Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Recent Profile Visitors

1,090 profile views
  1. Because feeling justified is no excuse to manhandle and intimidate officials so that would send completely the wrong message.
  2. I've not read the court report from this case as I can't find it anywhere but this case almost certainly won't set a precedent. For a start there is a general principle under the law of negligence that footballers owe each other a duty of care on the pitch and that reckless tackles using excessive force breach that duty of care if damage is caused. There have been numerous cases decided on this point at both amateur and professional levels. At professional or semi-professional levels as the club is acting as an employer they become vicariously liable for the damage caused. The precedents are already there. There are pictures of the tackle in question and it looks like the tackler jumps off the ground into the standing leg of the injured player. He stated that he "admittedly [...] went in with a tough challenge" and the referee gave evidence that the tackle was reckless and with excessive force. Tackles like that have no place in football and there is rightfully a claim there if serious injury results. Similar arguments about floodgates being opened were probably made after McCord v Swansea or Watson v Gray, but it's been 20 years since then and cases are still few and far between. The 2 scandalous elements of the case involve the league and its clubs having insurance which doesn't cover legal costs, and then a club running up legal bills of over £110,000 fighting a claim worth less than £20,000 and then starting a GoFundMe page expecting the general public to bail them out.
  3. You're almost completely right here. ETs only have to look at whether procedure was followed and if so whether a dismissal fell within a "band of reasonable responses" to the misconduct in question. It's pretty clear that fining the two drivers 6 weeks wages is within that range of responses, and it's also pretty clear that dismissing Keogh would be considered to be within that range too (albeit at the more extreme end). However, how other people involved in instances of misconduct were disciplined is directly relevant to whether a dismissal falls within the band of reasonable responses. There have been cases where employees were dismissed while other, more senior/more culpable employees, were merely warned or fined for their part in the same incident. These cases are sometimes decided in favour of the dismissed employee; however, given Keogh's senior role at the club relative to the drivers it's very unlikely that such a decision would be reached in this case. Of course, even if it is found that he was unfairly dismissed the maximum award at an ET is just under £100,000 (absent certain circumstances which definitely don't apply here). This is far less than the amount outstanding in his contract, so it makes financial sense for Derby to dismiss him regardless, if his resale value is next to nothing. The chance that Keogh would be reengaged as an employee of Derby following an ET is almost nil given the bad blood that has been generated by the actions of both parties.
  4. That's the problem right there. As we didn't present any new evidence the appeal was merely procedural in nature, focusing on whether the initial tribunal was conducted properly. It's pretty common in other areas of the law where there is tribunal involvement (e.g. social security law and employment law) and its main function is to stop people gambling on appealing in hope that the appeal tribunal may take a different view of the facts to the initial tribunal. It would be rare for a review appeal to lead to a change in the decision unless the initial decision is completely wrong or there was some appearance of bias. Even in the latter case it would be likely that the case would just be sent back to be reheard by a different tribunal. And on your CAS point, it's pretty rare for CAS to get involved in such cases as CAS generally trusts that the governing body has properly applied the relevant laws. In any case, it'd take 3-12 months for a result to be reached so the ban would've already ended well before any arbitration award takes effect.
  5. OK, the first point that has to be borne in mind is that this is a lot more than just a sleeve sponsorship. It also covers a pitchside sponsorship and "Visit Rwanda" will be displayed behind players and managers giving post-match interviews. Another general point: Rwanda's GDP is just under $8.5billion. They're spending 0.48% of it on this sponsorship. We're giving them $82million which equates to 0.97% of their gdp. To put that in perspective, imagine that you've got £10,000 in your bank account and you want to invest £45 in shares. Then imagine your multimillionaire mate having a go at you for it because he gave you a £90 christmas present. £30million may seem a lot but even for most developing states it's next to sod all and we definitely don't need to act all high and mighty about it and act as if we're doing them much of a favour by giving them £60million when they earn over £1billion in taxes and £400million in tourism revenue every year. You can make the argument that they overpaid (although given the fact that sleeve sponsors have only been around for a year or so and there are various other factors at play here too I don't know how you could do that) but when it comes to judging value for money on investments I'm inclined to trust bankers and business analysts over random people on internet forums. With regard to your first couple of paragraphs have a look at the first part of my post. I think it's a bit much for us to be getting up in arms about how Rwanda spends their tourism revenue given how miniscule our contribution is. With regard to the rest of your post, of course they're after more African tourism given that roughly 60% of their tourists are from Africa. Arsenal have already committed to holding various training camps and such like in Rwanda over the next few years which should bring in a lot of revenue for them given Arsenal's massive following across the continent. And you're being naive/obtuse if you think that sponsoring "any other Europa league team" would bring as much global visibility as a pitch/shirtsleeve sponsorship of Arsenal, who are the 2nd/3rd most popular football team in the most popular and most visible league in the world. Also, saying it's distasteful to take money from developing nations is a bit of a silly thing to say in my opinion. Particularly when said country has calculated that it will help their economy immensely.
  6. Took me about 20 minutes but I went through our historical head-to-head records. The team we've played the most is Notts County (108 times). We've played Rovers 107 times and Swindon 101 times. Below that we've played a couple of other teams more than Barnsley (such as Blackpool and Watford) but not many. NB: This includes League, FA Cup, League Cup, and all the other weird domestic cups.
  7. AJIB is not an Islamic bank, it's just owned by Muslims.
  • Create New...