PL Trial Verdict: £5.5m fine, no pts deducted, Tevez safe

The very best posts from KUMB over the years ...

Moderator: Gnome

Postby uctpa08 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:53 pm

Hambrosia Stu wrote:
Matt wrote:
Cambs Iron wrote:
alexbox wrote:we'd be lucky if we could just get away with a fine and not a points deduction...


I would be delighted. Wouldn't Brown have to pay the fine or part of it?


We'll appeal, on the basis of it being Brown's fault, and when the appeal gets turned down I would expect Magnusson to consider suing Brown for the fine money.


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


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.
uctpa08
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:37 am

Postby ShanghaiHammer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:54 pm

Hammer&Wings wrote:
alexbox wrote:we'd be lucky if we could just get away with a fine and not a points deduction...



and you can just imagine the sh*t that Wigan,Charlton,Fulham and Sheffield are going to kick up if we don't


I wish I was that optimistic :D
User avatar
ShanghaiHammer
 
Posts: 1037
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 5:59 pm

Postby Hambrosia Stu on Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:55 pm

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?


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?

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!'
User avatar
Hambrosia Stu
 
Posts: 18222
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia

Postby Hambrosia Stu on Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:01 pm

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.


Good point!

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
User avatar
Hambrosia Stu
 
Posts: 18222
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia

Postby pbenjy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:09 pm

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

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!!
User avatar
pbenjy
 
Posts: 1594
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:24 am
Location: Flying High

Postby Arch Dandy on Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:27 pm

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?


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.
User avatar
Arch Dandy
 
Posts: 8970
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Bringing you the boos since 1980

Postby upton o'good on Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:56 pm

Arch Dandy wrote:
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?


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.


yeah but they adjourned it at lunchtime - which is even less work thatn I get through in a day. Sheeesh.
User avatar
upton o'good
 
Posts: 11026
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 10:50 am
Location: On the sofa, teaching Joanna to sing bubbles

Postby Hambrosia Stu on Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:07 pm

Arch Dandy wrote:
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?


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.


I thought it must be something like that

"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........... :wink:
User avatar
Hambrosia Stu
 
Posts: 18222
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:03 pm
Location: Deepest, darkest, Devonia

Postby PhillyAmmer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:22 pm

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 !
PhillyAmmer
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 5:34 pm
Location: North DC, South NYC

Postby James on Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:31 pm

Lets hope Eggy takes Brown to the cleaners and adds more for compensation.
User avatar
James
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:04 pm
Location: New York, US of Anus

Postby uctpa08 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:37 pm

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.


Agreed. Maybe the adjournment was more like:

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!'
uctpa08
 
Posts: 1113
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:37 am

Postby whufcspoon on Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:13 pm

ohhh this ant good news! if the FA take pts away for this season they wont make it home alive :twisted:
User avatar
whufcspoon
 
Posts: 2323
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Essex

Postby rare as rockinghorse shat on Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:14 pm

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!! :lol:
User avatar
rare as rockinghorse shat
 
Posts: 54546
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Sponsor my SkyDive for Mind - mental health - http://bit.ly/rars-skydive

Postby ponder on Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:20 pm

uctpa08 wrote:
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.


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.
ponder
 
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:08 am
Location: Essex

Postby Trap1 on Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:51 pm

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 *****.

FA: **** 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.
Trap1
 
Posts: 8679
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:55 pm

Postby orpingtonhammer on Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:54 pm

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
User avatar
orpingtonhammer
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: orpington!

Postby vmixture on Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:56 pm

Maybe it will turn out that we have been wrongly accused and as a result we can claim some compensation for the detrimental effect this whole episode has had on our season. 9 points will do. :lol:
vmixture
 
Posts: 9197
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:45 pm

Postby alexbox on Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:57 pm

vmixture wrote:Maybe it will turn out that we have been wrongly accused and as a result we can claim some compensation for the detrimental effect this whole episode has had on our season. 9 points will do. :lol:


gr8 shout :lol:
User avatar
alexbox
 
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Essex

Postby D&G on Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:00 pm

Not the best prep for the players come Saturday.
User avatar
D&G
 
Posts: 12427
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:14 pm
Location: Oudezijds Voorburgwal

Postby Jarvo on Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:16 pm

If we do get points deducted, I hope and pray they will be deducted for the start of next season....which would be good as they wouldn't count in championship and if we stay up, who cares, we've stayed up!! :D

But if it is just a fine, then its not as bad as we all fear...
User avatar
Jarvo
 
Posts: 4709
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:06 am
Location: Chilling with Mesut Özil in Reece Oxford's pocket

PreviousNext

Return to KUMB Hall of Fame

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests