United Versus Schoolyard bullies

Red Hand Devil · 10th July 2008, 14:18

A young kid in the school playground is being hassled & bullied for his lunch money, the kid refuses to hand it over, so he endures constant pressure but still holds his ground. The bully thinks he is stronger & more powerful than the young kid, but the kid does not believe that to be true, and has vowed to fight the bully if required. Then along comes the Headmaster to enquire about what is happening.

The bullied kid says "he wants my lunch money but i need it for myself to be bigger & stronger.." and the bully replies "I need that money more than he does as i am the biggest boy in the school..". Then the Headmaster says to the bullied kid "this kid is bigger than you, therefore needs more food than you... give him your lunch money now...".

The kid has three choices: (1) either hand over his lunch money to the bully & remain hungry until he obtains more money (2) tell the Headmaster to fuck off as its his money & find himself in trouble or (3) get help from the other boys in the school & take on the bully and the Headmaster!

Thats the scenario at the minute. United now seem to not only have Platini & Uefa in support of Reals persistence in obtaining Ronaldo but now we have Sepp Blatter of FIFA championing the cause of Ronnie being allowed to leave United & joining Real regardless of a signed 5 year contract & only 1 year completed of that contract.

I have never in my lifetime witnessed such bully-boy tactics from our World Governing Football bodies against an individual football team with regards to contractual obligations! Such solidarity reeks of corruption or the wielding an Anti-United / Anti-English Football agenda.

United are taking a stand & it seems, otherwise quietly, that we have support from some of Europe's top teams, whom a degree of which have battled the same Real Madrid public relations machine themselves. Its a propaganda machine. A tool of facsism - much used by dictators such as Franco, Mussolini & Hitler, and which Real use as tool to unsettle & obtain a contracted player.

We are fortunate to have on our side the Chairman of the European Club Association Karl-Heinz Rumminegge when he said "I am not worried about the case because the rules are clear and Manchester United has a very strong contract with the player for the next four years.."

He also went onto criticise the behaviour of Real Madrid in their pursuit of Ronnie "I cannot believe that a club like Real Madrid can force a player like Cristiano Ronaldo to cause such tension, because the price that they will have to pay is too high for everyone".

It is great to have support from high ranking football people all over Europe, but United now need the support from our own Football Authority - the Football Association!

Figures such as Brian Barwick need to earn their bacon again. He listened to what the Glazers had to say when they took over United & was pleased with what he heard, referring to United as the "Jewel in the Crown of English Football" and nothing should jeopardise that standing. Barwick needs to do the same again, only this time he'll be taking on a much more powerful machine than the Glazers!

Maybe Uefa / FIFA feel that by attacking United they attack English Football as a whole, and if they can bring United down a peg or two, English Football will follow suit & in doing so will show the rest of the football world how is boss!

If United are forced to let Ronaldo leave to join Real, it will create such hysteria amongst all of the clubs of Europe & many of which, like ourselves have built their team around their prized assets!

What message does this send out to the rest of the sporting world?! The present European Champions are being treated with such disregard & an agenda of some sort is being wielded & played out in the media by our so-called "leading figures" in Football!

If the worst happens & Ronnie leaves for FIFA's darling club Real Madrid, should United take the unprecedented step of boycotting the World Club Championships in protest? Would the ramifications be too high to make such a protest??

There's an irony in that scenario. When we last won the Champions League in 1999, we forfeited (otherwise known as forced to) our right to compete in the FA Cup by entering the World Club Championships the next year. We got alot of negative publicity about that and much of it undeserved due to ABU'ness being at its most strongest. This time we would be refusing to play in the same competition that caused us so much grief!

If things persist the way they are, I feel United may well make a huge stand against the powers that be, but in doing so - we will need the help of the other boys in the schoolyard

What say you?

robthered · 10th July 2008, 14:23

Crap allegory.

Stick it in the Ronaldo thread.

