lol@50uff$ VI: DKoR's meltdown

[Frailty]

Bunniesman checking out that underage boy?

Not surprised.

 

[gronkathon]

Big 20 on bike for shoo shum no?

 

[El Diablo]

As per the findings of the Federal Court, Souths were illegally excluded from the competition by the News Limited scum and subsequently were rightly reinstated.

Since 1908, Souths have always competed standalone, as SSDRLFC... whilst St George merged with Illawarra and registered a new combined team in the 1999 comp... hope this ends your confusion.

LOL@Dead V

wrong

News appealed that and it was found to be legal http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html

 

[ek999]

The action by News Limited was found to be illegal under the Trade Practices Act, 1974 which comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia, not the High Court.

So the News Limited scum could not have excluded Souths again, dumbarse... end of.

Lol. And on appeal to the High Court which is the highest court of law in Australia (hence its name) http://www.alpn.edu.au/court-hierarchy News Ltd won its case and therefore its right to exclude any team from its competition it wished i.e. South Sydney. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html

As South Sydney had already competed in the 2002 season, News Ltd decided to allow Souths to remain in an expanded 15 team competition. However, the ruling of the court means it is legal for any team to be excluded from the competition.

You are also still to answer my question on which competition South Sydney competed in 2000/01

 

[Jason Maher]

The action by News Limited was found to be illegal under the Trade Practices Act, 1974 which comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia, not the High Court.

So the News Limited scum could not have excluded Souths again, dumbarse... end of.

Oh what a surprise, Nemewinks doesn't know what he's talking about...

 

[Timmah]

Link to said ruling Nemi?

 

[Nemesis]

Lol. And on appeal to the High Court which is the highest court of law in Australia (hence its name) http://www.alpn.edu.au/court-hierarchy News Ltd won its case and therefore its right to exclude any team from its competition it wished i.e. South Sydney. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JCULRev/2003/6.html

As South Sydney had already competed in the 2002 season, News Ltd decided to allow Souths to remain in an expanded 15 team competition. However, the ruling of the court means it is legal for any team to be excluded from the competition.

You are also still to answer my question on which competition South Sydney competed in 2000/01

The High Court case was a year AFTER Souths had been reinstated in the competition, dickwad. It was pursued by the News Limited scum purely to preserve its control over the number of teams in the comp that it hijacked, not to re-exclude Souths i.e...

"News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour. Thus the proceedings before the High Court could be viewed as nothing more than an academic exercise. However, News Ltd?s wish to take the matter to the High Court might indicate that News Ltd may, at some time in the future, seek to reduce the number of teams in the NRL.

So where is News Limited now???????? Seems they've been excluded.... karma's such a bitch.

LOL@Dead V... "The Slide of the League"

 

[gronkathon]

 

[Nemesis]

lol@ self-proclaimed c**k smokers

LOL@Dead V... "The Slide of the League"

 

[God-King Dean]

 

[El Diablo]

The High Court case was a year AFTER Souths had been reinstated in the competition, dickwad. It was pursued by the News Limited scum purely to preserve its control over the number of teams in the comp that it hijacked, not to re-exclude Souths i.e...

"News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour. Thus the proceedings before the High Court could be viewed as nothing more than an academic exercise. However, News Ltd?s wish to take the matter to the High Court might indicate that News Ltd may, at some time in the future, seek to reduce the number of teams in the NRL.

So where is News Limited now???????? Seems they've been excluded.... karma's such a bitch.

LOL@Dead V... "The Slide of the League"

you said it was illegal

the high court said it wasn't

idiot

 

[gronkathon]

And then

And then

And then

Seff Sinney fan meet for rough shoo shumming in carpark no?

 

[Joker's Wild]

Da f**k?

 

[God-King Dean]

Dufaq indeed.

 

[gronkathon]

It's a Souffs thing I guess

 

[ek999]

The High Court case was a year AFTER Souths had been reinstated in the competition, dickwad. It was pursued by the News Limited scum purely to preserve its control over the number of teams in the comp that it hijacked, not to re-exclude Souths i.e...

"News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour. Thus the proceedings before the High Court could be viewed as nothing more than an academic exercise. However, News Ltd?s wish to take the matter to the High Court might indicate that News Ltd may, at some time in the future, seek to reduce the number of teams in the NRL.

So where is News Limited now???????? Seems they've been excluded.... karma's such a bitch.

LOL@Dead V... "The Slide of the League"

Yes because after the Federal Court ruled that it was illegal South Sydney was reinstated to the NRL for 2002. However, on appeal by News Ltd, the High Court ruled that Souths exclusion was legal. News Ltd, after that court case would have been able to exclude Souths from 2004 onwards if it chose to which it did not as you so helpfully bolded for us to read. You really should be thanking News Ltd for allowing Souths to still be a part of the competition. News did not get excluded from the NRL, they chose to walk away from ownership on their own accord and still make substantial money out of the game through newspaper sales and Pay TV subscriptions.

I am still waiting on your answer to the competition that Souths played in 2000/01

 

[Nemesis]

you said it was illegal

the high court said it wasn't

idiot

The Full Federal Court at the time ruled that it was an exclusionary provision (read illegal) hence Souths were subsequently reinstated.

News Limited scum's High Court appeal (after Souths had already returned to the competition the year before) only ruled in their favour because "News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour."

f**kstick

 

[ek999]

The Full Federal Court at the time ruled that it was an exclusionary provision (read illegal) hence Souths were subsequently reinstated.

News Limited scum's High Court appeal (after Souths had already returned to the competition the year before) only ruled in their favour because "News Ltd made it clear before the proceedings began that it would not seek to remove Souths from the competition should the decision be made in its favour."

f**kstick

So the High Court made a ruling which sets the precedence for excluding teams from sporting competitions across Australia based on what News Ltd decided to do? It's a ruling that affects not only Souths and the NRL but also AFL, Rugby Union, Soccor, Netball, Basketball etc.

 

[gypsy]

Lol@Souffs fans actually circle jerking in a carpark :lol:
Nemi is probably partaking in some pump-action, self administered, rectal shoom shumming with long broomsticks while viewing that, no?

 

[Fire]

DUFAQ?!

LOL@5(c)uff$! x infinity!