• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

June to July 2020 - NUFC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Barista said:
No it wasn't more prestigious. You are getting confused with the UEFA cup for which clubs qualified on merit, not on whether the city was holding a trades fair - the UEFA cup is UEFA accredited and organised by UEFA unlike the fairground cup which is not recognised by UEFA as part of a club's European trophy record.
Click to expand...

Trades fair entry qualification was scrapped very early in tournament history. By the time Newcastle qualified the entry criteria was exactly the same as UEFA cup from its inception.
 
AndyH said:
I wouldn't call it evidence just an opinion.

he's basing his premise on a WTO document that isn't released so it's hard to have an opinion on it but.....
he believes the WTO document finds the Saudi government responsible for the piracy and or funding it. They are not even making a ruling on that, the ruling was to decide if the Saudi's have been negligent in providing sufficient protection against piracy.
Doing something and not doing enough to stop something are very different things.

He believes that if the Saudi state does something, then as crown prince, Bin Salman has knowledge of it, as he chairs the pif that means he controls the PIF ergo PIF are complicit in anything the Saudi state does.

I think this is the main reason I disagree with him, as far as I can tell the PIF is a separate legal entity that acts autonomously on behalf of the Saudi State to invest it's wealth. As such I think PIF is subject to the O&D test along with who ever it puts forward on the board which I believe is the Governor of the PIF so he would be subject to the test not Bin Salman.
So unless the PIF has directly funded BeoutQ then I don't think there is any issue.

I'm not a barrister though so like I said earlier I could be well wide of the mark.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. What do you think, in your opinion, is worse.

Employing someone on a zero hours contract?

Or

Murdering someone / marrying a 9 year old girl?
 
Exile 1968 said:
Thanks for that. What do you think, in your opinion, is worse.

Employing someone on a zero hours contract?

Or

Murdering someone / marrying a 9 year old girl?
Click to expand...
Obviously the latter, bit of a stupid question don't you think.

I don't actually think there is anything the matter with zero hours contracts as long as you don't use them to exploit people and be a all round general c**t to them.
 
Benjamin said:
Trades fair entry qualification was scrapped very early in tournament history. By the time Newcastle qualified the entry criteria was exactly the same as UEFA cup from its inception.
Click to expand...
How did Newcastle "qualify" then? Wasn't it because 2 teams from London actually dId "qualify" legitimately but 2 teams from one city weren't allowed so one had to drop out. On what basis did Newcastle enter the competition?
 
Benjamin said:
Trades fair entry qualification was scrapped very early in tournament history. By the time Newcastle qualified the entry criteria was exactly the same as UEFA cup from its inception.
Click to expand...
Not totally true. The one team per city rule was in place when Newcastle won, but wasn’t in place for the first UEFA Cup. Either way, the teams entered all the relevant tournaments knowing the rules, and the Mags qualified by right according to those rules. Personally I don’t think the rules were right then, just as now I can’t agree with the Champions League being won by teams who didn’t qualify by winning their national league. But everyone joins knowing the rules, so they qualified by the rules and won it by the rules.
 
AndyH said:
Obviously the latter, bit of a stupid question don't you think.

I don't actually think there is anything the matter with zero hours contracts as long as you don't use them to exploit people and be a all round general c**t to them.
Click to expand...
In my opinion it's not a stupid question at all.

You're obviously one of those Mags (I wont call you people) who agrees that taking up time in Parliament regards an owner not buying you a new number 9 and complaining relentlessly about how bad your current owner is as hes not spending billions, yet looks away when the Saudis canny Lads might spend the money to get you a few places up the league. It's ok about what they do as they're spending, yet Mike's a Monster?

You arsehole
 
DH4 said:
How did Newcastle "qualify" then? Wasn't it because 2 teams from London actually dId "qualify" legitimately but 2 teams from one city weren't allowed so one had to drop out. On what basis did Newcastle enter the competition?
Click to expand...

Like it or not, 2 teams from London did not “qualify” legitimately as the rules stated that only one could. It’s like saying that Swindon got promoted legitimately in 1990.
 
Kent Boy 2 said:
Like it or not, 2 teams from London did not “qualify” legitimately as the rules stated that only one could. It’s like saying that Swindon got promoted legitimately in 1990.
Click to expand...
Everton, Arsenal and Spurs all finished higher than Newcastle but could not enter because there was another club in their City. Newcastle only "qualified" by being the next team down the list with only one team in their city. Fourth choice.
 
Last edited:
DH4 said:
Everton, Arsenal and Spurs all finished higher than Newcastle but could not enter because there was another club in their City. Newcastle only "qualified" by being the next team down the list with only one team in their city. Fourth choice.
Click to expand...
West Brom finished above them as well but they won the Cup so went into the cup winners cup
 
Dear god this fairs cup talk is the most tedious thing going. Who cares it's just a tinpot trophy from decades ago. I am prouder of our European record than anyone but even I don't give the fairs cup a second thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top