• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread


Grumpy Old Man said:
It's not. Vicarious liability makes the employer liable for the wrongful actions of an employee even where the company has not made wrongful actions. That's literally what vicarious means.
Click to expand...
But would the employer not have a defence if the employee could be proven to have broken the law to perform "the wrongful act"
 
darius said:
Can we prove that it didnt? It only takes them to have contracted one set piece, for it to have changed the result. Boro were poor after the first half hour mind, and knackered at the end. Southampton will just get a slap on the wrist, and get away with it.
Click to expand...
There's a good argument that Southampton themselves believe it changed the result. Otherwise why did they do it?
 
maghater said:
What about recording an individual(s) at their place ow work without their permission? Pretty sure the ECHR will have that covered
Click to expand...
That would catch 100% of match day cloggers. I'm pretty sure the right to privacy doesn't extend that far or whether there's a criminal offence that would cover it. These things are usually civil matters, not criminal.
 
If we thought we were at a disadvantage of coming up later than everyone else, whoever the 20th PL team is next season is going to be right up against it in terms of recruitment.

To be honest, I can’t see anyone in any of Hull, Southampton or Boro’s squad (except maybe Hackney, at a push) being able to step up or be sold for a lot of money.

Those play-off semis were some of the poorest games of football I’ve seen at that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top