[moondog]

moondog, on Mar 6 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

One for taking photo's at the match, two for arguing about it, shocking example of jobsworth stewards

THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS UNLESS THEY COULD PROVE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN WOULD BE PUBLISHED OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD PARTIES

http://www.ctfc.com/...,,10434,00.html

Ground Regulation 16
Mobile telephones are permitted within the Ground, provided that they are used for personal and private use only PROVIDED THAT no audio, visual or audio-visual material captured by a mobile telephone may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites.

Ground Regulation 19
Save as set out in paragraph 16 above, no person (other than a person who holds an appropriate licence) may bring into the Ground or use within the Ground any equipment, which is capable of recording or transmitting (by digital or other means) any audio, visual or audio-visual material or any information or data in relation to the Match or the Ground. Copyright, database rights and any other intellectual property rights in any unauthorised recording or transmission is assigned (by way of present assignment of future rights to the Club and The Football League. You further agree (if and whenever required to do so by the Club and/or The Football League) to promptly execute all instruments and do all things necessary to vest the right, title and interest in such rights to the Club and The Football League absolutely and with full title guarantee.

[Larkin around]

Grimsby 2 up. Good stuff.

From main site

"Cheltenham's Medy Elito starting to give Dan Gray some anxious moments."

- Time to bring on the new kid?

This post has been edited by MurrayBu: 06 March 2010 - 04:19 PM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

moondog, on Mar 6 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS UNLESS THEY COULD PROVE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN WOULD BE PUBLISHED OR MADE AVAILABLE TO THIRD PARTIES

http://www.ctfc.com/...,,10434,00.html

Ground Regulation 16
Mobile telephones are permitted within the Ground, provided that they are used for personal and private use only PROVIDED THAT no audio, visual or audio-visual material captured by a mobile telephone may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites.

Ground Regulation 19
Save as set out in paragraph 16 above, no person (other than a person who holds an appropriate licence) may bring into the Ground or use within the Ground any equipment, which is capable of recording or transmitting (by digital or other means) any audio, visual or audio-visual material or any information or data in relation to the Match or the Ground. Copyright, database rights and any other intellectual property rights in any unauthorised recording or transmission is assigned (by way of present assignment of future rights to the Club and The Football League. You further agree (if and whenever required to do so by the Club and/or The Football League) to promptly execute all instruments and do all things necessary to vest the right, title and interest in such rights to the Club and The Football League absolutely and with full title guarantee.

Nice one, 'Moondog'.

Up to the lads in question, but given this i'd consider legal action.

This post has been edited by MDCCCLXVI: 06 March 2010 - 04:21 PM

[moondog]

MDCCCLXVI, on Mar 6 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

Nice one, 'Moondog'.

Up to the lads in question, but given this i'd consider legal action.

I've sent a text to my mate at the match to pass this on

[Frank Thacker]

MDCCCLXVI, on Mar 6 2010, 04:16 PM, said:

Notts go two up.

Can't help but feel irritated by that.

Moral question, though: as supporters of a side that won promotion as a result of signing players we couldn't afford, should we criticise Notts for capitalising on the same approach?

The club could probably afford them, Chris; Brown simply chose not to pay for them.

[Larkin around]

Millers losing and getting booed. Woo.

[Wooden Spoon]

MurrayBu, on Mar 6 2010, 03:55 PM, said:

I still believe Rochdale are un-catchable. I'd rather Bournemouth be losing and Rochdale winning but anyone losing in the top 7 bar us is obviously a good thing. I'd take full time in all the games right now though! Need Rotherham to stay as they are, ditto Shrews, ditto Dale, while Accrington (vs. Notts) and Morecambe (vs. Bournemouth) goals would be nice.

maybe, but with us, notts and shrews away, they could drop points.........

[Wooden Spoon]

MurrayBu, on Mar 6 2010, 04:30 PM, said:

Millers losing and getting booed. Woo.

[taptonblue]

rochdale now even stevens

[Larkin around]

Boden on.

C'mon Scott - a super sub goal would do nicely to settle the nerves.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Stuart Basson, on Mar 6 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

The club could probably afford them, Chris; Brown simply chose not to pay for them.

Fair point Stu, but you see my point.

Whilst what's happened at Meadow Lane just seems wrong from so many angles, i can't help feeling guilty when saying so given the parallels with ourselves back in 2001.

[Westbars Spireite]

Robins' Barnsley being 6-0 down may cheer Rotherham fans up slightly........

[Westin_and_sons]

biting nailes here....cheltenham hit the bar, again.

[CFC Jill]

Bloomin eck town, can we have another goal please to settle my nerves?

[moondog]

MDCCCLXVI, on Mar 6 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

Fair point Stu, but you see my point.

Whilst what's happened at Meadow Lane just seems wrong from so many angles, i can't help feeling guilty when saying so given the parallels with ourselves back in 2001.

but we were docked points as a result (Beckett double contract)

Despite a new rule of wage capping and Notts blatant breach of it, all they have received is a transfer embargo, which came too late to have any effect.

[Frank Thacker]

MDCCCLXVI, on Mar 6 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

Fair point Stu, but you see my point.

Whilst what's happened at Meadow Lane just seems wrong from so many angles, i can't help feeling guilty when saying so given the parallels with ourselves back in 2001.

Of course - time will probably reveal what we shall call "untoward practises" in both cases, I expect.

[Town_Fan]

MDCCCLXVI, on Mar 6 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

Fair point Stu, but you see my point.

Whilst what's happened at Meadow Lane just seems wrong from so many angles, i can't help feeling guilty when saying so given the parallels with ourselves back in 2001.

Whats annoying is they could have sold players in Jan but rather than do that they stole (withholding finance is akin to theft) money from other teams in this division so that they could carry on the charade. Personally I think if you manage to "activate" 3 separate transfer embargoes you should be losing points.

[Westin_and_sons]

Cheltenham putting on the pressure now. Don't seem to create much ourself. COME ON TOWN !!

[moondog]

Stuart Basson, on Mar 6 2010, 04:43 PM, said:

Of course - time will probably reveal what we shall call "untoward practises" in both cases, I expect.

too right

"We've found some things that could lead to prosecution. I think we've got a moral obligation to get the police involved."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/simonaustin/201...tts_county.html

[Westin_and_sons]

Madine coming on. Conlon off.