Thomas Davis Lose

[Gnevin]

The GAA offered to build your ground for you years ago. Who was  self-obsessed and superior then they told the GAA to f**k off?
Enough said .

Ehhh... No...

The GAA offered to be involved in building a ground that was grand for bogball and stick-fighting, but useless for football. Anyone with an ounce of sense (not you obviously) would recognise that football fans watching the action 30 yards away from the pitch isn't an option. But you GAA heads don't care about such minor details, do you? The only important matter is backwater GAA sports. Everyone else can shag off. Fascists.

Your lot haven't had much complaints in Croker.  Or the many soccer stadiums with a running track around them .

[Gaaboardmod3]

Hi Lads,

Just wanted to clear something up from a few pages ago. Dublinfella didn't get his 2 day ban for the content of any of his posts, and he is more than welcome to come here and debate his points, as he is well capable of doing.

The ban is related to an ongoing spat between himself and holiness (see a few pages back for my original post). I asked them both to simply ignore each other's posts and not to answer, or direct a question to the other.

Unfortunately dublinfella posted a response to a question by holiness, and even though the content was very mild, I had to act because it would spiral again. Now the ban is up, (it was a minor one), dublinfella is back, and as long as he adheres to the rules he'll stay, and is welcome to. This board,unlike a lot of others, does not require you to all sing off the one hymn sheet.

Hoops, you on the other hand better have more to offer than GAA = Fascists.

Cheers.

[his holiness nb]

I see Hoop has brought the sentiment from the Rovers Ultras site in which they wish aids upon GAA men over to our good site.

Welcome Hoop, notice you will be allowed argue your point over here, unlike the welcome GAA folk get at yours.

So when you calm down and ease up with the insults, I look forward to your contribution on here 

[Gaaboardmod3]

Hi his Holiness, and dublinfella.

As you will have gathered by now, I have sent ye both a PM to the same effect as this post.

Once again the interaction between ye has spiralled down into accusations of insulting behaviour, to denials, to rebuttals and so on. Clearly both of ye rub each other up the wrong way, and without really descending into personal abuse per se., your arguments (I use the term loosely) just detract from whatever thread they appear on.

So, for 1 month, if either of you a) Directs a remark or question, or b) Mentions the other person in ANY of your posts in ANY thread, you will receive a 2 day ban. Repeating this will earn a 5 day ban, and a further repeat will earn a permanent ban.

I am sorry it has come to this between ye, but to be honest the nature of these 'debates' are causing more hassle than they are worth.

In one month's time ,if ye both have managed to adhere to this, I will rescind this. If after that, ye can converse sensibly, then we'll be grand.

Thanks for your understanding.

PS. I am posting this here, not to make an example of ye both, but so that the other posters will understand why this argument has just died.

This was the initial post. I hope now people who were wondering why dublinfella was banned for such an innocuous comment will have a better idea.

[Main Street]

You do understand what guarantor means?
Please cite the law which you think covers TD and the source of their finance to cover their costs.
Sure as hell isn't Locus Standi.

The GAA as an organisation did not take this case. A club, not the local one, did. That club were asked to prove they could pay at least their own costs and listed how they would do so. At no point was the GAA mentioned as a source of funding. Rovers applied to be an interested party, the GAA did not. We can argue whether that is Locus Standi or not or whether its a manipulation of the courts, but if this is the case, a third party paying the costs in a case unrelated to them is against the rules. Simple as.

The proof of payment gaurentee is one thing before a court will hear a case.

I asked you to quote which Law is it that TD would be in violation of should they pay the Court costs with a loan or finance from any source not related directly to Thomas Davis?
There is no argument about Locus Standi, it does not apply.

 

[dublinfella]

The proof of payment gaurentee is one thing before a court will hear a case.

I asked you to quote which Law is it that TD would be in violation of should they pay the Court costs with a loan or finance from any source not related directly to Thomas Davis?
There is no argument about Locus Standi, it does not apply.

Yes it does - the GAA had no interest in the case, as such they cannot fund it. Locus Standi.

Are you disagreeing that is a fundamental tenent of Irish Law?

[Gnevin]

The proof of payment gaurentee is one thing before a court will hear a case.

I asked you to quote which Law is it that TD would be in violation of should they pay the Court costs with a loan or finance from any source not related directly to Thomas Davis?
There is no argument about Locus Standi, it does not apply.

