DerbysLane Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 28 minutes ago, David said: You are cherry picking lines from it. It's not just talking about good faith. And yes, I will keep going back to it until we have an official answer. What does the last sentence of 4.4 mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van der MoodHoover Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 7 hours ago, Curtains said: https://fanbanter.co.uk/simon-jordan-rages-at-derby-fans-on-air-and-makes-controversial-efl-claim/ The date on that article is Jan 18th Curtains. Slow and methodical wins the day....are you working for Quantuma by any chance? ? Curtains 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 13 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: What does the last sentence of 4.4 mean? Exactly what it says on the tin. However the stadium sale, which was allowed under the rules at the time we was cleared on. They have the club the all clear to proceed with the sale, the valuation was then questioned. This is what builds "significant" part of Gibson's claim. Even if we was found guilty on the last sentence, it's not Boro's place to take action. (provided always that only The League shall have the right to bring any action whatsoever for any alleged breach of this requirement). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eatonram Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 "We heard an initial application by Middlesbrough FC to intervene in support of EFL’s appeal, which we dismissed. We also heard an application by EFL that we should hear this appeal by way of a de novo hearing, which we rejected on 3 December 2020, and further ruled on an application by EFL to lead new evidence not before the DC, which we rejected on 22 January 2021. We had originally hoped to conclude this matter somewhat earlier than has proved to be the case, " Above from the LAP full findings....If Couhig wants to know why our points deduction wasn't last season?? Boro and the EFL are clearly the answer. Indy, Gritstone Ram, jono and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbysLane Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 16 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: What does the last sentence of 4.4 mean? From an internet search: It is common in legal writing to state a general rule and then to elucidate with more specific examples. But that creates a negative pregnant - - an implication that the general rule isn't really so general. Suppose I said "No animals shall be allowed on the train, and no cats or dogs." You might bring your goldfish on the train, arguing that my no-animal rule was intended to keep large misbehaving mammals off the train, and not quiet little fish. But what if I said ""No animals shall be allowed on the train, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no cats or dogs." Then since your goldfish is an animal you can't use the "cats or dogs" clause to argue that goldfish are not banned. CornwallRam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 3 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: From an internet search: It is common in legal writing to state a general rule and then to elucidate with more specific examples. But that creates a negative pregnant - - an implication that the general rule isn't really so general. Suppose I said "No animals shall be allowed on the train, and no cats or dogs." You might bring your goldfish on the train, arguing that my no-animal rule was intended to keep large misbehaving mammals off the train, and not quiet little fish. But what if I said ""No animals shall be allowed on the train, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no cats or dogs." Then since your goldfish is an animal you can't use the "cats or dogs" clause to argue that goldfish are not banned. So that's cleared that up then Jimbo Ram, Gritstone Ram, GboroRam and 4 others 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hintonsboots Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 Heard Q are on holiday, doing a bit for the cause though. Come on Q let’s be avin you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 29 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: What does the last sentence of 4.4 mean? It means the principle that Clubs cannot sue each other because of a breach of FFP is a general one, so don't try and weasel your way around that Gibbo. . David Graham Brown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbysLane Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said: It means the principle that Clubs cannot sue each other because of a breach of FFP is a general one, so don't try and weasel your way around that Gibbo. . Well it doesn't, but I agree that clubs can't sue each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Ram Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 16 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said: So that's cleared that up then When’s the new series of Peaky starting ? Tyler Durden 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 2 hours ago, PistoldPete said: And who masterminded this breakaway cartel? One Rick Parry. Chairman of EFL, who sponsor Sky. You keep saying this, and it doesn't make any sense. The EFL don't sponsor anyone, nevermind Sky. Skybet, a company that Sky sold some years ago, sponsor the EFL's football leagues. Skybet and Sky obviously have a close relationship, judging by their use of Sky broadcasters in their Adverts, but that's by the by. i-Ram and atherstoneram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elwood P Dowd Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 37 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: From an internet search: It is common in legal writing to state a general rule and then to elucidate with more specific examples. But that creates a negative pregnant - - an implication that the general rule isn't really so general. Suppose I said "No animals shall be allowed on the train, and no cats or dogs." You might bring your goldfish on the train, arguing that my no-animal rule was intended to keep large misbehaving mammals off the train, and not quiet little fish. But what if I said ""No animals shall be allowed on the train, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no cats or dogs." Then since your goldfish is an animal you can't use the "cats or dogs" clause to argue that goldfish are not banned. You could simply define the word animals in the Definition section of the legal document “Animals” shall mean all non human living entities ?? DerbysLane 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 2 hours ago, PistoldPete said: Trust me, it has happend to someone I know. And yes, dear reader, she married him. Lovely to have a happy ending on this thread PistoldPete 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yani P Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 (edited) Cardiff 2-0 And in the wrong thread doh.. Edited February 9, 2022 by Yani P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ossieram Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 2 minutes ago, CBRammette said: Lovely to have a happy ending on this thread Divorce? jimtastic56 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gritstone Ram Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 57 minutes ago, DerbysLane said: From an internet search: It is common in legal writing to state a general rule and then to elucidate with more specific examples. But that creates a negative pregnant - - an implication that the general rule isn't really so general. Suppose I said "No animals shall be allowed on the train, and no cats or dogs." You might bring your goldfish on the train, arguing that my no-animal rule was intended to keep large misbehaving mammals off the train, and not quiet little fish. But what if I said ""No animals shall be allowed on the train, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no cats or dogs." Then since your goldfish is an animal you can't use the "cats or dogs" clause to argue that goldfish are not banned. Is this like the ‘as I was going to St. Ives’ ? So you can’t take a cat, dog or goldfish on the train. What about a mouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBRammette Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 3 minutes ago, ossieram said: Divorce? Hope not on here would be 612 pages analysing the pre-nup ck- and David Graham Brown 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, jono said: Can I ask a seemingly daft question ? Why hasn’t arbitration been started by the EFL in the matter of DCFC and MBC ? Because Middlesbrough's counsel are not available until May22 according to Mel Morris. This convenient delay meant that from the outset of this season and even before we entered administration, DCFC was locked into the transfer embargoes which were meant to make any fight by DCFC to avoid relegation nigh on impossible. The plan was that by the time of any arbitration hearing we would be a Division One Club and maybe even we would have been liquidated out of existence. Wayne Rooney and his team continue to thwart the EFL plan for the time being. If DCFC stay up, the EFL prepared press release to be announced by Rick Parry is "The EFL recognises the super human efforts of Wayne Rooney and his team in managing to escape relegation. However, at the same time the EFL must let it be known that we are very disappointed that DCFC remains a Championship Club. The EFL feels it abused its powers to the maximum to prevent this outcome and couldn't have done any more." If DCFC is relegated the prepared EFL statement is simply "The EFL is extremely pleased that DCFC has been relegated because as Chairman Parry prematurely announced in January this year, Derby deserve to be relegated." I hope that helps you Jono because I know no more and cannot help you further. Edited February 9, 2022 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerbysLane Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 3 minutes ago, Gritstone Ram said: Is this like the ‘as I was going to St. Ives’ ? So you can’t take a cat, dog or goldfish on the train. What about a mouse? No mouse. But what about humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldben Posted February 9, 2022 Share Posted February 9, 2022 Couhig in my opinion is in some financial difficulties with Wycombe and is scapegoating Derby to cover those costs. https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/sport/18493679.rob-couhig-wycombes-financial-struggles-pandemic/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/19410485.amp/ It's similar to Boro who we know suffered significant financial difficulty recently. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/middlesbrough-fc-reveal-record-35m-20201847.amp Link to comment 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.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now