Galeforce
Bench
- Messages
- 2,602
2001 decision http://youtu.be/BnKw_iLfngY
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 ;-)
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
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 youHint, think derp derp.
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 ;-)
illegally kicked out.So stick it!
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.
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
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.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???....