bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: And there the problem lies. Well it's not a lie is it? Check other money + player deals and come back to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Be better if you just admitted you made an arse of your latest attempt to gain my attention [emoji177] Yet again Fud Holy f**k. You've got a high opinion of yourself. Do I need to explain once again how a forum works? I do like the name you use to sign off your posts though - suits you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 5 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said: How would that be Hibs shafting us Soctty? Hibs will do their very best to get as much cash as they possibly can. It’s not in their interests to do anything else. Celtic will only pay what they are prepared to pay and Hibs have no control over that. If Celtic choose to throw in a player to the deal, Hibs can only make a decision on the offer proposed to them. If Hibs can get players to reduce the cash coming in, they pay us less. IT's common sense. IF they get Allan and three other players and Celtic pay £1m less, Hibs save themselves £333k. It's basic. Hibs would like not far off £5m, as that would leave them with just over £3m. The lower it goes, the less value is in it for them selling for cash, so throw in a few players and they save on the sell on clause. It's up to you whether you regard that as shafting us - I think it is, and think most clubs in their position would try to do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 54 minutes ago, bazil85 said: It's not a thing I'm afraid. We won't get any additional value if a player is part of the sell on. The contracts of McGinn and Allan would be set up in such a way as to transfer on completion of the deal. Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that is legally possible. Saints would have no claim on it whatsover to be more financially compensatied. The sell on will very clearly state we're entitled to 33% from cash transfer fees, it will not say cash and additional player movement. For once we agree. It's happened before where clubs have done a straight swap and a sell on clause has gone unpaid because there was not monetary value to the transaction. But let's live in cloud cuckoo land where everything is above board and fair... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, Soctty said: For once we agree. It's happened before where clubs have done a straight swap and a sell on clause has gone unpaid because there was not monetary value to the transaction. But let's live in cloud cuckoo land where everything is above board and fair... Yep agreed, dodgy dealings happen everyday. Football is by no means an exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 38 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Are you serious? Absolutely Legislation is set by parliament and contract law is between interested parties adhering to precedents and principles. Show me one piece of legislation that tells you how to write a contract Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: Absolutely Legislation is set by parliament and contract law is between interested parties adhering to precedents and principles. Show me one piece of legislation that tells you how to write a contract Contract signed under duress Misleading contract legislation. A contract entered where the T&Cs is found to have been misled are not legally binding Cancellation rights legislation To think there is no legislation to back-up a LEGAL contract is beyond ridiculous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 minute ago, bazil85 said: Contract signed under duress Misleading contract legislation. A contract entered where the T&Cs is found to have been misled are not legally binding Cancellation rights legislation To think there is no legislation to back-up a LEGAL contract is beyond ridiculous And the the titles of those pieces of legislation are? As written into UK law, if you please. Or could it be that youTHINK you know about the law, but in essence, know hee-haw about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, bazil85 said: Contract signed under duress Misleading contract legislation. A contract entered where the T&Cs is found to have been misled are not legally binding Cancellation rights legislation To think there is no legislation to back-up a LEGAL contract is beyond ridiculous There is no definition of 'legal contract'... if parties sign up to one, then there is a dispute, its the adherence, or not, to the agreement that can be challenged 'legally' to follow your logic would be to suggest that you had to adhere to a contract, even if a particular clause menat breaking the law, which obviously no contract can hold you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddie Marvelous Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Yeez both know HEE HAW. All you both have done is Google! So well done both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, beyond our ken said: And the the titles of those pieces of legislation are? As written into UK law, if you please. Or could it be that youTHINK you know about the law, but in essence, know hee-haw about it. Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that it is legally possible. ^^My point regarding writting of legal contracts about the noted situation. Contractual law in this country needs to be legal in order to be enfourceable. Surely you don't disagree? I think anyone with a shred of common sense knows there is legal aspects to legal contracts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, Lord Pityme said: There is no definition of 'legal contract'... if parties sign up to one, then there is a dispute, its the adherence, or not, to the agreement that can be challenged 'legally' to follow your logic would be to suggest that you had to adhere to a contract, even if a particular clause menat breaking the law, which obviously no contract can hold you to. There is however current legislation that must be adhered to in signing a contract in this country. Do you disagree? The second part is not what I said in the slightest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Buddie Marvelous said: Jeez both know HEE HAW. All you both have done is Google! So well done both. No I've not, I deal with legislative and regulatory requirements in my role daily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddie Marvelous Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 No I've not, I deal with legislative and regulatory requirements in my role daily. Apologies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Buddie Marvelous said: Apologies Too late, he is suing you. Edited August 2, 2018 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 10 minutes ago, bazil85 said: There is however current legislation that must be adhered to in signing a contract in this country. Do you disagree? The second part is not what I said in the slightest. There are for credit agreements etc, but they relate to the individuals rights, rather than to the contract. a contract is just a set of words! The clauses cannot induce one or other parties to break the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 11 minutes ago, Lord Pityme said: There are for credit agreements etc, but they relate to the individuals rights, rather than to the contract. a contract is just a set of words! The clauses cannot induce one or other parties to break the law. I’ve never said it could, in fact my point is the exact opposite. Beyond our Ken is trying to argue that legislation doesn’t impact contract law. Your point about a contract not being able to include a clause to break the law is one of many ways legislation ties into a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: There is however current legislation that must be adhered to in signing a contract in this country. Do you disagree? The second part is not what I said in the slightest. Name that legislation you can’t because there is none you clearly misunderstand the very narrow definition that the word legislation carries it refers to acts of parliament not all things related to the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: No I've not, I deal with legislative and regulatory requirements in my role daily. Then then think again, cos you are out of your depth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, bazil85 said: No I've not, I deal with legislative and regulatory requirements in my roll daily. I prefer sausage and tottie scone. Edited August 2, 2018 by pod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Just now, pod said: I prefer sausage and pottie scone. the very thought of a pottie scone leaves a bad taste in the mouth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, beyond our ken said: the very thought of a pottie scone leaves a bad taste in the mouth spotted it before I seen your reply. Forums driving me pottie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 Got excited when I saw a big run of posts on the John McGinn for sale thread..... ....imagine by disappointment after reading the last four pages of this pish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddies1877 Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 It's not a thing I'm afraid. We won't get any additional value if a player is part of the sell on. The contracts of McGinn and Allan would be set up in such a way as to transfer on completion of the deal. Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that is legally possible. Saints would have no claim on it whatsover to be more financially compensatied. The sell on will very clearly state we're entitled to 33% from cash transfer fees, it will not say cash and additional player movement. Did you write this contact out and keep it from Stuart Gilmour because I remember him tweeting few weeks ago he thinks it would go to a tribunal if any players were involved in the transfer of mcginn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DumboBud Posted August 2, 2018 Report Share Posted August 2, 2018 At least one person on here proving that a little knowledge makes them think that they know a lot while simultaneously proving to everyone else that they actually know nothing. Nobody knows they full terms of the agreement apart from those involved in it, everything else is just conjecture and no spurious spouting about legislation will change that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.