: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:30 pm  

Visage wrote:

I think the club probably have, it's the fans I think, feel cheated over the whole episode.

The club should too. I know it wouldn't happen, but do you reckon they'd have given their "blessing" if he'd signed for Leeds and got in the back door?

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:03 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

The club should too. I know it wouldn't happen, but do you reckon they'd have given their "blessing" if he'd signed for Leeds and got in the back door?

Much in the same way that Hetherington has yet to call the Catalans a disgrace to Rugby League you mean?

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:26 pm  

Visage wrote:

I think the club probably have, it's the fans I think, feel cheated over the whole episode.

No, I don't think they do. But I think they would if the Border Agency decided suddenly he's not so bad a sort after all, and let him in to play against us, despite him being too undesirable a character to be admitted to play forus.

Because of that absurd result, I really don't think they would open themselves up to obvious ridicule by overruling their own decision in that way.

Though it has been the case for years now that nothing, absolutely nothing that this "goverment" did should surprise us, corrupt, lying, incompetent shower of nest-lining, self-serving, deceitful thieves that they are.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:51 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Though it has been the case for years now that nothing, absolutely nothing that this "goverment" did should surprise us, corrupt, lying, incompetent shower of nest-lining, self-serving, deceitful thieves that they are.

Thought you were a master of accuracy and detail? You missed out self-deluding, hypocritical, scheming, cheating, faithless, reactive, betraying-of-principles, abandoning-of-roots, unprincipled, history-rewriting and absolutely thoroughly useless, if I recall?

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:52 pm  

Adeybull wrote:

Thought you were a master of accuracy and detail? You missed out self-deluding, hypocritical, scheming, cheating, faithless, reactive, betraying-of-principles, abandoning-of-roots, unprincipled, history-rewriting and absolutely thoroughly useless, if I recall?

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

No, not in the case (yet) of our border controls on aliens - which Bird is, French visa or no French visa.

If you had bothered to read the previous statement you would have seen that I was reffering to restriction of trade, EU law, and not visa restrictions, UK Law

Or should I assume that Bulls don't read things properly?

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:06 pm  

cymraegrhino wrote:

If you had bothered to read the previous statement you would have seen that I was reffering to restriction of trade, EU law, and not visa restrictions, UK Law

Or should I assume that Bulls don't read things properly?

Oh dear...not sure you realise what you have let yourself in for now once the 'Vark starts on you...hope you have plenty of time?

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:06 pm  

cymraegrhino wrote:

If you had bothered to read the previous statement you would have seen that I was reffering to restriction of trade, EU law, and not visa restrictions, UK Law

Or should I assume that Bulls don't read things properly?

Hey, no need to get all indignant. Your restraint of trade point is an interesting one, but the post I replied to was specifically your claim that the EU Court (sic) overrides any party states national law. This was, of course, dealing with the precise opposite of your previous post which you made clear was talking about the position "irrespective of national laws".

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:09 pm  

Told you...

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:24 pm  

cymraegrhino wrote:

Or should I assume that Bulls don't read things properly?

It's a fair bet that they don't read at all.