A1Dan · 10th July 2008, 14:31

I say you've got too much time on your hands. That and:

"Figures such as Brian Barwick need to earn their bacon again"

I must have missed it the first time he did anything to earn his bacon. As far as I'm concerned he's just as much of an incompetent, biased free-loader as Platini and Blatter.

UnofficialDevil · 10th July 2008, 14:36

The bullied kid says "he wants my lunch money but i need it for myself to be bigger & stronger.." and the bully replies "I need that money more than he does as i am the biggest boy in the school..". Then the Headmaster says to the bullied kid "this kid is bigger than you, therefore needs more food than you... give him your lunch money now...".

Red Hand Devil · 10th July 2008, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1Dan

I say you've got too much time on your hands. That and:

"Figures such as Brian Barwick need to earn their bacon again"

I must have missed it the first time he did anything to earn his bacon. As far as I'm concerned he's just as much of an incompetent, biased free-loader as Platini and Blatter.

Yeah i work in watch making factory!

I dont have much time for Barwick, alot of that due to when he was at the BBC, but he did voice his concern at the Glazer takeover & met with them to establish their intentions. He walked away content that the club wouldnt change apart from the ownership issue!

But whether he feels the need to back United in any stance they may make, remains unknown!

Ecroyd · 10th July 2008, 14:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by A1Dan

I say you've got too much time on your hands. That and:

"Figures such as Brian Barwick need to earn their bacon again"

I must have missed it the first time he did anything to earn his bacon. As far as I'm concerned he's just as much of an incompetent, biased free-loader as Platini and Blatter.

i agree all three of them are wasters, still hate platini more though.

apart from that it was quite a good read

UnofficialDevil · 10th July 2008, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hand Devil

Yeah i work in watch making factory!

I dont have much time for Barwick, alot of that due to when he was at the BBC, but he did voice his concern at the Glazer takeover & met with them to establish their intentions. He walked away content that the club wouldnt change apart from the ownership issue!

But whether he feels the need to back United in any stance they may make, remains unknown!

Really? What watches do you make?

Red Hand Devil · 10th July 2008, 14:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnofficialDevil

Really? What watches do you make?

The one's that Fergie uses with 5 extra minutes!

redevil2 · 10th July 2008, 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hand Devil

...

Sepp Blatter of FIFA championing the cause of Ronnie being allowed to leave United & joining Real regardless of a signed 5 year contract & only 1 year completed of that contract.

....

What say you?

While you are using a school playground analogy as a result of an idiotic/ridiculous statement made by Sepp Blatter, I am more inclined to analyse along a more serious line of thinking. There is an implication of a possible breach of Tort Law as far as Sepp Blatter is concerned having publicly made that statement.

In English law, there is a tort law offence known as 'Inducing Breach of Contract'

In short, “It is a violation of legal right to interfere with contractual relations recognized by law if there is no sufficient justification for the interference.”

And it's quite plainly Sepp Blatter might have committed such Tort offence!!!

The tort is described variously as inducing or procuring breach of contract, actionable interference with contractual rights. It has been applied to contracts of all kinds, the general tort of “direct invasion of legal rights” if you like.

In other words, it has been held in Court it's wrongful intentionally and without justification to bring about the violation of a legal right, the legal right of one party vis-à-vis the other to have a contract performed.

That said, for an act of inducement to be actionable, three elements are necessary.

First, the procurer must know of the existence of the contract and intend to interfere with its performance. (Check! Sepp Blatter is aware of the contractual relationship of the player and United)

Secondly, the procurer must not have had any sufficient justification for so acting. In this respect, the courts may have regard “to the nature of the contract broken; the position of the parties to the contract; the grounds for the breach; the means employed to procure the breach; the relation of the person procuring the breach to the person who breaks the contract; and ... the object of the person in procuring the breach”. To justify an inducement, it is not enough to show that the procurer was acting in good faith in the pursuit of a legitimate interest; there has to be something in the nature of a moral duty or a distinct legal right to act.(Check! Sepp Blatter has no moral and therefore has no justification in law in making such statement)

Thirdly, the contract must actually have been broken, causing actual damage to the plaintiff. (now we are awaiting Ronnie to breach his contract, and Sepp Blatter is to be accountable for the damages we have suffered!)

