Liverpool accused of falsifying document in tapping-up scandal

[dantes]

Unless you think the boy's father will take the stand and testify that "oh, the date of the contract is 21st, so that's the date of our common intention, so that's it I suppose, our common intention has to be on the 21st because that's what the contract says, we done now?". Trials don't work like that, the contract means shit, the fathers actual intentions are what counts, which are based on the contract, on the circumstances, and all kinds of facts which the judge has to weigh up.

Any decent club would have apologised, said we're sorry we didn't know the rules had changed, let's sit down and find a way to make this right for the boy. Instead we hired our ever incompetent lawyers, shat ourselves, and pulled out the tipex to start changing documents like a bunch of cunts.

 

[i_rushie]

Unless you think the boy's father will take the stand and testify that "oh, the date of the contract is 21st, so that's the date of our common intention, so that's it I suppose, our common intention has to be on the 21st because that's what the contract says, we done now?". Trials don't work like that, the contract means shit, the fathers actual intentions are what counts, which are based on the contract, on the circumstances, and all kinds of facts which the judge has to weigh up.

Any decent club would have apologised, said we're sorry we didn't know the rules had changed, let's sit down and find a way to make this right for the boy. Instead we hired our ever incompetent lawyers, shat ourselves, and pulled out the tipex to start changing documents like a bunch of cunts.

Your proposition that the alleged falsification of the date was designed to alter the club's liability is
(a) entirely premised on the conjecture that the club may or may not have sought to vary what the father believed he had signed up to- unilaterally- on 2 Sept;
(b) although such variation is not alleged by the father in any of the multiple soundbites he's given to the press;
(c) and in any event, fails to be cognisant of the fact that what is alleged by the father is that there is a promise by the club to pay for the boy's private education until he was 16, a promise which may well be specifically enforceable on its own without reference to either of the two dates if the father establishes that he would not have incurred the liability for the fees (at least for that school term) had he not relied on the club's promise, and there are no other contractual qualifications to the contrary.

This is probably boring the fuck out of the forum now, so it's my last post on this. Disagree away, our exchanges are usually fruitless like that.

 

[dantes]

True there is nothing worse than becoming boring. Alas I'd have conceded (a) and (b), but obliterated you upon (c) if my precious '0' was on the line.

 

[gkmacca]

I certainly think clubs should have nothing to do with any kid's formal schooling. If they're fancied as genuinely top class footballing prospects, I rather doubt they'll have the time or inclination to concentrate on achieving outstanding academic qualifications, let alone becoming the little Lord Fauntleroys that this kid's dad appears so intent on witnessing. What next - the next Beckham only being touted around with the proviso clubs would have to foot the bill for Eton? If a player wants to join a club at that level, let him sign and then find him a local comprehensive, and then shut the feck up.

 

[StevieM]

I certainly think clubs should have nothing to do with any kid's formal schooling. If they're fancied as genuinely top class footballing prospects, I rather doubt they'll have the time or inclination to concentrate on achieving outstanding academic qualifications, let alone becoming the little Lord Fauntleroys that this kid's dad appears so intent on witnessing. What next - the next Beckham only being touted around with the proviso clubs would have to foot the bill for Eton? If a player wants to join a club at that level, let him sign and then find him a local comprehensive, and then shut the feck up.

Still, though, you can hardly blame a father for wanting to ensure his son gets a good education given that, no matter how good he is at youth level, there's no guarantee he'll make a living as a player.

I don't buy this, the father's dodgy line - seems to be based on the fact that we fucked up.

We courted him, promised him things, then reneged when the rules changed and seemingly just walked away.

Given the sums of cash to compensate Stoke or even the school fees - it's incredible we just didn't square it all up then walk away with all sides happy - Stoke get their compensation, kid gets his fees and free to join another club, and we don't get our names dragged through the mud again.

But no... we had to make a drama out of it.

 

[RedStar]

Still, though, you can hardly blame a father for wanting to ensure his son gets a good education given that, no matter how good he is at youth level, there's no guarantee he'll make a living as a player.

I don't buy this, the father's dodgy line - seems to be based on the fact that we fucked up.

We courted him, promised him things, then reneged when the rules changed and seemingly just walked away.

Given the sums of cash to compensate Stoke or even the school fees - it's incredible we just didn't square it all up then walk away with all sides happy - Stoke get their compensation, kid gets his fees and free to join another club, and we don't get our names dragged through the mud again.

But no... we had to make a drama out of it.

That's what sticks out for me, we look like total cunts for the sake of what £60k.

 

[Hyena]

Unless you think the boy's father will take the stand and testify that "oh, the date of the contract is 21st, so that's the date of our common intention, so that's it I suppose, our common intention has to be on the 21st because that's what the contract says, we done now?". Trials don't work like that, the contract means shit, the fathers actual intentions are what counts, which are based on the contract, on the circumstances, and all kinds of facts which the judge has to weigh up.

Any decent club would have apologised, said we're sorry we didn't know the rules had changed, let's sit down and find a way to make this right for the boy. Instead we hired our ever incompetent lawyers, shat ourselves, and pulled out the tipex to start changing documents like a bunch of cunts.

You sound like you've been badly burnt in court in as a litigant lol

 

[gkmacca]

Still, though, you can hardly blame a father for wanting to ensure his son gets a good education given that, no matter how good he is at youth level, there's no guarantee he'll make a living as a player.

I don't buy this, the father's dodgy line - seems to be based on the fact that we fucked up.

We courted him, promised him things, then reneged when the rules changed and seemingly just walked away.

Given the sums of cash to compensate Stoke or even the school fees - it's incredible we just didn't square it all up then walk away with all sides happy - Stoke get their compensation, kid gets his fees and free to join another club, and we don't get our names dragged through the mud again.

But no... we had to make a drama out of it.

There are plenty of other ways to get a good education, and they don't involve insisting a football club pays for it. If his son's education really is paramount, maybe he should stop hawking him around football clubs and leave him to get on with it. As for the feck up, if it happened it's a disgrace and should be punished severely, but as this allegation was already noted and, as far as I can see, dismissed, I'm not sure what he's up to now.

 

[dantes]

You sound like you've been badly burnt in court in as a litigant lol

They have, it ought to have been a friendly litigation that I obviously will win. By burning me, mentally disfiguring me before the Colombian girl, making her think ill of me, they've turned this into a game of who can inflict the greatest pain and then win. That is not the game to be playing against me.

 

[StevieM]

There are plenty of other ways to get a good education, and they don't involve insisting a football club pays for it. If his son's education really is paramount, maybe he should stop hawking him around football clubs and leave him to get on with it. As for the feck up, if it happened it's a disgrace and should be punished severely, but as this allegation was already noted and, as far as I can see, dismissed, I'm not sure what he's up to now.

By the timeline posted earlier, the kid was only moved to a private school because his old school refused to release him to Stoke's training program.

Father has got him into a private school, Stoke agreed to pay for the fees - nothing wrong with that.

We've come along, tapped him up, offered all sorts of stuff, the boys father agreed, the rules changed and we just walked away and washed our hands of it without regard for anything.

That's a terrible way to do business.

The more I read about this, the more I think we've been absolutely despicable.... and by that I mean - it's so easily solveable.

Poor form on our part.

 

[jason]

They have, it ought to have been a friendly litigation that I obviously will win. By burning me, mentally disfiguring me before the Colombian girl, making her think ill of me, they've turned this into a game of who can inflict the greatest pain and then win. That is not the game to be playing against me.

I'm not saying you will win, but I hope you do Dantes.