Guest AbbeyOwl Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Nope, can't recall someone in the first 28 days of a loan You seem intent of wanting to argue i am not bothered, the Cup rules are in place whether there is a better method who knows I dont really care, if you do start a thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamese Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 You seem intent of wanting to argue i am not bothered, the Cup rules are in place whether there is a better method who knows I dont really care, if you do start a thread Nope, not wanting to argue, just putting the facts across, and you saying it was obvious why it was in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AbbeyOwl Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Nope, not wanting to argue, just putting the facts across, and you saying it was obvious why it was in place. Just search on Google you will find the answer as I say Im not that fussed I know they are in place and for the reason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Road Runner Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 What's the high risk with us? Low non footballing revenue, no history of high revenue. Look across the city low commercial revenue believed (not checked just heard). High Risk in my eyes. Would you invest millions with no past results? Even the footballing side does not generate a lot. We are a premiership ground, premiership/championship fans and league two standard revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamese Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Just search on Google you will find the answer as I say Im not that fussed I know they are in place and for the reason Haha, you make me laugh Abbry. Don't know an answer, direct people to google. Anyways, back to the original thread now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Deleted member Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 show me a precedent Is it ok if I do? One that even includes Sheffield Wednesday? Last year, the former company that had been liquidated was reinstated as a Company by solicitors from Liverpool, in order that it could be served with legal papers relating to a former worker on the North Stand when it was constructed in the 1960s, who wanted to claim for asbestosis. So - boxes ticked include The former company no longer existing - irrelevant Action over an event over 50 years ago - completely possible Ownership of the company changing - irrelevant Hope that helps for you guys to at least consider the points Abbey Owl is making rather than circling like a pack of wolves and discounting everything he says - just because its him thats saying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AbbeyOwl Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Is it ok if I do? One that even includes Sheffield Wednesday? Last year, the former company that had been liquidated was reinstated as a Company by solicitors from Liverpool, in order that it could be served with legal papers relating to a former worker on the North Stand when it was constructed in the 1960s, who wanted to claim for asbestosis. So - boxes ticked include The former company no longer existing - irrelevant Action over an event over 50 years ago - completely possible Ownership of the company changing - irrelevant Hope that helps for you guys to at least consider the points Abbey Owl is making rather than circling like a pack of wolves and discounting everything he says - just because its him thats saying it. Thank you Haha, you make me laugh Abbry. Don't know an answer, direct people to google. Anyways, back to the original thread now Google knows more than me, hard to believe I know, are you my ex wife?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatzooma Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Leeds with be in the premier league long before usYes...but at least we will have our integrity..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevthelodgemoorowl Posted February 7, 2014 Author Share Posted February 7, 2014 Still any barrister worth his salt would be pinching money representing Wednesday in any such litigation. If this goes to Court it will be the Emergency Services, The FA and possibly the Government who stand as the accused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AbbeyOwl Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Still any barrister worth his salt would be pinching money representing Wednesday in any such litigation. If this goes to Court it will be the Emergency Services, The FA and possibly the Government who stand as the accused. As long as we have a valid safety certificate you are completely correct. It is the comments of Cameron, there are dying to get the masses on side, you see it with so many things. Anyhow I hope you are correct looks like the inquest is going to get nasty. Sometimes sleeping dogs are best left to lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dowls Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Abbey Owl you fail to recognise the Pandora's box that will he opened, currently no legislation exist whereby SWFC will face additional claims (we have already paid out you know) Plus currently there is no "fresh new evidence" about SWFC and Hillsborough as it stands - EVERYTHING regards the club you have seen recently from the "independent" enquiry was already known and covered as part of Taylor report and inquests. That is not true of the other institutions involved If we do end up with a charge on no new evidence then UK PLC better be prepared for an avalanche of claims for all sorts - something no Government wants!! Comments made in Parliment are done so with the knowledge of legal indemnity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dowls Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) The Saftey certificate is a red herring as again it is not NEW Evidence it is existing Evidence in context with new evidence about SYP statement altering Edited February 8, 2014 by dowls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now