Kyle Naughton

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've already explained that you're mistaken if you think that I think a football club wouldn't take a calculated risk. I said that a club wouldn't take a risk if it was obviously illegal and to the detriment of that club.

OK, well, as I've said, clubs are happy to do stuff that is illegal like poaching players, which is obviously illegal. The courts can't penalise SU, and the FA have no history of penalising clubs except when it's 100% they were dishonest, so there's not much possible detriment to the club. The upside is pretty huge though - £2m are we talking - so I really don't think it would be to the detriment of the club.

Oh, I remember the other thing I forgot to say earlier on FA fines. The FA can only act if Everton report them, and Everton can take back the report at any time (Spurs did this with Chelsea over Frank Arnesen). So in the event that the FA were going to impose a huge fine (which goes against all history of FA action), SU could cave in at that point and have Everton retract the report.

As explained, SU, assuming they have done what we're wasting hours on arguing about, presumably feel that a case is unlikely to be made against them.

I think our positions are just 3 words different :)

I just think you are giving too much weight to the legal positions (whether it's enforceable in court), and not enough to the likelehood of each outcome (most of which don't involve a court).



Bedtime.
 


OK, well, as I've said, clubs are happy to do stuff that is illegal like poaching players, which is obviously illegal. The courts can't penalise SU, and the FA have no history of penalising clubs except when it's 100% they were dishonest, so there's not much possible detriment to the club.

See this is the crux of the whole thing. You keep insisting it is illegal. I'm not convinced it is. Perhaps this is no different to gazumping in the property market. Until something is down on paper and signed, the property owner, in this case the contract owner, can still do as he or she pleases. Hence, SU can cancel the original agreement should there be a similarity between this and the law of property.

Anyway, I emailed the FA and am expecting an answer withing 5 working days. No doubt they will answer a completely different question to the one posed. But we can hope :)

According to the echo we have give up

Thank God for that :mellow:
 
Right, lets go and buy some spanish wonderkid for half the price:lol:

sorted(y)
 

As above, mate. We've been gazumped and have only the angels on our side. Lordy QC got it wrong. :D

I'm not giving up until M'learned friend, Lordy of the Bailey, says it's over. There'll be something on Wikipedia to cover this eventuality.
 
I'm not giving up until M'learned friend, Lordy of the Bailey, says it's over. There'll be something on Wikipedia to cover this eventuality.

I'm off to make a new entry:

Kyling:

A legal term describing the wholly despicable tactics of stealing a player from another club once that player's club has agreed his sale to another club. Although Kyling is frowned upon and is highly illegal, it would take at least 2 years to successfully prosecute guilty parties, and by that time you couldn't be arsed anyway.(1)

And it's not like gazumping either.(2)

(1) Lordy GOT
(2) Lordy GOT
 
I'm off to make a new entry:

Kyling:

A legal term describing the wholly despicable tactics of stealing a player from another club once that player's club has agreed his sale to another club. Although Kyling is frowned upon and is highly illegal, it would take at least 2 years to successfully prosecute guilty parties, and by that time you couldn't be arsed anyway.(1)

And it's not like gazumping either.(2)

(1) Lordy GOT
(2) Lordy GOT

:lol:

Coffee all over the keyboard here.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top