No, it simply doesn't mean that at all, it means the whole idea must be revisited and revised where necessary, but that could easily entail some adjustments to what is currently out there, without the need to scrap everything. If someone finds a fault in one of your legal documents (as if ), let's say a lengthy document, would you scrap everything or go back, look at what is wrong and change just those elements that need changing? Page 16 was were all of the theories and suppositions should have stopped, we know the matter is under scrutiny and we know a reasonable compromise will be reached; as I said before, there are 170,00,00 reasons for Allam to find a compromise to his scheme.
What do you mean 'get with my own argument'? I didn't post that. I certainly believe it could be the ultimate outcome if there is no compromise on concessions, although I have always thought it highly improbable and do not believe that is what will happen, having never said it would. The question mark at the end of SCB's second paragraph seems to place it as a possibility and not as a definite outcome. You are aware of the principle of worse case scenario, don't you? If you aren't aware I'm not sure how you can keep posting blather with any sincerity.
Not the need to plan again. As the first plan failed? Minor adjustments aren't exactly going back to the drawing board. I've argued a small adjustment would make the issue beyond challenge, but suggested it could quite possibly stand as it is So have we joined yet, then! ;-) If you want to argue the toss you need to be able to defend what you say. I'm not a lawyer, by the way. By get with your argument, I meant if you post that you weren't aware anyone had said we were at risk of being refused entry, or the scheme could be ripped up, you aren't aware of what's being said on here so undermining your posts credibility. That's all.
Just for accuracy - my ''back to the drawing board'' quip was more in hope than expectation. I personally clutch at anything that will cause the ****s grief.
I only quoted it to prove a point to Fez. I don't really care what your intentions were, but I guessed exactly what you meant when you posted. I just like how he bites. He called me pompous, so he's getting some
As Obi says, it certainly looks that way. The meeting was last Thursday, and there's been nothing to say otherwise, plus we're in the official table and the badge is on the top of their page. I'm sure the now non-promoted team would have mentioned it if they were staying up. The rules are set and enforced by the shareholders, which is the other clubs, so I doubt they'd give a toss. The club could even offer concession prices to away fans, and keep the shareholders sweet and meet the rule and their own scheme.
I can't believe people are seriously discussing us not getting promoted due to not meeting one of the rules, there was always going to be some sort of compromise reached, promotion was never at risk.
City's in the Prem, with the scheme as announced thus far. People will be evicted from 2/3 of upper west.
As Obi says? I think he was agreeing with me! It wasn't long ago people were laughing at me for daring to suggest the issue was far from clear and quite possibly an irrelevance. I don't expect much to change. I may be wrong but I doubt it.
Not me. I read the rules a it back, and thought pretty much the same then. It's not a race to be first though, it should be a collective effort to try to work out options and actions. Sadly, some prefer squabbling to discussing. Just to be clear I'm ot pointing a finger at you with that.
The PL have said Zones 1 and 2 are too cheap. Marketable product keep the riff raff out more middle class etcetc
