manc-mag

Theres no black letter law, which to be honest is the way I think it should be. It needs to be fluid. Different if it's an offensive weapon per se (ie a kalashnikov) but even then it wouldn't necessarily be murder or manslaughter if you were being attacked. Ie if someone came at you with a knife you wouldn't get potted for murder or manslaughter if you blew their head off. It just becomes an item of evidence rather than proof conclusive. (You'd get done for possession of an offensive weapon for a kalashnikov, but that's a different matter). You used a good example when you cited the Tony Martin case. He blasted the lad in the back while he was running away. He was no threat so there was no defence (of self-defence) available. I can't remember the outcome of that one exactly but I think he was isolated, old, had suffered numerous burglaries and was loosing his marbles as a result. In that case I would imagine manslaughter (diminished responsibility) was the result. Either way in his case I'd have given him every dispensation available and the most lenient sentence legally permissible and I'd have told the victim's family to wind their necks in as well as they'd basically raised a feral little bastard who was routinely victimizing vulnerable people. Just clicked the link on MF's post. Okay, ignore the legal summary.

Theres no black letter law, which to be honest is the way I think it should be. It needs to be fluid. Different if it's an offensive weapon per se (ie a kalashnikov) but even then it wouldn't necessarily be murder or manslaughter if you were being attacked. Ie if someone came at you with a knife you wouldn't get potted for murder or manslaughter if you blew their head off. It just becomes an item of evidence rather than proof conclusive. (You'd get done for possession of an offensive weapon for a kalashnikov, but that's a different matter). You used a good example when you cited the Tony Martin case. He blasted the lad in the back while he was running away. He was no threat so there was no defence (of self-defence) available. I can't remember the outcome of that one exactly but I think he was isolated, old, had suffered numerous burglaries and was loosing his marbles as a result. In that case I would imagine manslaughter (diminished responsibility) was the result. Either way in his case I'd have given him every dispensation available and the most lenient sentence legally permissible and I'd have told the victim's family to wind their necks in as well as they'd basically raised a feral little bastard who was routinely victimizing vulnerable people.

No I didnt include those, simply the transfer fees and contracted wages for Ba, Marveaux and Cabaye but you have said wages should not be included, haven't you ? If you spend 35m on one or more players, you still have to pay them a wage. If the wage bill is already around 65% of turnover, then spending all the cash and leaving yourself with a higher wage bill will mean that costs could rise above turnover. You've spent all the cash and now are making a loss. It doesnt make any sense. There has to be a balance, only someone with no financial understanding would expect a club recovering from the financial losses of relegation to use all of the 30m on purchases. Its 30m too, not 35m as we bought Ben Arfa in January. we aren't supporting a "business" with trophies and european places given out for profits unfortunately Chez. They are only given for results on the pitch. And if you don't get results on the pitch, everything declines. There is no excuse for failing to give the manager the money from sales to make new purchases, if he chooses not to, then fair enough but it is highly unlikely that this is the case. As JawD pointed out, the wages saved from Carroll can be allocated towards wages for any new men, not the transfer fee. Stop speculating and you also go backwards. It is a business, its registered at Companies House, pays business taxes, employs people and contributes to the economy. As such 'money' the thing you find in you wallet, is fundamental to its operations and by operations i mean things like employees. Ignoring this will get you nowhere.

Leazes has felt a sudden twitch in his undercrackers.

Again without knowing anything about the case (and being massively cynical) four lads in balaclavas in Salford and a bloke dead as a result, I am willing to bet that all of the parties involved (including householders) are known to police. That being the case they'll probably have a lot to look at. So basically what Alex was alluding to.

Same here 100%

This is the weird thing, though. Are you meant to sit them down and have a chin-wag before ascertaining their intentions? The way I see it, which I think is right, is anyone enters your property is posing a risk to all those in the household and we should be allowed to do anything to get them out or stop them in their tracks. If four blokes were on the premises in balaclavas and the householder is there (additionally with a female, who he'd no doubt feel morally if not legally bound to protect), then I think the CPS will do absolutely everything to read it as self defence. And I think they almost certainly will unless theres some evidence that the four blokes had a change of heart, apologised and put the hoover round a bit before the householder stabbed the dead one in the back as he was quietly pulling the door to. Just my opinion but it's dangerous having a law that says there can be absolutely no prosecution if the 'intruder' is on your premises as you'd have a marked increase in the number of murders committed by eg people luring victims into houses. Especially gang ones. I can't give you any evidence of that like but it would be my guess. Also I just think it goes down the route of upping the ante generally, meaning that burglars would very likely 'go equipped' more violently. By and large I think the UK law is about right. I will say that I think it's fucking harsh on a victim of a particularly traumatic burglary that they are then in some sort of limbo while the CPS take a decision on charge. I don't know how you get around that though.

