1976_Child

Anyone know where we will be welcome to quench our thirst at Swindon?

He likes to refer to himself in the third person! Its fair to say that 1976_Child is actually quite impressed with Nigel Adkins's diplomacy. Its fair to say that 1976_Child needs a pint after a fantastic day and its fair to say that 1976_Child has always dealt honestly with his alcohol cravings and as such it is fair to say that he will not just walk out on his pint but will remain the manager of that pint until such a time as another opportunity to manage another pint arises. Like he says, 1976_Child has been approached by another pint, a fantastic pint with a fantastic glass but one which is not currently being served in the top pub and it would be a fantastic opportunity to manage that pint and help it get back into a better pub. But like he says, 1976_Child is still currently the manager of this pint and he has to get the pint ready for the next swig and that is what he intends to do.

its fair to say that he likes to say 'its fair to say'

football abhors a vacuum.

I was in the Frogmore Road South Stand

nope. wrong. The anchor actually said that Alan Shearer had said 'that he had asked to be considered for the job'. It was no throw away line. It may or may not have been true, but it was reported as fact.

yes there is. The whole football world knows that Saints have cash to spend and no debt. Everyone knows that NC has made it abundantly clear he wants promotion this season. It is therefore going to take a big wedge to get a new good manager in. Cortese should just pay up. We can't afford to drag this out any longer. If it drags on into the autumn and results do not come then home attendance will nose-dive and it will quickly become apparent that deciding to screw the best deal was not in the long term best interests of the club, either financially or in the league table.

No I am not. I state categorically once more. As an employee of a company - any company, it matters not that it is a football club - he would be fully entitled to withdraw his labour at any time. This is a basic human right granted and protected by not only UK law but also EU law and a whole bunch of international treaties. It is the basic principle of employment law. Employees may, at any time and with out giving a reason, withdraw their labour with out suffering penalty or forfeit. In other words they can not be sued for doing so. They can of course be sacked without compensation. There is no separate Law governing football clubs. Nothing is different. The confusion comes because the FA stupidly refers to its rules as laws. They are nothing of the sort. They are rules determining how affiliated clubs wishing to play within the auspices of the FA umbrella should conduct themselves. In no way do they take precedent over the laws of the land. If a player decides not to turn up for training one day, sends a text message to the manager saying "Stuff football, I quit for good" then there is nothing that the club can do about it. The employment contract is between him and the club and is covered by exactly the same body of law as an employee of MacDonalds has. If the player has signed additional contracts wrt image rights etc then there may be cause for redress if monies have already been advanced against provision of, say, one season's worth of sponsorship/shirt sales etc. But that does not fall under employment law, it is a civil contract falling under the law of contract. It does not affect his right to withdraw his labour. Edit: Certain jobs such as soldiers slightly different. A soldier can still withdraw his labour, but will suffer penalty of court marshal.

Actually, no they could not. At least not in Britain, Spanish law might be different (but I very much doubt it, and anyway the EU law covers all member states and also speaks to this). Under English law, if he is on the pay-roll of a club and is paying PAYE income tax and NI contributions he is legally an employee of the company/club. As such he is fully with in his rights to withdraw his labour at any time, at which time his employer is not obliged to pay him anymore. If there was evidence that he had committed a fraud by taking a signing on bonus with the full intention of quitting shortly there after then the club could pursue him for redress and, if they could prove it was intentional (fraud) then it could end up in the criminal courts. It would, however, be nigh-on impossible to prove a fraud in this case. Where contract law comes into play is when he is providing a product or service to the club. If the club could prove that he had broken his contract leaving the club at a financial disadvantage then they could seek redress. But footballers are not 'providing services', they are employees. The contract is only binding under the FAs rules.

No it is not a stupid 'situation'. The point most football fans fail to realize is that the FA only has the power to assert rules on its member clubs. A lot of people talk as though these are laws. They are not. No Act of Parliament was passed saying that Adkins (or anyone else) could not walk out of S****horpe, get in his car and head down to Southampton to start work. Sure, the FA would not be happy and as a last resort might chuck Saints out of the league but no law will have been broken, only contracts and rules. Yes, S****horpe could pursue him through the civil courts but it would not be a matter for the criminal courts. You may think it is nit-picky, I think it is only right to talk about rules, not law.

yes he could. Just not for a club falling under the umbrella of FIFA affiliated FAs. He could sign for a five-a-side indoor football club playing in Antarctica against the penguins. Laws of the land - such as right to withdraw labour still take precedent over FIFA rules. In fact, being really nit-picky, he could resign from RM and sign an 'employment contract' with another club but would not be licensed to play until released by RM. He could still train, make the cheese sandwiches and water the pitch as an employee of the new club but unless the new club decided to leave the FIFA affiliated league it was currently involved in (which it would be entirely at will to do) then he could not play. Rules are rules, Law is Law.

