Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

Non-Boro Football


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Will said:

The only ruling out there that is relevant is that Wigan's appeal on the same grounds was rejected.

Hopefully this one is too, but Derby had to play significantly more matches behind closed doors, so they might get a different outcome.

It could unleash a lot of issues if it did though, plenty of struggling clubs might go in to administration and use them as a basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 34.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  •  

    1582

  •  

    1478

  •  

    1365

  •  

    1232

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Their is a fascinating article about the Boro in today’s Athletic... Nine championship games in 29 days.  Following a team in their maddest run ever.    Neil Warnock was on the pit

Centuries ago Villages had ducking stools whereby if the person drowned they were innocent and if they lived they were guilty and sentenced to death. Nowadays not much has changed sadly. Idiots postin

Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers. I probably shouldn’t have made things public, but I was at as very low ebb. It’s been a difficult year, not made better by COVID. Lockdown bucket lists aren’t

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Humpty said:

I think they'll be pursuing it on the basis of Force Majeur. An unforeseen act of god. Some case law out there to support the impact of covid as force majeur but none specifically in this circumstance. As administrators they have to pursue any opportunity that has the potential to bring more money into the club. I imagine they think they've got nothing to lose as they're going down anyway.

Well, you pose a good point based on what I have read BUT the party in question would need to prove with out doubt that was the only reason for liquidation surly.  

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/covid-19-force-majeure-clause events such as war, terrorism, earthquakes, hurricanes, acts of government, plagues or epidemics. Where the term epidemic, or pandemic, has been used, that will clearly cover Covid-19.

An act of government will have occurred where a government body has imposed travel restrictions, quarantines, or trade embargoes, or has closed buildings or borders, however the position is less clear where the government makes recommendations rather than makes orders using legal powers.

Where no relevant event is specifically mentioned, it is a question of interpretation of the clause whether the parties intended such an event to be covered. This involves considering whether the list of events included was intended to be exhaustive or non-exhaustive. Unless specific words are used to suggest that a list is non-exhaustive, it can be difficult to argue that parties who set out a list of specific events but did not include a particular event, such as an epidemic, nonetheless intended that event to be covered.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, sanddancer said:

Well, you pose a good point based on what I have read BUT the party in question would need to prove with out doubt that was the only reason for liquidation surly.  

https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/covid-19-force-majeure-clause events such as war, terrorism, earthquakes, hurricanes, acts of government, plagues or epidemics. Where the term epidemic, or pandemic, has been used, that will clearly cover Covid-19.

An act of government will have occurred where a government body has imposed travel restrictions, quarantines, or trade embargoes, or has closed buildings or borders, however the position is less clear where the government makes recommendations rather than makes orders using legal powers.

Where no relevant event is specifically mentioned, it is a question of interpretation of the clause whether the parties intended such an event to be covered. This involves considering whether the list of events included was intended to be exhaustive or non-exhaustive. Unless specific words are used to suggest that a list is non-exhaustive, it can be difficult to argue that parties who set out a list of specific events but did not include a particular event, such as an epidemic, nonetheless intended that event to be covered.

 

 

Force Majeure is notoriously undefined under many branches of law.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Humpty said:

Force Majeure is notoriously undefined under many branches of law.

I agree and understand as being part of projects, but both the events, (act single or collectively) and the project, product or process still have to be qualified, categorised and proven to be the source of a measured impact. Most have the inclusion in contracts. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Weasel said:

I get a bit perplexed as to why only the Newcastle takeover is subject to so much scrutiny and condemnation when there are numerous equality and transparency issues with a host of counties, groups and individuals. Just to mention a few but Russia, China, North Korea, India all have abysmal human rights and or regimes records. I don't think we should adopt a policy of these are not as bad as those and my question is why focus on one and not focus on the collective. The second point being the deal was sanctioned and approved, now that may not ethically sit well with a lot of people but unless the law is changed then they are entitled to conduct business. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sanddancer said:

I get a bit perplexed as to why only the Newcastle takeover is subject to so much scrutiny and condemnation when there are numerous equality and transparency issues with a host of counties, groups and individuals. Just to mention a few but Russia, China, North Korea, India all have abysmal human rights and or regimes records. I don't think we should adopt a policy of these are not as bad as those and my question is why focus on one and not focus on the collective. The second point being the deal was sanctioned and approved, now that may not ethically sit well with a lot of people but unless the law is changed then they are entitled to conduct business. 

