- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Brussells court invalidates FFP
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:30 am to EastNastySwag
Posted on 6/25/15 at 8:30 am to EastNastySwag
quote:
I mean, if he was such a good lawyer, he wouldn't have all this time to post on here because there is always demand for good attorneys. Just sayin'
If you try this with SFP you may get him to bite fwiw
0
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:07 am to EastNastySwag
The student interns at my firm wouldn't call a preliminary injunction a ruling. There's no way this guy is a member of a state bar anywhere.
The semantics mean everything here. He's pretending an injunction issued by a lower European court has some bearing on the merits of a case when it means literally nothing. They referred it for a reason. Because they didn't want to issue a binding decision on something they thought was questionable. They did literally the opposite of what he's claiming they did. An injunction has nothing to do with substantive issues of a case unless it pertains to freedom of speech. This is because monetary damages are always preferred to specific performance.
DS quit thinking in a common law context. EU civil law is not the same animal.
The semantics mean everything here. He's pretending an injunction issued by a lower European court has some bearing on the merits of a case when it means literally nothing. They referred it for a reason. Because they didn't want to issue a binding decision on something they thought was questionable. They did literally the opposite of what he's claiming they did. An injunction has nothing to do with substantive issues of a case unless it pertains to freedom of speech. This is because monetary damages are always preferred to specific performance.
DS quit thinking in a common law context. EU civil law is not the same animal.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:14 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
The student interns at my firm wouldn't call a preliminary injunction a ruling
What I said was correct according to the dictionary definition of the term.
quote:
The semantics mean everything here.
This is a message board, not the Supreme Court. Focusing so much on an ancillary topic like how I used the word ruling and resorting to personal attacks just gives the impression that you don't want to talk about the real issue, which is the fraudulent FFP scheme that is beginning to crumble.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 10:16 am
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:27 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Ruling
quote:
Not a ruling
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:37 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
This is a message board, not the Supreme Court. Focusing so much on an ancillary topic like how I used the word ruling and resorting to personal attacks just gives the impression that you don't want to talk about the real issue
This is exactly why I don't think you're a lawyer. The semantics have a direct bearing on whether the court "invalidated" anything at all. Let me give you a legal lesson. A "ruling" is a permanent (albeit, excluding appellate procedures) decision based on the merits of a case. Using the term "ruling" denotes that a final decision was made by a court. A preliminary injunction is not a ruling. The merits and substantive issues are not taken into consideration, unless it's a 1st amendment case such as defamation, for example. This was a purely precautionary measure to mitigate any damage that would come from the POSSIBILITY of FFP being overturned by the ECJ. EU civil law, unlike American common law, allows for a certified legal question to be referred to the Union's highest court. The whole point of the referral is to pass the decision off to the judges in Luxembourg.
So yes, semantics mean everything when you're claiming they issued a binding judgment on FFP and "invalidated" it. But I'm sure you knew all of this from law school right?
You're either a very irresponsible attorney or a very poor one. Either way don't mislead people who weren't educated in the law. You took an oath against that.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:41 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
The semantics have a direct bearing on whether the court "invalidated" anything at all.
I just put that to wind yall up
quote:
Using the term "ruling" denotes that a final decision was made by a court. A preliminary injunction is Not a ruling
I've already addressed this. If you don't have anything new then move on
quote:
You're either a very irresponsible attorney or a very poor one.
you don't know anything about me. There's nothing more ridiculous than someone who makes sweeping generalizations about who somebody is based on a couple of message board posts.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:44 am to BleedPurpleGold
So...as someone not trained in law, basically, the court in Brussells basically said, "hey, higher court, you should look at this," right?
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:49 am to DoreonthePlains
Yeah they're allowed to pass it off for the higher court to look at and make a legal decision on. Usually done in cases like this where billions are on the line. It avoids extensive appellate procedures that can take years and tons of money.
Basically, what you want to take away from it is that the Belgian court decided it was too important for a lower court to hear. They called in the big guns to get a more educated opinion on the matter.
Basically, what you want to take away from it is that the Belgian court decided it was too important for a lower court to hear. They called in the big guns to get a more educated opinion on the matter.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:52 am to DoreonthePlains
quote:
So...as someone not trained in law, basically, the court in Brussells basically said, "hey, higher court, you should look at this," right?
They also blocked FFP's next phase from being implemented until that court has done so.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:54 am to BleedPurpleGold
It is also a major victory for FFP opponents. This was considered one of the weaker challenges as it was brought by Man City and PSG fans (and maybe an agent, I can't remember). Most expected this particular challenge to be dismissed out of hand.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 10:59 am to Draconian Sanctions
Oh it's certainly not a defeat. That wasn't what I was getting at. It very well could be overturned in the decision by the ECJ. It's not a victory either, though. Will be very interesting to read the ECJ's opinion when it comes out.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:04 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
It's not a victory either, though.
It's a victory in the sense that, as I said, it was considered the weakest of the current FFP legal challenges that were out there and it will put pressure on UEFA to look at further modifying FFP in an effort to keep at least some of it. I don't think UEFA thought that it would get to even this point, as indicated by the vitriol in their response to the decision.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:15 am to Draconian Sanctions
In that context i agree. From a strategic standpoint it's definitely out of the blue. I wouldn't count your chickens before they hatch though. The ECJ is so unpredictable sometimes. Which is why I think they saw it as a victory. It's so hard to tell what side of the socialist bed the court will wake up on. Personally I think a lot of their decisions don't jive. Some would say that's an FFP
disadvantage, some would say it's an advantage, depending on what side of the argument you're on.
disadvantage, some would say it's an advantage, depending on what side of the argument you're on.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:21 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
Belgian court
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:41 am to Dandy Lion
I noticed it earlier but I'm at work and posting from my phone so editing is complicated.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:43 am to BleedPurpleGold
Doesn't this break UEFA/FIFA's rule about using the state to fight them? Pretty sure that's what they got Sion with a few years ago.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 11:50 am to TN Bhoy
I'm only vaguely familiar with that incident. I assume it had something to do with the Swiss not being members of the Union? No idea, really.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:37 pm to BleedPurpleGold
What ive gathered from this is Bleed is def a subject matter expert while DS is not.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:39 pm to StraightCashHomey21
Based on the claim that I misused a word that I didn't even really misuse
You put "one" instead of "won" in the FIFA thread but did I bring it up? Of course not because I'm not as petty as you children are.
You put "one" instead of "won" in the FIFA thread but did I bring it up? Of course not because I'm not as petty as you children are.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 1:50 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Based on the claim that I misused a word that I didn't even really misuse
no based on he is actually dropping some informative knowledge in this thread.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News