What say you? (Well never mind, I am more interested in what the Legal Team at United has to say about it! I hope they do something!!!)

Maestro Minded · 10th July 2008, 15:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by redevil2

While you are using a school playground analogy as a result of an idiotic/ridiculous statement made by Sepp Blatter, I am more inclined to analyse along a more serious line of thinking. There is an implication of a possible breach of Tort Law as far as Sepp Blatter is concerned having publicly made that statement.

In English law, there is a tort law offence known as 'Inducing Breach of Contract'

In short, “It is a violation of legal right to interfere with contractual relations recognized by law if there is no sufficient justification for the interference.”

And it's quite plainly Sepp Blatter might have committed such Tort offence!!!

The tort is described variously as inducing or procuring breach of contract, actionable interference with contractual rights. It has been applied to contracts of all kinds, the general tort of “direct invasion of legal rights” if you like.

In other words, it has been held in Court it's wrongful intentionally and without justification to bring about the violation of a legal right, the legal right of one party vis-à-vis the other to have a contract performed.

That said, for an act of inducement to be actionable, three elements are necessary.

First, the procurer must know of the existence of the contract and intend to interfere with its performance. (Check! Sepp Blatter is aware of the contractual relationship of the player and United)

Secondly, the procurer must not have had any sufficient justification for so acting. In this respect, the courts may have regard “to the nature of the contract broken; the position of the parties to the contract; the grounds for the breach; the means employed to procure the breach; the relation of the person procuring the breach to the person who breaks the contract; and ... the object of the person in procuring the breach”. To justify an inducement, it is not enough to show that the procurer was acting in good faith in the pursuit of a legitimate interest; there has to be something in the nature of a moral duty or a distinct legal right to act.(Check! Sepp Blatter has no moral and therefore has no justification in law in making such statement)

Thirdly, the contract must actually have been broken, causing actual damage to the plaintiff. (now we are awaiting Ronnie to breach his contract, and Sepp Blatter is to be accountable for the damages we have suffered!)

What say you? (Well never mind, I am more interested in what the Legal Team at United has to say about it! I hope they do something!!!)

Sepp Blatter can't be accountable for any breach of english law since he doesnt live in england, nor is he an english citizen and therefore doesn't have any obligation to follow english law

mosesfromtala · 10th July 2008, 15:46

the other boys in the schollyard, the ones we bully? a bully getting bullied is all they'd see ... poor little manchester united .... get fucked, what about Stam, hargreaves and saha, the modern game is largely money based nonsense, with, in the main, no loyalty to anything except money, United are no different to any other club, certain personalities, like Fergie and Giggs and Scholes add a human and decent shade but it's a huge multibillion pound global industry and as such is full of cunts ... and the rules are jungle rules , everyone wants the best team and will do whatever they can to get it ... Real are doing what they are because they can ... and they are the only ones who can in this situation ...

Red Hand Devil · 10th July 2008, 16:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by redevil2

While you are using a school playground analogy as a result of an idiotic/ridiculous statement made by Sepp Blatter, I am more inclined to analyse along a more serious line of thinking. There is an implication of a possible breach of Tort Law as far as Sepp Blatter is concerned having publicly made that statement.

In English law, there is a tort law offence known as 'Inducing Breach of Contract'

In short, “It is a violation of legal right to interfere with contractual relations recognized by law if there is no sufficient justification for the interference.”

And it's quite plainly Sepp Blatter might have committed such Tort offence!!!