Russia / Abramovich got a lot of discussion when he first took over Chelsea. The other 3 aren't countries/regimes that directly own a football club in the Premier League, so aren't really relevant. Teams like Man City & PSG do get a lot of talk about their owners. 

I just think this is the most flagrant one yet. As far as I know, Qatar (for example) have never hit the international news for organising the murder of a journalist (although I'm sure they have done plenty of gross *** like that in private). Saudi Arabia are just bold enough to do it all in the public eye.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sanddancer said:

I get a bit perplexed as to why only the Newcastle takeover is subject to so much scrutiny and condemnation when there are numerous equality and transparency issues with a host of counties, groups and individuals. Just to mention a few but Russia, China, North Korea, India all have abysmal human rights and or regimes records. I don't think we should adopt a policy of these are not as bad as those and my question is why focus on one and not focus on the collective. The second point being the deal was sanctioned and approved, now that may not ethically sit well with a lot of people but unless the law is changed then they are entitled to conduct business. 

There is only one other club in this country owned by the ruler/de facto ruler of a country with a bad human rights reputation.

That's Manchester City and there was absolutely loads of scrutiny and condemnation over that takeover.

It's not just the fact the that bin Salman is from Saudi Arabia that's causing the condemnation, it's the fact that he's in control of Saudi Arabia and responsible for many of their human rights abuses.

Every other owner, whether they're from a country with questionable human rights or not, is a private citizen and not controlling the government actions of the country they're from.

Chelsea's owner Abramovich was admittedly once a governor of a backwater region in Russia, but received plenty of scrutiny too, and he's now funding Israeli settlements in Palestine which is also receiving scrutiny and condemnation.

Edited by TeaCider24
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brunners said:

Russia / Abramovich got a lot of discussion when he first took over Chelsea. The other 3 aren't countries/regimes that directly own a football club in the Premier League, so aren't really relevant. Teams like Man City & PSG do get a lot of talk about their owners. 

I just think this is the most flagrant one yet. As far as I know, Qatar (for example) have never hit the international news for organising the murder of a journalist (although I'm sure they have done plenty of gross *** like that in private). Saudi Arabia are just bold enough to do it all in the public eye.

Actually FIFA copped a lot of flak for choosing Qatar to host the next World Cup, due to their poor human rights record. It was reported in the national news how badly they treated the (mostly) migrant workforce and the numbers that died during construction of the stadiums and infrastructure.

Think I'm also right in recalling there were some dodgy elements to their bid which got conveniently overlooked.

Hilariously, Qatar is also currently being sanctioned by a number of Gulf states for allegedly hosting known terrorists. They're also getting grief for breaching broadcast laws, regarding showing of PL games.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AnglianRed said:

Actually FIFA copped a lot of flak for choosing Qatar to host the next World Cup, due to their poor human rights record. It was reported in the national news how badly they treated the (mostly) migrant workforce and the numbers that died during construction of the stadiums and infrastructure.

Think I'm also right in recalling there were some dodgy elements to their bid which got conveniently overlooked.

Hilariously, Qatar is also currently being sanctioned by a number of Gulf states for allegedly hosting known terrorists. They're also getting grief for breaching broadcast laws, regarding showing of PL games.

 

Yeah maybe Qatar wasn't the best example 🙂 You're right they have hit the news quite a bit for their human rights issues, especially regarding the world cup. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brunners said:

Russia / Abramovich got a lot of discussion when he first took over Chelsea. The other 3 aren't countries/regimes that directly own a football club in the Premier League, so aren't really relevant. Teams like Man City & PSG do get a lot of talk about their owners. 

I just think this is the most flagrant one yet. As far as I know, Qatar (for example) have never hit the international news for organising the murder of a journalist (although I'm sure they have done plenty of gross *** like that in private). Saudi Arabia are just bold enough to do it all in the public eye.

That’s about right. Daft enough or not concerned with getting caught. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...