As Irishmen we dilute our sense of nation by depending on the English to bring us our balls
First of all that disclaimer is hard enough to find & its not at all obvious the site is unofficial.
If the site is unofficial it seems the FAI can just change the reason for the 5k fine
Recently the CCFC official forum was moved to separate domain
& now clearly marked as unofficial. This was more to do with requests by fans than any FAI pressure...
Ah but Pete it doesn't matter a sh*te what size the font is FFS.Originally Posted by pete
First of all that disclaimer is hard enough to find & its not at all obvious the site is unofficial.
If the site is unofficial it seems the FAI can just change the reason for the 5k fine
Recently the CCFC official forum was moved to separate domain
& now clearly marked as unofficial. This was more to do with requests by fans than any FAI pressure...
Atleast it states its an unofficial site. NOWHERE does it say its official.
It does say it is 'Derry City Football Club Online' (is there another 'more official' site?).
While this is another instance of Derry wanting to have it both ways, it in no way excuses the FAI action.
Nowhere on the site maybe but the question is did Derry submit it as their official site for licensing?
Still doesnt make this right though
Apologies Daniel - have cleared some space now.
derrycityfc.net IS the registered official website - so there's probably very little argument there.
Is that what makes it official? Probably. I didn't register it with the league. The club however doesn't fund it in any way, and the domain name is "owned" by me. But to be fair thats probably how most "official" EL sites work.
However, the main point in this argument was the fact that it was removed IMMEDIATELY from the derrycityfc.net website and still - 2 weeks later - they saw fit to fine the club and have an ongoing €1000 daily fine because the "official" site retained a link to the story hosted on another website.
The site also contains links to derrycitychat.com, irish Football Online, Belfast Telegraph, Derry Journal, Irish Independent - should Derry City FC be responsible for the content of these websites also?
Absolutely and I'm gonna trawl through them all until a find an article critical of the FAI and inform them immediately.
Derry City must not succeed with this campaign to destroy Mr. Delaney!!
In a word Yes , you have poor john in his office all upset and fearing for the safety of his staff for having the audacity to point out the obvious facts, you scoundrel
Its a ffaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrcccccccccccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeee
Regardless of whether the site is official or not - there is a much bigger issue at stake here that i believe would see Derry City succeed if they took the FAI to court over this.
And that is a simple Freedom of Expression principle, as guaranteed under Bunreacht na hÉireann. Article 40, Section 6, Subsection 1.1 states the following :
I cannot see how the FAI's actions can be seen as anything other than a breach of that constitutional guarantee, and I strongly suspect that DCFC would win a legal challenge on this matter if they chose to do so. And I hope for the sake of Irish football that they or some other club/person does chose to challenge this petty suppression in the Courts. The whole thing would blow up so badly in Delaney's quiffed face.
By God - you're right, CB !Derry City must not succeed with this campaign to destroy Mr. Delaney!!
No - that job is best left to Delaney himself........!
Agree with the principle. But, in their licence agreement, would clubs not give up that right? Other than letting football fans have their say, which inherently is a threat to public order, on what basis is the fine levied anyway?
But Mr Delaney Sir may seek to rely on:
There's also the idea that by saying up to the provisions of the new league which included a clause not to criticise the FAI that Derry City have waived their constitutional right to criticise the FAI.
Not at all. The Irish constitution has supremacy over the FAI's own internal rules. The FAI cannot ask you to sign awsay your constitutional rights.
Where the FAI's rules run contrary to the Constitution, they are liable to be declared illegal if challeneged.
Maribor Kev's right to freedom of expression is being supressed by the FAI, who are levying punitive financial penalties upon an organisation that Kev is separate from (DCFC) in an attempt to have them deny him an existing opportunity to express those opinions.
What would make it even more interesting would be the fact that the 'offending' website actually operates in a different political/legal jurisdiction than the FAI. I suspect that could leave City free to do and say whatever the hell they liked with impunity so long as it didn't break any UK or European laws (beyond the obvious fall-out of incurring the FAI's wrath). I'm no lawyer though.
That's not true Steve. If it whereso then confidentiality agreements wouldn't be binding etc etc.
People waive their constitutional rights every day of the week. Example - Anybody tried in the District Court for an offence for which they can also be tried on indictment can waive their right to trial by jury and have the matter tried summarily in the District Court.
It's not as simple as you think.
Do you honestly think any Court in the land would associate Kev's article with the above ? Facts are facts, and cannot therefore cause 'injustice, damage' etc - even if the target of your comments does not like facing up to those facts.
No, no, no !!! The Constitution has primacy here. The Fai Rules cannot be enforced where they are unconstitutional - regardless of whether you signed up to them or not. As an extreme example - if you sign an employment contract to be a bank robber or murderer, that contract is unenforceable under the Constitution/law, regardless of the fact that you signed it. Otherwise - what would be the point in having a Constituoino if it was powerless in the face of every bit of signed paper ?!?
yes but people waive their constitutional rights everyday - for instance - allowing themselves to be tried summarily in the District Court on assault charges for example - even though they are constitutionally entitled to trial by jury.
duuuuh I thought EVERYONE knew this stuff -its basic
surprised at CB not picking up on it earlier
That's not the case Steve. Contracts such as the ones you mentioned are unenforceable as they are illegal. A contract that guarantees your silence on certain matters is not illegal and is very common.
People also have an unenumerated constitutional right to bodily integrity. You can however permit a doctor to perform an operation on you. Bad example but you get the gist.
How are confidentiality agreements unconstitutional ?? There is a huge difference between signing an agreement to not dislose commercially sensitive information/facts, for example, and signing one that removes your ability to express your own personal opinion.
If I knew that you had committed an illegal/unconstitutional act, and then you made me sign a Confidentiality agreement to prevent me disclosing that information, the law would support me if I did disclose it. If it became clear that I knew of your activities when they were happening and did nothing about them, it would probably also in fact seek to punish me for not disclosing the information (thought this is where it gets complicated).
This is not an appropriate example though - as it's a scenario that is within the law/legal system, which itself is based upon the constitution. Like I said - I'm no lawyer though - so perhaps one of the leagl eagles on here can clarify the whole situation either way.
Regardless of all the above - the bottom line is this : show me the bit of paper where Maribor Kev signed up to say he would not criticise the FAI ?
Last edited by dcfcsteve; 06/03/2007 at 4:33 PM.
duuuuuhhh
see above
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks