Jump to content

Recommended Posts

in my opinion, it is looking like Celtic will buy John McGinn before the end of this transfer window with Scott Allan going the other way in part exchange....probably not for as much combined value as we would hope, and likely not in time for us to spend some of our windfall. I think that is what will transpire.  I will meet a Hibs fan farmer at the bar at the Kintyre Agricultural show later today and he will confirm or debunk this.

There you are now.

And, getting a bad feeling about Stephen if the situation above plays out as described......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Sorry mate, genuinely not being obtuse, but I don't follow. 

If Celtic pay Hibs 2.5mm, Hibs get 1.675m

If Celtic pay Hibs 1m and some players (that they may or may not actually want), Hibs get 666k. How is that beneficial to Hibs just because they also got a few of Celtic's cast offs. Genuinely lost.

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, buddies1877 said:

IMG_1533249264.761737.jpg

It appears I - and others - stand corrected. This is a welcome inclusion in the SPFL rules, and one that would've been very welcome in the years goneby where clubs fudged transfers to weasel there way out of sell on clauses.

Very happy to be proved wrong. 

:clapping

Edited by Soctty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

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 

I absolutely don't, legislation is the process of enacting laws through parlament. There isn't one single element of legislation that ties into contract law, there are several. The process to legislate allows us to confirm if a contract is legally binding or not.

As LPM has elluded to, if you and me sign a contract saying you'll pay me £500 for pushing someone off a building, it wouldn't be legally binding as there is previously passed legislation against murder. 

This is unbelievable you're still trying to debate this :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, buddies1877 said:

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

You mean the tweet where he said he's not sure and took a guess? We will only get value of the cash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I absolutely don't, legislation is the process of enacting laws through parlament. There isn't one single element of legislation that ties into contract law, there are several. The process to legislate allows us to confirm if a contract is legally binding or not.

As LPM has elluded to, if you and me sign a contract saying you'll pay me £500 for pushing someone off a building, it wouldn't be legally binding as there is previously passed legislation against murder. 

This is unbelievable you're still trying to debate this :blink:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Show me where I'm out of my depth. 

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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pod said:

The wonders of the web.

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?

Edited by beyond our ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pod said:

The wonders of the web.

Scary to read 2 posters arguing about things most of us know nothing about and don't care about at this time in the morning  :o   We will get what we get when McGinn moved, and all we should hope is to get some money rather than nothing in 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!!

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

You mean the tweet where he said he's not sure and took a guess? We will only get value of the cash. 

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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:

Share this post


Link to post
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...