Yes it does - the GAA had no interest in the case, as such they cannot fund it. Locus Standi.

Are you disagreeing that is a fundamental tenent of Irish Law?

If this an issue which it may or may not the GAA is prefectly entitled to give TD a grant of what ever figure it likes

[dublinfella]

If this an issue which it may or may not the GAA is prefectly entitled to give TD a grant of what ever figure it likes

Agreed, but its not allowed write the cheques to the SDCC and Rovers for the legal fees - that means TD went to court on a false pretext.

[Gnevin]

If this an issue which it may or may not the GAA is prefectly entitled to give TD a grant of what ever figure it likes

Agreed, but its not allowed write the cheques to the SDCC and Rovers for the legal fees - that means TD went to court on a false pretext.

So whats your point , the GAA simply writes a cheque to TD . Maybe TD should declare them self bankrupt and the debt will disappear 

[dublinfella]

So whats your point , the GAA simply writes a cheque to TD . Maybe TD should declare them self bankrupt and the debt will disappear 

Its an abuse of the legal process.

Why not declare that the GAA were funding the case from day one? Why the smoke and daggers?

[Main Street]

The proof of payment guarentee is one thing before a court will hear a case.

I asked you to quote which Law is it that TD would be in violation of should they pay the Court costs with a loan or finance from any source not related directly to Thomas Davis?
There is no argument about Locus Standi, it does not apply.

Yes it does - the GAA had no interest in the case, as such they cannot fund it. Locus Standi.

Are you disagreeing that is a fundamental tenent of Irish Law?

Costs were guaranteed by TD. The case went ahead. I haven't read the court transcripts, the legal arguments or the Judgement. I assume the case went ahead because the court accepted that TD had some sort of a legal challenge.
The case was not dismissed because TD could not establish Locus Standi.
TD lost and have to pay costs.
I ask you now a slightly rephrased question -  Where exactly in the law (or specifically Locus Standi), after a case has been accepted by and decided in the courts, is this fundamental tenet written, that the loser in a case cannot pay the costs with finance from somebody with no direct interest in the case.  
Please quote the text that applies.

[Gnevin]

So whats your point , the GAA simply writes a cheque to TD . Maybe TD should declare them self bankrupt and the debt will disappear 

Its an abuse of the legal process.

Why not declare that the GAA were funding the case from day one? Why the smoke and daggers?

No it's not the GAA is entitled to give its clubs a grant, the club is entitled to spend it as they see fit , if the GAA issues as a  general purpose grant and not a grant for x or y

[dublinfella]

Costs were guaranteed by TD. The case went ahead. I haven't read the court transcripts, the legal arguments or the Judgement. I assume the case went ahead because the court accepted that TD had some sort of a legal challenge.
The case was not dismissed because TD could not establish Locus Standi.
TD lost and have to pay costs.
I ask you now a slightly rephrased question -  Where exactly in the law (or specifically Locus Standi), after a case has been accepted by and decided in the courts, is this fundamental tenet written, that the loser in a case cannot pay the costs with finance from somebody with no direct interest in the case.  
Please quote the text that applies.

One of the reasons the case itself was dismissed was because TD, not the local club, admitted they would not use the facility themselves and the Judge woud not allow them represent the GAA. They could not prove an interest and they were explicitly told that they were not allowed represent the GAA.

I am not a lawyer and do not have the case references, but a fundamental in our legal system is that you  cannot take cases through third parties, which it appears the DCB/GAA did. MacDonalds cannot pay for individuals to sue Burger King.

They got into that court on a false pretext and have left themselves wide open to a loss of earnings suit from Rovers.

[dublinfella]

No it's not the GAA is entitled to give its clubs a grant, the club is entitled to spend it as they see fit , if the GAA issues as a  general purpose grant and not a grant for x or y

Clubs are not entitled to spend their grants 'any way they choose'.

Sure why not spend it on women and flash cars for the senior hurlers?

[feetofflames]

Maybe on a less legal angle then,  but third party enough for me.  Why would The shamrock rovers ultras website call the GAA nazis or fascists etc.  Whilst you admit that you lack the basic capabilities of a lawyer surely you comprehend that thats the equivalent of somebody saying FAI = Nazis / fascists etc.  as opposed to one part of...