manc-mag

Ah right, wasnt sure whether you meant a cynical motive or a commercially astute one (though sometimes theres not a huge difference). Could well be the case mate. Not a bad strategy if so!

Happy Birthday and welcome to your thirties you Blazer wearing salad dodger!

Can they legally cancel it? Is it just a really good deal in order to generate talk as a form of viral advertising? Tom, I should imagine they could legally cancel it at any point up until the item is dispatched, as with distance selling arrangements/online sales its far more about the individual T's and C's and (without looking into that) again I should imagine that they've got numerous clauses which ultimately say that they retain title in the goods until point x (which will be a very advanced stage of the bargain and thus as favourable to them as possible). If it was deliberately done in bad faith (not sure if that's what you're implying...?) then they wouldnt be able to rely on those terms, but obviously it's unlikely that could be proved.

Stop ruining our fun That was just in response to Tom's/Idioteque's anecdotes about retail shop based price discrepancies and the queries they posed. As far as the Zavvi deal is concerned, fill your boots. I have.

Basically, if something's advertised for sale in a shop at a certain price, you can't insist on them honouring that price just because the advert/price tag says so. A binding contract for sale only occurs (and must be honoured) when an offer is accepted. The advertisement doesn't amount to an offer, it's known instead as an 'invitation to treat'. You only make an offer (to buy) the thing by taking it to the checkout and if that offer is then accepted (ie by the shop accepting payment) then at that stage its a binding contract and you can legally force them to honour the agreement even if they'd advertised at the wrong price. If they realise at the checkout that it's the wrong price before they've accepted payment however then they don't have to honour it. Some shops will honour a wrongly advertised price even if they do spot the mistake purely as a gesture of goodwill/policy however. Just in case anyone was wondering about the basic legals behind it.

Silence. I've seen you in Crocs with Bermuda shorts.

Overall a disappointing reaction to a truly showstopping pair of Claire Rayner's. For shame.

I think I'd just finished limbering up the last time I saw you.

High time that people stopped buying tabloids tbf. Fucking disgusting.

You even get spikes and a key for adjustments/showboating down the pub. What is not to like?

Are you having a tin bath? Check out the bottom of these rude boys ffs:

What is it with the Scouse trend of wearing nowt but pristine white trainers with everything btw? Looks proper snide.

Zip it Brogues McDuff.

I've had them from Aspecto (they're in the sale now which made me wish I'd never clicked on the email I got the other day). The red ones arent in the sale and ideally I could do with replacing them cos theyre scuffed to fuck as they're suede. You can't wear them anywhere really though so I spose I shouldnt bother and just save my cash.

Currently looking for a deadstock pair of these in size 11 but can I fuck find them. Nearest I've got is a lightfooted size 9 ffs.

Call me a victim but the red ones are just choice.

I get that you like to pluck player signings out of the air at random, but what the fuck is the point in doing transfer fee calculations too? It suggests you think there's an air of inevitability about us landing whoever we go in for-if you do honestly think that I reckon you want to prepare yourself for disappointment.

Arsenal a selling club? They have a 60,000 seater stadium-that's 15,000 more than City. It doesn't make sense (etc etc ad infinitum)

In a nutshell. And Ollie, fwiw, I wasn't saying that the premise itself was sound, because it isn't, I was simply pointing out that if (as is typically the case on here) people state that net 'profit' from transfer windows is evidence of him pocketing cash from the club, conversley logic dictates that a net 'spend' is him putting his hands in his own pockets. It isn't that simple for the reasons Chez mentions, but people seem quite happy to view it in those terms (wrongly). The logic applies whether the premise is sound or not however and that's basically what my original post is getting at. I don't think he will return to big spending, but Leazes basically cites anything he sees as supportive of his agenda without knowing the nature or quality of what's being said.

Not speaking from experience I hasten to add.

I dunno like. A bit of lube and all that.

@ Maradona's hair. Like a Town Crier's hat. Also I thought the first pic was Nicolas Sarkozy for about 10 seconds.

Drybum?

All three of them.

Aye in the absence of CCTV or a reliable independent witness it was the most likely outcome, conspiracy or not.