but in terms of what is right and wrong, it seems only right that Brown should be the one who's pocket suffers
- pbenjy
- Posts: 1937
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:24 am
- Location: Flying High
- Has liked: 20 likes
- Total likes: 52 likes
I think this set of circumstances is virtually unprecedented, so no-one can really know what is going to happen - we are in the lap of the gods!!Hambrosia Stu wrote:As for points deductions, I'd be surprised if anything is imposed this season, but then again I'm hardly an expert in these sort of things
- Arch Dandy
- Posts: 9334
- Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:58 pm
- Location: Bringing you the boos since 1980
- Has liked: 3 likes
- Total likes: 50 likes
If they have reached a logical place to stop for the day and the next item/piece of evidence etc would only get half heard before they had to finish they I think they'd adjourn for the day and start again the next day.Hambrosia Stu wrote:That's what I don't understand about these adjournments.
Why adjourn it? I mean it's only until tomorrow, so it's not like they've delayed it by a week/month to get more evidence. So why not just carry on today, and take it up again tomorrow where they left off?
There would be no point in cutting an item half way through for the sake of working another half hour, it also gives them a chance to review what they have already heard.
- upton o'good
- Posts: 11896
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 9:50 am
- Location: On the sofa, teaching Joanna to sing bubbles
- Has liked: 7 likes
- Total likes: 120 likes
yeah but they adjourned it at lunchtime - which is even less work thatn I get through in a day. Sheeesh.Arch Dandy wrote: If they have reached a logical place to stop for the day and the next item/piece of evidence etc would only get half heard before they had to finish they I think they'd adjourn for the day and start again the next day.
There would be no point in cutting an item half way through for the sake of working another half hour, it also gives them a chance to review what they have already heard.
- Hambrosia Stu
- Posts: 18222
- Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
- Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia
I thought it must be something like thatArch Dandy wrote: If they have reached a logical place to stop for the day and the next item/piece of evidence etc would only get half heard before they had to finish they I think they'd adjourn for the day and start again the next day.
There would be no point in cutting an item half way through for the sake of working another half hour, it also gives them a chance to review what they have already heard.
"So, guilty, or not guilty?"
"Guilty"
"Fine, or points, or both?"
"Fine"
"Great, that's that sorted. We might as well draw a line there. Everybody off to the pub then! Back again same time tomorrow, when we'll have the ball-breaking job of fixing the amount of the fine. Enjoy your day lads, I'm off to The Savoy's beer garden"
Or something like that...........
-
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:34 pm
- Location: North DC, South NYC
- Contact:
How is this case different to teams loaning players to other clubs, surely that is a third party influencing the club especially when its to another premiership club, saying a player can't play against you has to be an influence surely. From what I have read, this is a very poorly written law and hopefully we have the lawyers to pull it all apart. Of course the details of the players contracts are unknown I wonder if their is something contained in those, oh the intrigue !
Agreed. Maybe the adjournment was more like:PhillyAmmer wrote:How is this case different to teams loaning players to other clubs, surely that is a third party influencing the club especially when its to another premiership club, saying a player can't play against you has to be an influence surely. From what I have read, this is a very poorly written law and hopefully we have the lawyers to pull it all apart.
FA: 'You're guilty as charged, West Ham.'
WHU's **** hot lawyer: 'You haven't got a leg to stand, on mate, and you relegate us and we'll sue your arse off.'
FA: 'Errr, OK! Adjourned for slapped wrists tomorow!'
- whufcspoon
- Posts: 2323
- Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:03 pm
- Location: Essex
- rare as rockinghorse shat
- Posts: 55216
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:43 am
- Location: **** the board
- Has liked: 3 likes
- Total likes: 77 likes
uctpa08 wrote: Agreed. Maybe the adjournment was more like:
FA: 'You're guilty as charged, West Ham.'
WHU's sh*t hot lawyer: 'You haven't got a leg to stand, on mate, and you relegate us and we'll sue your arse off.'
