Why then did you go to great pains to discredit the Telegraph story, the journalist Jason Burt and go as far to call the story bullshit ?
Speaking of Adebayor, I happened upon this picture of him from his time at City: please log in to view this image It's from when he scored that goal and celebrated in front of the Arsenal fans. Remember when you didn't think that he had a banana thrown at him, Piskie? What would you say that thing on the bottom left is?
That's exactly what I was saying from the beginning I'm glad you now admit that the story about Spurs paying him £100k per week until another club came in were true.
I can see that you're a little bit bitter about this whole Adebayor being paid by Spurs story being right Nice try and attempting to divert attention away from it though.
When did I say that Spurs weren't paying him? I've asked this already and you still haven't answered. So another question that you're not going to answer? Can't say that I'm surprised.
You literally tried to discredit the whole story You said it would make no sense, you tried to discredit the journalist and you intimated that I was gullible to believe it and believed anything written in the newspaper. I can't find your quotes because you've conveniently hidden your profile. As for your second question, it's non-sequitur question and attempt to try and divert attention away because you now now that I was right when I first reported the Adebayor 100k per week from Spurs story.
I didn't say that Adebayor wasn't being paid by Spurs. The story about Palace having to negotiate with the club didn't make any sense and it still doesn't. I've already told you that I haven't hidden my profile. This just proves that you don't read comments properly. Even if I had, which I haven't, you could just go back over the last few pages of this thread, so what would be the point? The picture of Adebayor proves another earlier point, which you also failed to admit. Your claim at the time was that he didn't have a banana chucked at him by an Arsenal fan. IIRC, you then went on to say that even if it did happen, it was probably a coincidence and that they just threw whatever they had in their hand!
It makes perfect sense if it was stipulated in his severance package. The deal might have applied to Adebayor, but if it impacted on what Spurs were paying him, then naturally they would want to be involved in reducing their amount by what the new club were paying him. It seems that this is precisely what has happened. Which is what I was saying from the beginning. It seems that contrary to being against any rules, it's perfectly acceptable to insert these types of clauses into severance packages. Your picture of Adebayor is just you blathering I'm afraid. The picture proves nothing, it could be an piece of sandwich or something else, if it's a banana, then it's a banana skin, as it looks eaten, which suggests it was brought as part of somebody's lunch as oppose to a direct racist prop as you seem to be suggesting. It was an item amongst many other items that were thrown at him, as I said people probably just chucked whatever they could get their hands on. I seem to remember at the time you saying something along the lines of 'who would take a banana to a football match' like they are some kind of taboo fruit
Contract bit: No. Made no sense. Still makes no sense. No evidence to support it. Adebayor bit: Chucking a banana at players is a well known racist gesture. You'd have to be a total ****wit not to realise that. Your claim that it was probably just one of those things is another bit of Arsenal apologia. If that was Chelsea, then you'd be doing your nut about them being horrible racists. And you'd be right.
It makes sense if it was stipulated as part of a severance package. Moreso, it seems to be precisely what is happening. Adebayor pic. It's all about context, those fans threw whatever they could. There were all sorts of edible items, programmes, other pieces of detritus. The picture is inconclusive anyway, it looks like a half eaten sandwich to me. And as I said if it's a banana, it's already been eaten, which suggests it was somebody's lunch rather than a planned racist prop. If the player was white, I suspect the same items would have ended up on the pitch too.
Pixie, please don't force me to rinse you on this, all over again! Please explain to everyone - not me, because I'm not really that interested in your lack of knowledge of how contract law works - how any third party could possibly be bound by a contract that Adebayor made with Spurs on the termination of his contract with the club, unless that third party was a party to the actual contract that Adebayor made with Spurs (hint: in which case, that third party would not be a third party, they would be an actual party).
Yeah, I remember that! Thanks for reminding us all! It was an unbelievable moment in a site-career that has seen many unbelievable moments from Pixie. It was a comment that was stunning in its stupidity! I still cannot believe he said that, even now!
It's quite simple HIAG, any Lawyer worth his salt should know. When Spurs terminated his contract, they agreed a severance package with Adebayor that they would pay the remainder of his wages, up until the end of the initial contract term. But rather than pay it in one lump sum, they appear to have inserted a stipulation that if another club sign him, then any wage that that club pay him, would be deducted from the £100k that Spurs were paying him. The agreement may have been between Spurs and Adebayor, but triggers third party involvement in the severance deal once they sign him as they are then contributing to his wage. That appears to be exactly what is happening. What you appear to be arguing is no third party can be bound by an agreement made between Spurs and Adebayor, which suggests that the 'financial wizard' is going to pay Adebayor £100k per week up until June AND he'll get another wage from Palace. You're really not doing very well with your 'rinsings' are you, maybe you should come down off the line where you've been hung out to dry before trying in future
You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about do you ? Tell me, how is a number of varying items on the pitch including bits of old sandwich, programmes, old detritus and basically anything that people could get their hands on, coupled with a picture that looks like it could be anything from an half eaten sandwich to a discarded banana skin that's already presumably been eaten as part of somebody's lunch, be specifically brought out at precisely the right moment, that presumably the 'offender' knew about beforehand when he predicted that Adebayor would run to the opposite end of the pitch, be a deliberate and planned racist gesture ?
Explain how this "trigger" clause binds the third party, Pix. By what legal principle is the third party bound? Let's face it, Pixie, the only "trigger" you are familiar with is the one off Only Fools And Horses, and that's because you are a dead ringer for him, both in looks and intellect.
The third party factor appears to be triggered by the agreement that should Adebayor be paid by another club, then Spurs will reduce what they are paying him by that amount. That is exactly what is being reported.