The tort is described variously as inducing or procuring breach of contract, actionable interference with contractual rights. It has been applied to contracts of all kinds, the general tort of “direct invasion of legal rights” if you like.

In other words, it has been held in Court it's wrongful intentionally and without justification to bring about the violation of a legal right, the legal right of one party vis-à-vis the other to have a contract performed.

That said, for an act of inducement to be actionable, three elements are necessary.

First, the procurer must know of the existence of the contract and intend to interfere with its performance. (Check! Sepp Blatter is aware of the contractual relationship of the player and United)

Secondly, the procurer must not have had any sufficient justification for so acting. In this respect, the courts may have regard “to the nature of the contract broken; the position of the parties to the contract; the grounds for the breach; the means employed to procure the breach; the relation of the person procuring the breach to the person who breaks the contract; and ... the object of the person in procuring the breach”. To justify an inducement, it is not enough to show that the procurer was acting in good faith in the pursuit of a legitimate interest; there has to be something in the nature of a moral duty or a distinct legal right to act.(Check! Sepp Blatter has no moral and therefore has no justification in law in making such statement)

Thirdly, the contract must actually have been broken, causing actual damage to the plaintiff. (now we are awaiting Ronnie to breach his contract, and Sepp Blatter is to be accountable for the damages we have suffered!)

What say you? (Well never mind, I am more interested in what the Legal Team at United has to say about it! I hope they do something!!!)

Good point man, but i think Blatter has probably covered himself in some way like a scoundrel always does!

Interesting to hear what UEFA's communications director William Gaillard said to counter what Blatter said regarding footballers being slaves: "It would be useful to remind people that slaves in all of the slavery systems never earned a wage"

http://www.teamtalk.com/football/sto...801272,00.html

Red Hand Devil · 10th July 2008, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosesfromtala

the other boys in the schollyard, the ones we bully? a bully getting bullied is all they'd see ... poor little manchester united .... get fucked, what about Stam, hargreaves and saha, the modern game is largely money based nonsense, with, in the main, no loyalty to anything except money, United are no different to any other club, certain personalities, like Fergie and Giggs and Scholes add a human and decent shade but it's a huge multibillion pound global industry and as such is full of cunts ... and the rules are jungle rules , everyone wants the best team and will do whatever they can to get it ... Real are doing what they are because they can ... and they are the only ones who can in this situation ...

In fairness man, United never go to these lengths to obtain a player, apart from the Hargreaves situation, but even then thats nothing compared to the behaviour of Real!

United are highly respected by most clubs, at home & abroad. When we purchase a player, a good fee is paid & both clubs move on!

Negotiating a deal for a player is not bullying, and we never go public about who we are after, unlike our Spanish counterparts...... in Madrid & Liverpool

ralphie88 · 10th July 2008, 16:21

Poor little Manchester United.

ralphie88 · 10th July 2008, 16:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hand Devil

Good point man, but i think Blatter has probably covered himself in some way like a scoundrel always does!

Interesting to hear what UEFA's communications director William Gaillard said to counter what Blatter said regarding footballers being slaves: "It would be useful to remind people that slaves in all of the slavery systems never earned a wage"

http://www.teamtalk.com/football/sto...801272,00.html

Gaillard has missed the point completely. Slavery is nothing to do with wages, it is about being forced to do work for someone against your will - THAT is its definition. I'm sure that some slaves in the past DID earn a wage. Others I'm sure got board and lodging in lieu. However, they were still slaves.

A contract of slavery is illegal in the UK and has been for 200-odd years. Blatter's analogy is right - it's the fact that he's been fighting tooth and nail for the last 10 years to KEEP the system whereby players' freedom of movement is limited that really sticks in my throat, the two-faced twat!

redevil2 · 10th July 2008, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Minded

Sepp Blatter can't be accountable for any breach of english law since he doesnt live in england, nor is he an english citizen and therefore doesn't have any obligation to follow english law

Thanks for your insight! But knowing Sepp Blatter's domicile is irrelevant (as it's not the domicile or citizenship that is relevant in taking action in Tort law). Whether it is actionable on not depends on where the 'wrong' is committed, performed or occurred and not the citizenship/domicile etc of that individual. The law can also be different if the tort offence is committed in High Seas for example!

