Jump to content

John McGinn


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, beyond our ken said:

I did use the web as a resource in my studies, which armed me with a basic understanding of legal principles, but I would never portray myself as an expert in the law as my knowledge is only good enough to let me do my job and also to understand where my limitations are.  It goes no further.

Did you notice that Bazil is now arguing with me rather than purporting the thoroughly debunked idea that any makeweight in a deal for McGinn has no impact on the sum SMFC receives if he is sold by Hibs?

That was where he really started being out of his depth...…….making "absolute" statements without knowledge of all the facts!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


14 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

you are 100% wrong, legislation is the accumulation of written laws and the legal definition is that pieces of legislation are the written acts of parliament, such as the misuse of drugs act or the health and safety at work act.  These are actual laws and contracts are agreements.  Legally enforceable through the courts, but only by interpretation and precedent and not by act of parliament.

It's unbelievable that you refuse to accept that you were flying a kite by saying that a knowledge of legislation would explain how a contract works.  they are two different branches of law.

Legislation relates to laws in this country. Bills that have went through the appropriate routes and passed as law. Legislation has an undoubted impact on contracts, it can't be argued, you are simply wrong. 

My original point being that there is the legislative ability to draft a contract(s) that allow for one player to be transfered for money with another player going the other way depending on the completion of the deal. There is legal ability for such contracts to be enforced? My evidence for this... it's feckin happened countless times in football :lol:

Yes or no legislation would stop a contract taken out to murder someone from being legally binding? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

because you contend that legislation governs contract law.  it doesn't.  You can refer to compliance with any piece of legislation in any contract, but that doesn't make it more enforceable, it is just a way of applying your terms.  

Just takes a basic understanding of legislation to know that it is legally possible. 

Show me where I made any point on governance? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:

I did use the web as a resource in my studies, which armed me with a basic understanding of legal principles, but I would never portray myself as an expert in the law as my knowledge is only good enough to let me do my job and also to understand where my limitations are.  It goes no further.

In the context of this argument, I didn't need to browse for any material as I know the basics.  To be fair to Bazil, he clearly hasn't googled for info to support his argument. if he did he would have stepped away from the keyboard by now

Did you notice that Bazil is now arguing with me rather than purporting the thoroughly debunked idea that any makeweight in a deal for McGinn has no impact on the sum SMFC receives if he is sold by Hibs?

no s*it 

I have a better than basic knowledge of this stuff because of my current job. 

Also if you look at comments today, you'll notice my opinion on makeweight has not changed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Soctty said:

Rabuddies has quoted the SPFL Rulebook - it appears this loophole has been closed, thankfully for us.

That would be in relation to John McGinn going under value. People have posted before saying things like 'Celtic will buy McGinn for pennies and another player for millions so Hibs avoid the sell on fee.' I've actively said that can't happen because of this part of the rule book and we could take it to the court of arbitration if it did happen. 

Regarding attaching a fee to say Scott Allan, if the player is surplus to requirement and Celtic come to terms on transfering him, the value attached to him would be zero. We have no sell on right to Scott Allan so we wouldn't get any additional cost. 

If they sold McGinn for £50 + Scott Allan then it comes back to the court of Aebitration point.  But that won't happen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

That would be in relation to John McGinn going under value. People have posted before saying things like 'Celtic will buy McGinn for pennies and another player for millions so Hibs avoid the sell on fee.' I've actively said that can't happen because of this part of the rule book and we could take it to the court of arbitration if it did happen. 

Regarding attaching a fee to say Scott Allan, if the player is surplus to requirement and Celtic come to terms on transfering him, the value attached to him would be zero. We have no sell on right to Scott Allan so we wouldn't get any additional cost. 

If they sold McGinn for £50 + Scott Allan then it comes back to the court of Aebitration point.  But that won't happen 

Having read the relevant sections of  the ruleboook, it appears we would be able to take it to a tribunal if we felt Allan was undervalued.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polite request: could the gentlemen who are waving their flaccid members in the air and screeching like a couple of gibbons about their in-depth knowledge of obscure legislation, please retire to the Wank Tank to continue this debate?

I understand that premier Cuban cigars and vintage cognac are available on request.

Thank you.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Soctty said:

Having read the relevant sections of  the ruleboook, it appears we would be able to take it to a tribunal if we felt Allan was undervalued.  

I agree at this stage it is subjective, however based on that wording, I don't see us having a leg to stand on. 

Anyway who cares, after last night he's going for £10 million :thumbsup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Drew said:

Polite request: could the gentlemen who are waving their dicks in the air and screeching like a couple of gibbons about their in-depth knowledge of obscure legislation, please retire to the Wank Tank to continue this debate?

I understand that premier Cuban cigars and vintage cognac are available on request.

Thank you.

Some people wave their dicks about money, cars, woman... Naw legislative knowledge is my bag :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 17/03/13 said:

Sky Sports reporting that Brighton are in talks with Hibs to sign John :thumbs2

It doesn't matter who comes in for him and what they offer.John wants to sign for Sellic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Soctty said:

I can't see Lennon taking players he doesn't want. If that were the case I think the deal would already be done. If Hibs want Allan - who starred for them before - how is Celtic's view of him related to Hibs'? The cash price would still have to make sense on top of the player/players.

Genuinely can't see how this is so difficult for you to grasp...

Surely by that rationale then if Hibs really wanted Allan then “the deal would already be done”. I just think I’d rather have the cash to spend on whatever player I want. At the end of the day though it won’t make much difference as realistically Allan can’t carry much of a valuation. 

Anyway looks like it’s all immaterial given the rules so Hibs won’t be shafting us either deliberately or unintentionally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HSS said:

It doesn't matter who comes in for him and what they offer.John wants to sign for Sellic.

Sellick may well be his 1st choice (I dunno) but if he believes them & Hibs will never come to an agreement, he may settle for somewhere else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Surely by that rationale then if Hibs really wanted Allan then “the deal would already be done”. I just think I’d rather have the cash to spend on whatever player I want. At the end of the day though it won’t make much difference as realistically Allan can’t carry much of a valuation. 

Anyway looks like it’s all immaterial given the rules so Hibs won’t be shafting us either deliberately or unintentionally. 

Hibs don't have the same financial clout as Celtic - the McGinn transfer will allow them to go back into the market and strengthen again. They wouldn't spend on Allan until they know Celtic aren't going to screw them over McGinn. But you are right, the current rulebook seems to cover this loophole to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Soctty said:

Hibs don't have the same financial clout as Celtic - the McGinn transfer will allow them to go back into the market and strengthen again. They wouldn't spend on Allan until they know Celtic aren't going to screw them over McGinn. But you are right, the current rulebook seems to cover this loophole to some degree.

Congrats on the Understatement of the Year Award Post 2018 :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...