Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY 13:05 - Aug 11 with 30721 views | TheResurrection | This is what we're up against. Some won't even be there but if we went a goal down they won't be able to get to their keyboards quick enough. This is what we were up against last season. Some of our fans, especially the ones posting on here, WANT us to fail. Beware of the enemy within. SUPPORT YOUR FOOTBALL CLUB - YOU WONT HAVE ANOTHER ONE | ![](/images/avatars/21041.gif) |
| | ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:48 - Feb 13 with 1027 views | The_E20 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:47 - Feb 13 by Loyal | It's my expert area 👠|
What is? | ![](/images/avatars/25244.gif) | | ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:27 - Feb 13 with 968 views | waynekerr55 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 02:33 - Feb 13 by The_E20 | You do realise I did not bump this thread yes? When you are correct, you don’t need confirmation that you are, you just are. It would be more accurate and pertinent to note the desire of certain individuals to go to great lengths to try and prove I’m not right about absolutely everything. But the best advice I can give to any budding E20 obsessive is - find something where I actually am wrong, it’s a good start. On this SHA topic, its the importance of the difference between a signed document and an unsigned one. One is valid until proven otherwise the other is invalid until proven otherwise and the burden of disputes changes depending on which one is the case. As it stands the unsigned SHA is invalid - until proven otherwise. Of which there seems little confidence it would be proven to be valid due to the lack of appetite to peruse that avenue; an avenue that would win them the case there and then. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 2:47]
|
Sorry but that's piffle. Non signature of a document does not invalidate it, especially when it was used to hoover up Mel Nurse's shares. | ![](/images/avatars/8681.gif) |
| ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:35 - Feb 13 with 962 views | The_E20 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:27 - Feb 13 by waynekerr55 | Sorry but that's piffle. Non signature of a document does not invalidate it, especially when it was used to hoover up Mel Nurse's shares. |
Don't be so ludicrous. I will write a document out now that you agree to give me your house then. If a document is drafted and unsigned then if someone wants what is in that contract to be binding then they have to prove it is valid. If it is signed and someone doesn't want to be binding then they have to prove it isn't. What you are describing is reasons as to why a judge may find an unsigned document to be a valid one, but until that happens it remains an invalid unsigned document, you don't have the power to decide unfortunately, regardless of what circumstances you feel are in play... hence why the Trust will not go down this avenue. | ![](/images/avatars/25244.gif) | | ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:41 - Feb 13 with 953 views | waynekerr55 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:35 - Feb 13 by The_E20 | Don't be so ludicrous. I will write a document out now that you agree to give me your house then. If a document is drafted and unsigned then if someone wants what is in that contract to be binding then they have to prove it is valid. If it is signed and someone doesn't want to be binding then they have to prove it isn't. What you are describing is reasons as to why a judge may find an unsigned document to be a valid one, but until that happens it remains an invalid unsigned document, you don't have the power to decide unfortunately, regardless of what circumstances you feel are in play... hence why the Trust will not go down this avenue. |
What do you mean don't be so ludicrous? It's a basic tenent of Tort that if you agree a contract and enforce it, its valid. Unless you've got evidence from the High Court to prove otherwise in the form of the case that made the precedent to prove what you believe. What would you trust? Case law or Leigh Dineen? [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 7:42]
| ![](/images/avatars/8681.gif) |
| ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:56 - Feb 13 with 938 views | magicdaps10 | Support your club guys because you might not have another one!!!! Dont support the sellouts, dont support the yanks.......support the club. Do as I say and all that. | ![](/images/avatars/11389.gif) |
| ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:21 - Feb 13 with 915 views | The_E20 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:41 - Feb 13 by waynekerr55 | What do you mean don't be so ludicrous? It's a basic tenent of Tort that if you agree a contract and enforce it, its valid. Unless you've got evidence from the High Court to prove otherwise in the form of the case that made the precedent to prove what you believe. What would you trust? Case law or Leigh Dineen? [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 7:42]
|
