Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

West Ham To 66/1 to Finish Bottom at Corals

Unfortunately guys, your bullshit and misinterpretations of the truth have been proved incorrect by the other week's tribunal ruling. West Ham did cheat. West Ham did lie. West Ham stayed up because of that. That has been proven as a legal fact. Sorry to keep going on about it but when one sees bullshit written, one feels compelled to make corrections where appropriate

Yeah, but in the theoretical instance where we hadn't signed Tevez in the first place, we would not have been (IMO) that near to the relegation dogfight in the first place. Yes, our board arguably did wrong and were punished/should have been punished for it, but the fact is, had we not done that (i.e. had we never signed the buggers in the first place), we would have finished higher up the table, and your manager would have been entirely to blame for his own mediocrity.
 
Of course, there are instances where a contract can be unilaterally terminated, but do you honestly think this counts in this case? The contract was agreed upon under British law, completely exclusive of any footballing issues. Can you see any way that this contact violates British law, rather than footballing law (which, of course, it did) that would lead to it being legally unilaterally terminated?


As sarcastic as that may have been intended, it has, unfortunately for you, turned out to be true :p

Erm, yes, everything I wrote refers to English law. Did you think I meant Iranian?

The fact remains, under the terms of the contract the PL said Tevez could not play. As the contract specifically discussed the terms of Tevez playing in the PL, we have a problem at that point. What's the resolution? Drop the offending clauses? Renegotiate? Rip it up? What will kia do? Sue? Accept his losses? Accept a few quid to shut up? accept an under-the-counter deal to stay on-board? Who knows?

All conjecture. Which is all any of this ever is.
 
Erm, yes, everything I wrote refers to English law. Did you think I meant Iranian?
I suppose it's possible that Kia's contract was drawn up with the legal system of Iran in mind?

Anyway, the fact remains, there is evidence to show the contract was not terminated, and no evidence whatsoever that the contract was terminated...
 
I don't know. I'm not the EPL.

My point was about whether Warnock would have kept you up without us 'cheating'.

And IMO he wouldn't.
Graham Taylor thought he would have done

Anyway, let me put my previous question a different way: If West Ham were found to have committed the same offence, that you previously stated they were deservedly punished for, again, do you think they should face a further punishment?
 
oh god. please make it stop.

I have heard all of these arguments about 10 billion times. Nothing is new.

Just stop it. Please. It is SO fucking boring.
 
oh god. please make it stop.

I have heard all of these arguments about 10 billion times. Nothing is new.

Just stop it. Please. It is SO fucking boring.
Tell me that I was right all along and that West Ham deserve to be punished again for continuing to break the rules, then I shall consider going into retirement...
 
oh god. please make it stop.

I have heard all of these arguments about 10 billion times. Nothing is new.

Just stop it. Please. It is SO fucking boring.

For some reason, I just get drawn in. Slap me if it happens again.
 
Back
Top Bottom