Why is Souths the most hated team on here?

[Galeforce]

2001 decision http://youtu.be/BnKw_iLfngY

 

[Stagger Lee]

were illegally kicked out./QUOTE]

:lol:
You really are digging a hole for yourself.

You obviously have been affected by meths or such so I will break it down for you ;-)

So first up we had the interlocutory injunction LOST by Souths but that does not matter because you took it to a full trial.

Trial at the federal court, LOST by souths
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/1541.html

again does not matter because Souths appealed to the full bench of the federal court which Souffs actually won .... but again it does not matter because the case was taken to the high court who overturned the federal court.

Thats right Galefarce Souths lost in the final desicion (4-1 IIRC)

The high court overturned the federal court. Which means that news ltd actions were not Illegal. Scream louder if you want, stand out side the high court and protest till the cows come home, post a thousand posts on the forum. It does not change the result.

you lost .... boo hoo ;-)

 

[Apey]

To be fair, Galeforce is about 10x the demented twat Bunniesman is (and probably 5x the age) but thankfully he posts significantly less..

 

[Galeforce]

were illegally kicked out./QUOTE]

:lol:
You really are digging a hole for yourself.

You continue to be an idiot and just trying to cover your own s"ithole , which i can understand , as you reek of pompous snot

Souths were readmitted to 2002 because they won the 2001 courtcase . This win meant , simple fool , that Souths were illegally kicked out as of 2001 . The later 2003 was two years later , however at that time 2001 Souths won the case . Do you understand you twit.:roll:

View the video , as of 2001 and there is no mention of a 2003 court case overturning that ruling , derrr http://youtu.be/BnKw_iLfngY

 

[bottle]

Dear oh dear, and this in a 'why hate on souths' thread.

Delusion comes to mind.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Galefarce

You can't stop a game at half time and say 'Souths are winning' and that it does not matter that the full time score in the papers the next day have you down for a loss. :lol:

We all got pissed off with news Ltd scums actions, but the courts showed that it was legal for them to kick Souths out.

deal with it mmmmmmkkkaayy ;-)

 

[Miller was a legend]

Lol@everythingin this thread.

Oh by the way, unless bunniesman went back in time in his Deloren, it is highly unlikely a decision in 2003 will be mentioned in a vid about a 2001 incorrect decision. Admittedly thought to be a correct Decision in 2001 which lead to News Ltd, not preventing the bunnies return, but still wrong at law, as proven in 2003.

Mid you, f**k News Ltd

 

[Iafeta]

I think I know who you are talking about.

I hope it's not me. Lol

Pretty sure you'll on the money... its definitely not you Hint, think derp derp.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Pretty sure you'll on the money... its definitely not you Hint, think derp derp.

Yay, I quessed right....I better make a sig outa that

 

[Galeforce]

Galefarce

You can't stop a game at half time and say 'Souths are winning' and that it does not matter that the full time score in the papers the next day have you down for a loss. :lol:

We all got pissed off with news Ltd scums actions, but the courts showed that it was legal for them to kick Souths out.

deal with it mmmmmmkkkaayy ;-)

what utter nonsense of a comparison. i will correct your logic for the last time dope.
2001 courtcase is like halftime , OK agree . Souths winning 4 points to 2.
2002 Souths start playing again in the premiership. This is FULLTIME dope , Souths won 4 points to 2.
2003 is more like day after the game and referee's boss confirms that referees decision to award try was wrong. Too bad , the initial decision stands and souths won the game and got the points and the try counts as LEGAL.

The courts of 2001 decided the action to boot Souths out was not legal and this is why Souths reentered 2002 competition. the game was already over in 2003 .
deal with that sh:crazy:muck

 

[gypsy]

LOL@5(c)uff$, no?

 

[Stagger Lee]

illegally kicked out.So stick it!

So you are still trying to cling on to the 'it was illegall' whine? :lol:

Tell us Galefarce on why your legal opinion is greater than that of the high court who disagree with you?

I look foreword to this answer, haw haw haw ;-)

 

[Miller was a legend]

what utter nonsense of a comparison. i will correct your logic for the last time dope.
2001 courtcase is like halftime , OK agree . Souths winning 4 points to 2.
2002 Souths start playing again in the premiership. This is FULLTIME dope , Souths won 4 points to 2.
2003 is more like day after the game and referee's boss confirms that referees decision to award try was wrong. Too bad , the initial decision stands and souths won the game and got the points and the try counts as LEGAL.

The courts of 2001 decided the action to boot Souths out was not legal and this is why Souths reentered 2002 competition. the game was already over in 2003 .
deal with that sh:crazy:muck

Important question

Was it two penalty goals to one or a try to one penalty goal.

Just asking, I think it is important to get the facts straight in such matters

 

[Dragon]

what utter nonsense of a comparison. i will correct your logic for the last time dope.
2001 courtcase is like halftime , OK agree . Souths winning 4 points to 2.
2002 Souths start playing again in the premiership. This is FULLTIME dope , Souths won 4 points to 2.
2003 is more like day after the game and referee's boss confirms that referees decision to award try was wrong. Too bad , the initial decision stands and souths won the game and got the points and the try counts as LEGAL.

The courts of 2001 decided the action to boot Souths out was not legal and this is why Souths reentered 2002 competition. the game was already over in 2003 .
deal with that sh:crazy:muck

what utter nonsense of a comparison. i will correct your logic for the last time dope

i will correct your logic

logic

Souffs logic.. LOL

 

[Titanic]

That logic is so logical that it defies the logic of said logic.

 

[BunniesMan]

Sigh...

 

[Stagger Lee]

Souffs logic.. LOL

An oxymoron if ever there was one :lol:

 

[Generalzod]

I Remember an article written in the Sydney Morning Herald by Andrew Denton years ago, How is it that the Roosters manage to be under the salary cap with so many Great players....Who thinks now that Souths are over the salary cap???....

 

[M2D2]

I dont.

 

[BunniesMan]

I Remember an article written in the Sydney Morning Herald by Andrew Denton years ago, How is it that the Roosters manage to be under the salary cap with so many Great players....Who thinks now that Souths are over the salary cap???....

We're losing a Queensland rep after this season. What more proof do you want. If we were cheating the cap DT wouldn't be going anywhere.