My suspicion is there is similar or equivalent (if not identical) law in other jurisdictions in Europe.

redevil2 · 10th July 2008, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

Gaillard has missed the point completely. Slavery is nothing to do with wages, it is about being forced to do work for someone against your will - THAT is its definition. I'm sure that some slaves in the past DID earn a wage. Others I'm sure got board and lodging in lieu. However, they were still slaves.

Not sure if your definition is right! For many of us working for a wage from time to time are Forced to do work for Employers (against our will if you like, because if our will prevails, we would rather be sitting around watching TV instead of working for Employers!)

But do note the definition in Wiki:

Slavery (also called thralldom) is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.

Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor.

Obviously the wage element is there somewhere for one to defy what 'slave' is!!!!

Ronaldo was only HELD at UNITED cos he has a contractual obligation to meet, and is NEVER deprived of the right to leave arising out of a slavery sense! Get over it!

redevil2 · 10th July 2008, 16:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by ralphie88

A contract of slavery is illegal in the UK and has been for 200-odd years. Blatter's analogy is right - it's the fact that he's been fighting tooth and nail for the last 10 years to KEEP the system whereby players' freedom of movement is limited that really sticks in my throat, the two-faced twat!

The two words 'Blatter' and 'Right' appearing in one sentence is a joke!

Cock Biscuit · 10th July 2008, 16:48

Sepp Blatter is a fucking cunt. Who the fuck is he to tell United what to do. Even more interestingly, i was thinking last week that players these days seem to have way too much power, being able to demand more money and better contracts and the ability to leave a club, or at least suggest they will, when ever they feel so. Interesting Sepp Blatter seems to be of the opposite opinion. Is he a fucking moron?

Decotron · 10th July 2008, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Hand Devil

Yeah i work in watch making factory!

I beg to differ

Maestro Minded · 10th July 2008, 17:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by redevil2

Thanks for your insight! But knowing Sepp Blatter's domicile is irrelevant (as it's not the domicile or citizenship that is relevant in taking action in Tort law). Whether it is actionable on not depends on where the 'wrong' is committed, performed or occurred and not the citizenship/domicile etc of that individual. The law can also be different if the tort offence is committed in High Seas for example!

My suspicion is there is similar or equivalent (if not identical) law in other jurisdictions in Europe.

Sorry, but I still have to disagree. Like I said, an action on an English law can only be applied to:

an English citizen (outside or inside English land/water)
a non English citizen inside English land/water
a non English citizen (outside English land/water) that in any way has attacked England (off course in accordance to agreements between England and the attackers country)

I might be wrong, but I’m pretty confident I’m not.

But off course, if that law also exists in Switzerland, that’s another issue. However it will be up to Swiss law to take action.

ralphie88 · 10th July 2008, 17:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by redevil2

Not sure if your definition is right! For many of us working for a wage from time to time are Forced to do work for Employers (against our will if you like, because if our will prevails, we would rather be sitting around watching TV instead of working for Employers!)

But do note the definition in Wiki:

Slavery (also called thralldom) is a social-economic system under which certain persons — known as slaves — are deprived of personal freedom and compelled to work.

Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor.

Obviously the wage element is there somewhere for one to defy what 'slave' is!!!!

Ronaldo was only HELD at UNITED cos he has a contractual obligation to meet, and is NEVER deprived of the right to leave arising out of a slavery sense! Get over it!

