trousers

Slighly disappointed that he's only got one ear TBH. Nice lobe-age though.

Sorry to bang on about this but, consumer law trumps what an organisation decides to put in its T&C's. As I previously posted, Spurs were previously reported to Trading Standards for having "no refunds for postponements" in their ticketing T&C's (see here: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft) and the FA ordered clubs to remove such clauses from their ticketing conditions. I admit that things may have changed over the last 10 years or so but the fundamentals that underpin consumer law have been pretty much set in concrete for decades. I'm in the same boat so I'm going to contact the club this week and invite them to prove that their T&C's comply with consumer law and thus the expectations and rules of trading standards / the OFT. P.s. most companies get away with this because people generally can't be arsed to challenge what is in the T&C's. You'll also note that all T&C's have a clause along the lines of "TheseT&Cs are subject to the law of England and Wales" (Saints have the clause below in theirs) which is basically a way of saying: "we'll put what we like in our T&C's but, at the end of the day, we have to comply with consumer law, but we'll make it as difficult as we can to put people off challenging"... "21.6 These Terms and Conditions and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with them shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. The parties hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales in relation to any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms and Conditions (including in relation to any non-contractual disputes or claims)." Anyway, as I say, sorry to bang on about this, but people need to challenge T&C's that appear to flout consumer law... (And double apologies if the rules have changed at some point and outdated my understanding of how the law of the land trumps a company's T&C's!)

Maybe there's more than one opinion on this rather than a black and white 'right,' or 'wrong' interpretation? Happy New Year fellow humans!

Just done a quick search on consumer rights in this area and it's pretty clear that the consumer is legally entitled to a refund if, for whatever reason, they can't make a rescheduled date. This example goes back to 2008 but it's from the horse's mouth (the office of fair trading) and the underlying principles of law will still apply today: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2008/dec/05/tottenham-hotspur-ticket-refunds-oft (Apologies for the dull posts - even more so than usual - companies trying to pull the wool over consumers eyes is a big bugbear of mine!)

Based on my understanding of consumer law, that's utter nonsense. Caveat: my understanding is based on studying consumer law back in the 80s, so could well be out of date, but the principles behind the Sale of Goods act and Trade Description act are pretty set in stone.

I've no idea. I'm no expert in any of this (does it show?!). I just assumed any non-UK entity/person buying a UK company would have to set up some sort of 'shell' company in the UK as part of the process? I guessed that's why DaGrossa set up a 'Kapital / SMFC' company at around the same time he was supposedly in talks with the club...? Dunno. I just search for stuff that might be if interest and/or connected and drew a blank. Nothing more educated / sophisticated than that I'm afraid.

They would be breaking consumer law if they didn't give a refund upon request so, no, you won't be out of pocket if you can't make a rearranged match.

Yep, I actually think this postponement could be a blessing in disguise. The Saints players and management should be more psyched up than usual before the rearranged kick off and any new-look Newcastle team won't have had time to gel by end-Jan/early Feb. I also think it being a home mid-week evening game will also work in our favour. #GlassHalfFull

As sad as this may sound, I've spent a while this morning trawling through Companies House listings for a company and/or director(s) that one could conceivably link to a Saints takeover by the Redball people (Cardinale, Beane, Scudamore, etc) and have drawn a blank. It was easy to find a company that could be seen as a takeover vehicle when Kapital/Dagrosa were supposedly sniffing around. Make of that what you will.

So that you could point it out every 5 minutes to show people how darn clever you are? #legend

Maybe we should call their bluff and offer to play the same percentage of u23 players that they would have to play if the game went ahead...

True. So it's as much a sign that the game hasn't been called off yet as it's a sign that it's going ahead. In other words, we can't read anything into the press conference going ahead a couple of days before the game, given 'covid affected' games can be called off with only hours notice, in some cases (?)

If I was a cynical conspiracy theorist (which I'm not, obviously...) I'd be inclined to say that IF Newcastle were somehow trying to engineer the calling off of the game, they would definitely go ahead with a pre-match press conference to give the impression that they had every intention of going ahead with the game.... Not that they would be engaging in such smoke and mirrors tactics of course...

Why are human beings so obsessed with being 'right' or 'wrong'. Maybe both interpretations of the incident have merit? Let's be more tolerant of other people's views, I say, and usher in world peace in the process. Love Trousers (Other forms of legware are available)

#legend

Yay! Superb draw in the circumstances.

Broja should do better there?

5 mins added? Thought it would be more than that

This is going to be so f***ing annoying #inevitablelategoal

Yep, bizarre that Romeu hasn't come on IMO