Selfish Irish Players

**pineapple stu** · 04/03/2010, 2:33 PM

Originally Posted by SkStu

implying that you thought that there wasnt.

You made a very sweeping statement, and I was asking what your basis for that very sweeping statement was. Any implications are your own. If a Rovers fan had made that statement about Bohs, you'd have been up in arms about it.

**SkStu** · 04/03/2010, 2:44 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You made a very sweeping statement, and I was asking what your basis for that very sweeping statement was. Any implications are your own. If a Rovers fan had made that statement about Bohs, you'd have been up in arms about it.

okay, sure.

I dont think anyone else reading the thread would read it that way. And youve already had one post moved to rubbish for making that same point about "if Rovers had...".

**pineapple stu** · 04/03/2010, 3:03 PM

So you don't think that "The contract he had with Sligo is valid. No court in the land will dispute that." is a very sweeping statement? You think it's a bit unreasonable to ask someone to back up that statement? And when you subsequently go back on yourself and admit that there may actually be ways that that isn't the case, we should all go chasing after you some more?

You admit you're wrong here and give out because people continue to show that you're wrong. You admit you're wrong elsewhere and give out because people don't continue to show that you're wrong.

Fair enough.

**SkStu** · 04/03/2010, 3:16 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

So you don't think that "The contract he had with Sligo is valid. No court in the land will dispute that." is a very sweeping statement? You think it's a bit unreasonable to ask someone to back up that statement? And when you subsequently go back on yourself and admit that there may actually be ways that that isn't the case, we should all go chasing after you some more?

are you for real? Its not a sweeping statement at all - its a fact. And there are no ways that this isnt the case. The contract may have been breached by either party but that doesnt mean that there was never a contract. You need to start reading posts properly and stop pretending you know it all already. Ill break it down into more simple terms for you so you can understand - Sligo offered Turner a contract. He accepted it. They paid him. Hey presto, valid contract. Nobody knows, without all the facts, whether Sligo or Turner then proceeded to breach that contract. Even breaching a contract doesnt always invalidate a contract. As i requested from you previously, if you are aware of some changes to the fundamental principles of contract law then please share them.

You admit you're wrong here and give out because people continue to show that you're wrong. You admit you're wrong elsewhere and give out because people don't continue to show that you're wrong.

thats just bizarre. At least i have the integrity to actually admit when i get things wrong something you seem incapable of doing. I didnt admit i was wrong in the Turner thread because, erm, im not.