Media discussion - 2024/25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gone for a Burton said:
Emirati backed....??

Does he mean Arsenal.... ??

I think he should understand that City are privately owned by a Sheikh Mansour controlled company & Silver Lake, an American Entertainment company.

Not difficult eh .....unless your a duplicitous,maliciously,lying **** !!
Click to expand...
Sheikh Mansour is an Emirati. He backs City. City are Emirati-backed.
 
NowInMilnrow said:
The only big Edwardian semis I can think of are at the top end of Burnage Lane, effectively in Levenshulme. I guess North Didsbury sounds better than Levy! I lived 20 years on Baldock Rd off Parrs Wood Road, which the estate agent sold to me as Didsbury, and everyone thought of as Didsbury, but is actually in Burnage. I only cared when I came to sell it - must have added an extra £50k.
Click to expand...
When buying: “Heaton Norris”.
When selling: “Heaton Moor”.
 
blue b4 the moon said:
Interesting that the BBC sport brekkie news made no mention of Leicester's win.
Click to expand...
They did on 5 live at 7am.
Their view is that Leicester exploited a loophole.
The explanation was along the lines of 'that was how the rule was worded, but not how it was intended.
They then said that the Premier League were surprised and disappointed in the outcome

Neither the BBC or the Premier League are fit for purpose.
 
BlueAnorak said:
That Summer Net Spend being talked about everywhere in the press (not)...
onefootball.com

Premier League clubs summer 2024 total transfer spending – All 20 clubs listed in order…

Read this news on OneFootball.
onefootball.com onefootball.com
Click to expand...
Why are the premier league using sky sports figures as a statement of fact on the transfer figures when we know they're about as accurate as Ken Dodds accountant, surely as the organisation that runs the league they will have the precuse figures, or let me guess they couldn't run a piss up in a brewery who'd have thought it eh!
 
BlueFurn said:
They did on 5 live at 7am.
Their view is that Leicester exploited a loophole.
The explanation was along the lines of 'that was how the rule was worded, but not how it was intended.
They then said that the Premier League were surprised and disappointed in the outcome

Neither the BBC or the Premier League are fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
If it is a loophole then the PL are grossly incompetent. There is no other logical conclusion to arrive at. Why is this not being raised by the BBC, given the existence of this ‘loophole’?
 
BlueFurn said:
They did on 5 live at 7am.
Their view is that Leicester exploited a loophole.
The explanation was along the lines of 'that was how the rule was worded, but not how it was intended.
They then said that the Premier League were surprised and disappointed in the outcome

Neither the BBC or the Premier League are fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
There are loopholes all round for City to exploit in our case. Hopefully Lord Panick will lead them a merry dance
 
BlueFurn said:
They did on 5 live at 7am.
Their view is that Leicester exploited a loophole.
The explanation was along the lines of 'that was how the rule was worded, but not how it was intended.
They then said that the Premier League were surprised and disappointed in the outcome

Neither the BBC or the Premier League are fit for purpose.
Click to expand...
Cunts, so they write a rule down, Leicester abide by it but, then they say 'oh we didn’t mean it like that' not surprised it was kicked out. Can you imagine if everyone treated contracts like that.
 
Lots of boiled piss this morning! Talksport can’t make their minds up. One minute they’re fuming about Leicester then mcoist says it’s “brilliant” what Leicester have done! No mention of the rags 75 mil losses though! Funny that no outrage there. One things for sure they’ll be determined we get done now
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
If it is a loophole then the PL are grossly incompetent. There is no other logical conclusion to arrive at. Why is this not being raised by the BBC, given the existence of this ‘loophole’?
Click to expand...

I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.

One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.

It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
 
petrusha said:
I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.

One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.

It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
Click to expand...
The contra proferentem doctrine is kindergarten stuff, mate.
 
petrusha said:
I still have a solicitor's practising certificate and continue to give professional legal advice sometimes, but it's some years since that was the main thrust of how I earn a living. Teaching and training is one of my principal activities now, and, as well as topics of substantive law, I teach legal writing.

One of the first things I tell students is to check what they've written and make sure that it can be read in only one possible way, no matter how easy they may think it should be to discern their actual intention. I explain to them that the last thing one wants as a practitioner is for one's output to be litigated before a court or tribunal because it's ambiguous, with the only argument being that it should be obvious what was really meant.

It's utterly pathetic that the PL should found itself doing that very thing in a case such as the one at hand. The principle is so basic that I try to instill it into not only legal professionals but even university students who have yet to start in legal practice. For the PL to fall foul of that principle is nothing short of humiliating.
Click to expand...
Self humiliation seems to be what the PL excel in, let's hope it continues for the next couple of months.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top