benjii

The EU rule offers no greater protection than you are already afforded by UK law. You would still have the same issues around the cause of the fault.

Ok: a television should be expected to last a good few years. According to Ponty, guidance suggests six years. Trust Ponty if you will. I've highlighted below in bold good things to quote that should make it sound as though you know what you're talking about. Anyway, legally you have a claim against them for breach of contract if the telly they sold you has an inherent fault. There is an implied term in all consumer contracts, implied by the Sale of Goods Act, that the goods sold are of suitable quality (ie, last for a reasonable time), fit for purpose and conform to the decription given. A TV which breaks regularly is clearly not of sufficient quality or fit for purpose. In the first six months after a purchase the burden of proof is reversed: ie. if the retailer gets shirty, it is up to them to show that the item is not inherently faulty; you don't have to show that it was faulty when sold. It is presumed to have been faulty when sold unless they can show otherwise. The bad news: after six months the onus is on you to show it was faulty when purchased (which would obviously be hard to do). If they try to hide behind the term of the guarantee you can tell them in no uncertain terms that they are wrong, and that the guarantee cannot limit your statutory rights and you should ask to speak to someone more senior. I would keep repeating phrases like "faulty when sold", "not of adequate quality", "not fit for purpose" etc. The final threat is to inform them that you have a clear claim for breach of contract and you will issue a claim in the small claims court. They will not be able to recover their costs in defending the claim and you are fully prepared to pay the £35 issue fee. The reality is, you should be able to get somewhere without having to start threatening too much.

I like this thread. It is original and sort of funny. Much better than the usual ****e. Well done Cestrian.

Yeah, what a mercenary grabbing arse. How dare he assess all his options when he should be signing for us yesterday. I bet he doesn't give 100%. Probably a bottle merchant. Look at his hair FFS. Obvioulsy likes a night out too. What a ****. If we sign him I will boo like a berserker.

That vest was class.

Can't see that. Brighton are a bigger club and have a much brighter future.

What a load of carp. Why the feck people pay subscriptions to these witless children is beyond me.

A final thought for now, in the interest of fairness... we have not seen where this badge sits on the new kit; if it is against a red background then the blob might not look so bad. Fingers crossed.

I'm not necessarily one for plebiscites on these things. Online votes can be maliciously skewed. Perhaps a postal ballot with each ST holder having one vote would be fair - no chance for disinterested parties to mess with the result then. Having said that, that would be costly and time consuming. I just wish they had come up with an effort which didn't look as though a distinct lack of ideas beyond "colour the edge gold and stick the dates on" has lead them to plonking a tokenistic and gormless red blod with "125" slap bang in the middle of it.

I don't think Trousers is talking about a system where you get a refund. You pay the money for a set number of games and that's it. If you don't go to enough games then you don't get your money back. You just have flexibility around how many games and when. That said, it is a rubbish idea. Any idea which means that SFC has no clue how many people are going to turn up for the match with tickets that could be redeemed at any time (ie they have no idea idea how many tickets have actually been sold "for" that match) is a rubbish idea. It is so obviously a rubbish idea that I can't believe any people still think it's a good idea.

That is rubbish too.

I fear it will be too late for this year as I expect the kit will be in production now. Worth a try though and even if it's too late for this year why not celebrate the start of the Liebherr era with a new permanent crest from 2011-2012. At they very least it should ensure that whoever designed the new badge is not commissioned again in the future.

Why on earth was he ever given a football programme in the first place?

Indeed!

Agree about Papa and Antonio. Did you mean a CM rather than CB? I don't think a CB is needed. Seabourne is a good player IMO and Martin looks perfectly capable as a fourth option. If we needed an emergency fifth choice then we could get some old carthorse in on loan. I agree with you if you did mean CM. No real competition for Hammond's place at all there; you couldn't play Surman alongside Schneiderlin IMO.

Punch---Hammond---Morgan---Lallana ------------Surman------------ ------------Lambert---------------- = lovely to watch and far too good for League One.

---------------Davis-------------- Calderon----Fonte---Jaidi-----Harding Punch---Hammond/new-----Morgan---Lallana --------------Surman-------------- --------------Lambert----------------- How good is that with a couple of pacy options on the bench + Barnard. Lallana, Punch and Surman can all play in each other's position. If we could get that working it would be beautiful, it would be "the Southampton Style" and it would be a winning style.

Well, I think legally the administrator can tear the contract up. The difficulty is that if it is a "football-related" contract there will be serious sporting sanctions.

Yep. I never sign petitions. I would sign that one though.

I agree completely with your first paragraph. I think it's an excellent friendy for the team. I just can't be bothered to go to it right now.

Let's face it... if we are playing a higher profile friendly against someone else the week before or after there is nob-all chance of me going to this. Apologies to anyone who was waiting to hear whether I was going or not before making their minds up.

Haha. Yeah lol lolz LOL

Fin.

That's fine but Andronikou's conduct would seriously be in question then. His duty is to preserve the business and secure a good result for the creditors. HMRC would be all over him if he tried to play hardball too much.

Are you wondering why you didn't?