Yed feel like stabbing them like wouldn't ye? Big Dunc had the best idea though just battering the cunts and sitting on them till the OB arrive. I don't know what you are supposed to do, I wonder what the official government guidelines are! No doubt make them a cup of tea and discuss the error of their ways. It's wrong, we're all programmed to be territorial and invading someones hoose just isn't on, look at cats if another cat even has a piss on their area they fight tooth and nail and fair play to them. True like.

Would imagine they're 'helping police with their inquiries' for now as the CPS try to find a sensible and politic way of not prosecuting the householder for murder/manslaughter. I imagine this will be best achieved for the moment by not threatening them with burglary charges so they can get corroborating evidence that the bloke who got killed was posing some sort of threat to the household. Definitely not the place to go burglarising like, Salford.

I'm being flippant there obviously. Technically Benny and Bjorn were full backs, Frida and Agnetha lined up through the middle.

Whatever happened to magma btw? Probably Chief exec of M&S by now.

Again, and I know its only you tube, but I think some of his touches on the ball and decisions look quite promising for 19 / 20 year old or however old he was when the video was shot. Compare it to the total lack of control or decision making from Ranger. Difficult to do when you're being pressured by the likes of Rio Ferdinand and Nemenja Vidic rather than Bjorn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson tbh.

Mekhty sneckht!

Mind you, arguably worth any price for the refrain: "BibbidybobbidyBANGURA!" at 0:09.

Jumpers for goalposts in the first clip in all honesty.

It'd be great if he were to get a hard-on about being a football club owner again like when he first took over, because now (in terms of the playing staff at least) it's a solid core of professionals who want to play for the club and thus very good conditions for building a genuinely competitive side. The distractions and deadwood that had no business being here are all but gone (save for Smith) and thus new signings would be getting a much better introduction and ethic from the established set up. Sadly though I think on balance a lot of that potential will be sacrificed if there's a mass dismantling of last season's key framework. That's when you need that twitch in your pants as an owner to just have a slightly more deferred view of the economics and get swept up with the football again and allow that to compensate for any potential £4-5 million 'hit' (ie transfer devaluation) you might personally take on retaining a couple of your top players. It's hard to take when you think that sort of cash is only half the amount that we used to routinely spunk on complete wasters. I'd love to be proved wrong and we start the season with Barton, Jonas, Jose and Collo but I'd be surprised. If nothing else, Pardew's appointment was to preside over a transfer policy that was devolved to Llambias. I'm firmly of the view that if you don't acknowledge it's Fat Mike's money on the line you're completely delusional-and for that reason I don't get hysterical and say it's the Toon's God given right to buy/retain XYZ because we've got the third biggest ground in the league etc etc. You can't ignore the finances when credit lines have been exhausted, but as Alex has said, you'd like to think a happy medium was possible for someone of Ashley's resources. He might even enjoy going to the match and witnessing the effects of building a good team. There's a notion.

A taxi would work out cheaper.

Rock/paper/scissors tournament: match abandoned.

Language, Noelie.

The contents of Tiote's nuts?

:icon_lol: @ this thread. Tears rolling down here.

it's an extract from a book written by 2 people who have studied football and business, and the effect on business in football. You should read a bit more and educate yourself It's for those who insist that football clubs that go into debt go bust, because they do not in by far the vast majority of cases. I'm not "presenting an argument" by the way, I'm been saying "for all these years" that football is all about winning on the pitch [without dispute] and in the case of a club like NUFC a team that is winning on the pitch the sky is the limit.If others disagree, some of whom have only been going to games or watching NUFC for a few minutes, that is their problem. I know what it says like, but it's a terrible arguing point all the same, backed up by some equally terrible illustrations. Football has gone from being an unnaturally stable business (due to illegal, protectionist employment practices) to an unstable one (due to the advent of normal employment practices converging with insane amounts of money) in it's very recent history. Quite what the fuck the great depression and the second world war have to teach us about today's football finances is beyond my powers of deduction. You can 'educate' me if you want to explain though. For me it actually defeats the point that it's trying to make. As to the point about winning on the pitch, well obviously I agree with that, but some of us are trying to take a more forensic approach to how that's managed. Why can't you participate in that discussion? It's more valid than dealing in cliches and rehearsing old debates. Seriously.

It'd have been class if he'd then went into the bogs to wash his hands like. Neil's not an animal after all.

Fucking brilliant. Coming out of him like a yellow cable as well no doubt, it's always an extra long one when you've been on the sauce.