It's nothing to do with who I trust. We do not know if it was agreed, we do not have proof it was agreed by all and while there is some evidence to suggest it may have been acted upon, there is also evidence to suggest it wasn't. Bottom line, If the SHA was valid then that would be the obvious centre point for the case would it not? No need for deals, no need for mediation, no need for legal advice - they would be in breach of contract and easily actionable. So why isn't it being done? It is an unsigned document that if the Trust want enforced have to prove it is valid - until that time - it isn't, look around you, who owns the club. It doesn't look very valid does it, and it clearly isn't being pursued. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 8:28]
| ![](/images/avatars/25244.gif) | | ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:23 - Feb 13 with 913 views | waynekerr55 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 07:41 - Feb 13 by waynekerr55 | What do you mean don't be so ludicrous? It's a basic tenent of Tort that if you agree a contract and enforce it, its valid. Unless you've got evidence from the High Court to prove otherwise in the form of the case that made the precedent to prove what you believe. What would you trust? Case law or Leigh Dineen? [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 7:42]
|
And to add to this, compare like for like. You writing a contract for me to give you my house is a ludicrous comparison. The SHA was created by all parties and it has been used. If it's invalid then why did Gonzo's solicitor write to the Trust asking for it to be annulled. #dontbuythedineenbullshit | ![](/images/avatars/8681.gif) |
| ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:33 - Feb 13 with 903 views | The_E20 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:23 - Feb 13 by waynekerr55 | And to add to this, compare like for like. You writing a contract for me to give you my house is a ludicrous comparison. The SHA was created by all parties and it has been used. If it's invalid then why did Gonzo's solicitor write to the Trust asking for it to be annulled. #dontbuythedineenbullshit |
There is no proof it was created by all parties. I may say my contract was created by us both. Without your signature it is my word against yours. The ''if it isn't valid...'' argument is an easy one to answer, Jenkins wanted to cover any basis for any future legal action involving it in which it MAY be ruled as valid. A harder question to answer is the opposite, if it IS valid... then why aren't we doing something about it? It is because as it stands it is not valid, hence why the Americans own 68% of the club. If we want to force the issue, we will have to prove its validity - there is clearly massive doubts surrounding whether that can be done. | ![](/images/avatars/25244.gif) | | ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) | Login to get fewer ads
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:43 - Feb 13 with 882 views | waynekerr55 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:33 - Feb 13 by The_E20 | There is no proof it was created by all parties. I may say my contract was created by us both. Without your signature it is my word against yours. The ''if it isn't valid...'' argument is an easy one to answer, Jenkins wanted to cover any basis for any future legal action involving it in which it MAY be ruled as valid. A harder question to answer is the opposite, if it IS valid... then why aren't we doing something about it? It is because as it stands it is not valid, hence why the Americans own 68% of the club. If we want to force the issue, we will have to prove its validity - there is clearly massive doubts surrounding whether that can be done. |
Listen, I like you E20. A lot in fact. However you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried to be. It was created as a result of the shareholding and the creation post Petty. Fact. Dineen denied signing it fact. They enforced the SHA with Mel Nurse. Fact. Welcome back | ![](/images/avatars/8681.gif) |
| ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 09:00 - Feb 13 with 868 views | The_E20 |
Our fans ARE PRAYING WE WILL LOSE TODAY on 08:43 - Feb 13 by waynekerr55 | Listen, I like you E20. A lot in fact. However you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried to be. It was created as a result of the shareholding and the creation post Petty. Fact. Dineen denied signing it fact. They enforced the SHA with Mel Nurse. Fact. Welcome back |
I like you too but we clearly are at a cross roads and won't agree on this. And it is important to point out, I am not debating what is true or not, I fully believe that the SHA should be valid, I think it was acted upon and think it was assumed to be binding by all parties. But what I personally think and what a court thinks or decides are not necessarily the same, and as it stands the Trust would have to prove its validity, something they obviously have huge doubts over their ability to otherwise they would act upon it and would have back in 2016. I will always point back to the obvious, which is the fact that it isn't being pursued even though it would be the most obvious and winnable case imaginable in this scenario. A case that has been put toward multiple legal counsels at the cost of tens of thousands of pounds... yet it still wont be central to the case. It wasn't just Dineen who didn't sign it, I have been told that multiple people did not. In this case and cases such as this with unsigned SHA's, the courts have declared that the document MAY be binding. This is of course something that has to be decided in court and not by us or the Trust. [Post edited 13 Feb 2019 9:12]
| ![](/images/avatars/25244.gif) | | ![](/images/icons/ignore-user.png) |
| |