Wikipedia, as usual, doesn't know its arse from its elbow.

ralphie88 · 10th July 2008, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Minded

Sorry, but I still have to disagree. Like I said, an action on an English law can only be applied to:

an English citizen (outside or inside English land/water)
a non English citizen inside English land/water
a non English citizen (outside English land/water) that in any way has attacked England (off course in accordance to agreements between England and the attackers country)

I might be wrong, but I’m pretty confident I’m not.

But off course, if that law also exists in Switzerland, that’s another issue. However it will be up to Swiss law to take action.

It's not inducment to breach of contract in any case. It would be thrown out of court.

redevil2 · 10th July 2008, 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maestro Minded

Sorry, but I still have to disagree. Like I said, an action on an English law can only be applied to:

an English citizen (outside or inside English land/water)
a non English citizen inside English land/water
a non English citizen (outside English land/water) that in any way has attacked England (off course in accordance to agreements between England and the attackers country)

I might be wrong, but I’m pretty confident I’m not.

But off course, if that law also exists in Switzerland, that’s another issue. However it will be up to Swiss law to take action.

Sorry to break the news: but You Are Wrong! (on all fronts!!)

Further, as a general rule, an act done in a foreign country is a tort and actionable as such in England, only if it is BOTH:
1. Actionable as a tort according to English Law, is an act which if done in England would be a tort, AND
2. actionable according to the law of the foreign country where it was done

Of course it is more complicated and you won't be able to understand UNLESS you have legal training! There is also an element of Conflicts of Laws etc. I am not prepared to argue with you any more as it is meaningless unless you wish to borrow my brain and learn. But of course I don't claim to be experts in Conflicts of Law or have knowledge of laws in the Civil Jurisdiction in Europe.

I hope we are clear!

10th July 2008, 14:18	#1 (permalink)
Red Hand Devil Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Green Teddy Bear Island Posts: 2,621	United Versus Schoolyard bullies A young kid in the school playground is being hassled & bullied for his lunch money, the kid refuses to hand it over, so he endures constant pressure but still holds his ground. The bully thinks he is stronger & more powerful than the young kid, but the kid does not believe that to be true, and has vowed to fight the bully if required. Then along comes the Headmaster to enquire about what is happening. The bullied kid says "he wants my lunch money but i need it for myself to be bigger & stronger.." and the bully replies *"I need that money more than he does as i am the biggest boy in the school..".* Then the Headmaster says to the bullied kid "*this kid is bigger than you, therefore needs more food than you... give him your lunch money now...".* The kid has three choices: (1) either hand over his lunch money to the bully & remain hungry until he obtains more money (2) tell the Headmaster to fuck off as its his money & find himself in trouble or (3) get help from the other boys in the school & take on the bully and the Headmaster! Thats the scenario at the minute. United now seem to not only have Platini & Uefa in support of Reals persistence in obtaining Ronaldo but now we have Sepp Blatter of FIFA championing the cause of Ronnie being allowed to leave United & joining Real regardless of a signed 5 year contract & only 1 year completed of that contract. I have never in my lifetime witnessed such bully-boy tactics from our World Governing Football bodies against an individual football team with regards to contractual obligations! Such solidarity reeks of corruption or the wielding an Anti-United / Anti-English Football agenda. United are taking a stand & it seems, otherwise quietly, that we have support from some of Europe's top teams, whom a degree of which have battled the same Real Madrid public relations machine themselves. Its a propaganda machine. A tool of facsism - much used by dictators such as Franco, Mussolini & Hitler, and which Real use as tool to unsettle & obtain a contracted player. We are fortunate to have on our side the Chairman of the European Club Association Karl-Heinz Rumminegge when he said *"I am not worried about the case because the rules are clear and Manchester United has a very strong contract with the player for the next four years.."* He also went onto criticise the behaviour of Real Madrid in their pursuit of Ronnie *"I cannot believe that a club like Real Madrid can force a player like Cristiano Ronaldo to cause such tension, because the price that they will have to pay is too high for everyone".* It is great to have support from high ranking football people all over Europe, but United now need the support from our own Football Authority - the Football Association! Figures such as Brian Barwick need to earn their bacon again. He listened to what the Glazers had to say when they took over United & was pleased with what he heard, referring to United as the "Jewel in the Crown of English Football" and nothing should jeopardise that standing. Barwick needs to do the same again, only this time he'll be taking on a much more powerful machine than the Glazers! Maybe Uefa / FIFA feel that by attacking United they attack English Football as a whole, and if they can bring United down a peg or two, English Football will follow suit & in doing so will show the rest of the football world how is boss! If United are forced to let Ronaldo leave to join Real, it will create such hysteria amongst all of the clubs of Europe & many of which, like ourselves have built their team around their prized assets! What message does this send out to the rest of the sporting world?! The present European Champions are being treated with such disregard & an agenda of some sort is being wielded & played out in the media by our so-called "leading figures" in Football! If the worst happens & Ronnie leaves for FIFA's darling club Real Madrid, should United take the unprecedented step of boycotting the World Club Championships in protest? Would the ramifications be too high to make such a protest?? There's an irony in that scenario. When we last won the Champions League in 1999, we forfeited (otherwise known as forced to) our right to compete in the FA Cup by entering the World Club Championships the next year. We got alot of negative publicity about that and much of it undeserved due to ABU'ness being at its most strongest. This time we would be refusing to play in the same competition that caused us so much grief! If things persist the way they are, I feel United may well make a huge stand against the powers that be, but in doing so - we will need the help of the other boys in the schoolyard What say you?