FA: 'Errr, OK! Adjourned for slapped wrists tomorow!'
That's about it. Our league position, and recent revival, is an absolute nightmare for the FA. If we were already down, or 5/6 points adrift, I think they'd hit us for points to set an example - but I don't think they have the balls to relegate a club, when it'll cost that club in excess of £30m in lost revenue. They leave themselves open to a potentially messy, expensive, and worst of all, public court case.
So while they'll look to make an example of us, deducting the points that relegate us would open a whole can of worms the FA would do better to avoid.
Case continues Friday where we will stand up and present our main evidence called Eggert Magnusson.
FA to Eggy: Why didn't you disclose the details of ownership regarding Mr Tevez and Mr Mashcerano?
Eggy: I did that is why we are hear, do any of you gentlemen read a national newspaper? Next question.
FA: Mr Magnusson we here at the above board, competent in all aspects of the game FA take these matters seriously. A third party that is the owner of a player(s) is not allowed to influence a football club's policy or day to day running.
Eggy: I agree which is why we should applaud the previous owners for managing to sign the two players in question while still managing to conduct an open and fair sale of the club while it was in their ownership.
FA: How can you be sure this was done Mr Magnusson?
Eggy: They sold it to my consortium you silly c****.
FA: f*** it, better tell Dave that his Northern Monkeys will have to relegate these boys without our help.
Eggy: Can I go tossers?
FA: Yes but we will have to invoke the traditional FA face saving clause which allows us to fine you for not disclosing a small bit of irrelevant information just so we can frighten off anyone that wants to own players seperate to a club.
Eggy: Ok here is £50k for some new footballs.
FA to Eggy: Why didn't you disclose the details of ownership regarding Mr Tevez and Mr Mashcerano?
Eggy: I did that is why we are hear, do any of you gentlemen read a national newspaper? Next question.
FA: Mr Magnusson we here at the above board, competent in all aspects of the game FA take these matters seriously. A third party that is the owner of a player(s) is not allowed to influence a football club's policy or day to day running.
Eggy: I agree which is why we should applaud the previous owners for managing to sign the two players in question while still managing to conduct an open and fair sale of the club while it was in their ownership.
FA: How can you be sure this was done Mr Magnusson?
Eggy: They sold it to my consortium you silly c****.
FA: f*** it, better tell Dave that his Northern Monkeys will have to relegate these boys without our help.
Eggy: Can I go tossers?
FA: Yes but we will have to invoke the traditional FA face saving clause which allows us to fine you for not disclosing a small bit of irrelevant information just so we can frighten off anyone that wants to own players seperate to a club.
Eggy: Ok here is £50k for some new footballs.
- orpingtonhammer
- Posts: 2092
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:21 pm
- Location: orpington!
Trap1 wrote:Case continues Friday where we will stand up and present our main evidence called Eggert Magnusson.
FA to Eggy: Why didn't you disclose the details of ownership regarding Mr Tevez and Mr Mashcerano?
Eggy: I did that is why we are hear, do any of you gentlemen read a national newspaper? Next question.
FA: Mr Magnusson we here at the above board, competent in all aspects of the game FA take these matters seriously. A third party that is the owner of a player(s) is not allowed to influence a football club's policy or day to day running.
Eggy: I agree which is why we should applaud the previous owners for managing to sign the two players in question while still managing to conduct an open and fair sale of the club while it was in their ownership.
FA: How can you be sure this was done Mr Magnusson?
Eggy: They sold it to my consortium you silly c*nts.
FA: f*ck it, better tell Dave that his Northern Monkeys will have to relegate these boys without our help.
Eggy: Can I go tossers?
FA: Yes but we will have to invoke the traditional FA face saving clause which allows us to fine you for not disclosing a small bit of irrelevant information just so we can frighten off anyone that wants to own players seperate to a club.
Eggy: Ok here is £50k for some new footballs.
haha