Well maybe it is a case of NC being 'penny wise but pound foolish'. Last home game the attendance was 3,000 less than at the start of the season. Assuming they are not STs (which is a fair assumption) then the club received 3,000 * £18 = £54,000 and beer money too. (Using a blended average ticket price of £18 ). Half a dozen games like that is real money.

To be honest I would rather NC spends his time trying to get us the best manager he can rather than waste it on keeping us informed. It is not as though he will be able to tell us anything of substance anyway.

According to South Today Shearer has said that he would be interested in the job. Couldn't see this anywhere else on the forum, apologies if already out there.

Adkins? Never heard of him. Would rather gamble on Morph: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSMRPKM1evk

women have no place at football. Period. (and sanitary towel).

Interestingly, the King James Bible's full name is the 'Authorized King James Bible'. James the First ordered a new translation into English. It became known as the 'Authorized' Bible, but was never actually officially endorsed as such. The Puritans of the time, ever mindful of the menace of hierarchical religion, were not happy to have the 'State' impose a version of the Bible on the masses.

!! Well no, the US never ratified Kyoto and even if they did it would not have forced an amendment to the US constitution to rescind the 1st amendment. As for a taking part in a 'hate crime', is being hateful a crime or a sin? If it is a sin then how do you adequate codify that Law (capital 'L') into a law without upsetting those who do not recognize the higher Being whose Law should not be transgressed?

Heine was protesting censorship in the 1820's. Censorship which would not be out of place in many Moslem countries today. In his day in Germany any printed material - including music - less than a certain length had to be granted permission from the state prior to publication. His quote was resurrected with hindsight after the Nazis begun burning books in the 1930's. Except as a poetic warning, this does not change the nature of free speech. (btw, a quote without reference is nigh on meaningless!)

In case you hadn't noticed, there is 'world-wide outrage' about a Pastor's decision to host a 'Burn the Koran Day' at his church in Florida, USA. I say he should go for it. Subject to local government ordinances, his congregation and he shall be breaking no State or Federal law by burning the Koran. Indeed, their right so to do is granted under the 1st Amendment, US Constitution thus: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Here in Britain we do not have a codified Constitution; whereas the King's rebels in the Colonies were able to start with a clean sheet, we have built up an evolved legal framework primary containing the Magna Carta, 1215 and the Bill of Rights, 1689. Our Bill of Rights (not to be confused with the US Bill of Rights, which is a description of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) is not as lexically precise as the US Const. 1st Amendment. It has never been considered by the Courts of Parliament or - by virtue of the lack of revolution - the Populus, as particularly necessary to give substantive legal mass to it; since Cromwell's death our arbiter of last resort has not been a legal framework, per se. The monarch has acted as a living constitution, ever mindful that the proper place for a head is upon the shoulders and not in a bloody mess at the foot of the block. Never the less, the Bill of Rights of 1689 does speak to freedom of expression, thus: "That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;" Now one must read this in the historical context in which it was written. While the US Constitution was always intended to be forward-looking, codifying the ground upon which the new country's body of law would be built, our Bill of Rights was very much re-active in nature. The reaction was against James the Second and his pro-papist, anti-protestant religious-political alignment. The Bill of Rights was written to limit future monarchs from meddling with the will of the Parliament; hence that 'freedom of speech .. in Parliament ought not be [curtailed by the King]'. In other words 'The King can sod off, we the people will speak our mind and worship who we will'. Notice the difference betwix the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights? The US Constitution was specifically formulated to confer upon the people 'inalienable rights' **. Our Bill of Rights on the other hand was drafted as a conscious reaction to the authoritarian nature of the State. So on Saturday a small church in the US will burn several hundred copies of the Koran. This will enrage many Moslems around the world. Unfortunately, and thankfully, their 'outrage' will just have to be. The congregation of the church are 100% completely covered under the US Constitution to do what they shall, subject to local ordinances such as when they can and cannot have a bonfire. And jolly good luck to them too. Go for it, I say! They are idiots, but brave idiots. They are less protesting against the evil of Islam as they are celebrating and confirming their own Constitution. Fair play to them. I wonder if our Bill of Rights would similarly afford us the legal protection to protest Islam in a similar vein? ----- ** homework question, extra marks will be awarded: how exactly does one confer upon oneself and one's fellow man 'inalienable rights'? This poser gets to the nub of the interlace betwix religious Law and human law.

who said it was a homophobic term? My gay friends use it all the time to describe themselves. Homophobia is the 'fear' of gays. Stop being such a PC slut!

****ing brilliant. Turkish delight = fag sex.

f\/ck me, she has the whole ****ing milk board in those things. Big tits ****ing scare me. I like a nice manageable portion of lactation sacks.

me.