10th July 2008, 14:23	#2 (permalink)
robthered Reserve Team Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: PhD Purgatory Posts: 1,671	Crap allegory. Stick it in the Ronaldo thread.

10th July 2008, 14:31	#3 (permalink)
A1Dan First Team Regular Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Where the goals come from. Posts: 10,626	I say you've got too much time on your hands. That and: "Figures such as Brian Barwick need to earn their bacon again" I must have missed it the first time he did anything to earn his bacon. As far as I'm concerned he's just as much of an incompetent, biased free-loader as Platini and Blatter.

10th July 2008, 14:36	#4 (permalink)
UnofficialDevil Reserve Team Player Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Love United. Posts: 1,708	The bullied kid says "he wants my lunch money but i need it for myself to be bigger & stronger.." and the bully replies "I need that money more than he does as i am the biggest boy in the school..". Then the Headmaster says to the bullied kid "this kid is bigger than you, therefore needs more food than you... give him your lunch money now...".

10th July 2008, 15:46	#11 (permalink)
mosesfromtala thinking about sligo Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: the la Posts: 2,668	the other boys in the schollyard, the ones we bully? a bully getting bullied is all they'd see ... poor little manchester united .... get fucked, what about Stam, hargreaves and saha, the modern game is largely money based nonsense, with, in the main, no loyalty to anything except money, United are no different to any other club, certain personalities, like Fergie and Giggs and Scholes add a human and decent shade but it's a huge multibillion pound global industry and as such is full of cunts ... and the rules are jungle rules , everyone wants the best team and will do whatever they can to get it ... Real are doing what they are because they can ... and they are the only ones who can in this situation ...

10th July 2008, 16:21	#14 (permalink)
ralphie88 Bitterer than a bitter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: http://www.joinmust.org/ Posts: 5,992	Poor little Manchester United.

10th July 2008, 16:48	#19 (permalink)
Cock Biscuit Very simple Simon Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Tilehurst, Reading Former Name: 1871 Biscuit Posts: 4,161	Sepp Blatter is a fucking cunt. Who the fuck is he to tell United what to do. Even more interestingly, i was thinking last week that players these days seem to have way too much power, being able to demand more money and better contracts and the ability to leave a club, or at least suggest they will, when ever they feel so. Interesting Sepp Blatter seems to be of the opposite opinion. Is he a fucking moron?