Eduardo article in todays Mirror

Post by **SPUDMASHER** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:20 pm

Gotta give him that one smoothie. You walked right into it

Matt M · Post by **Matt M** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:37 pm

Pancho wrote:dont start the whole Keane myth again ...you will only make yourselves look foolish

What's the 'Keane myth' ?

26may1989 · Post by **26may1989** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:39 pm

Magic Hat wrote:
Matt M wrote:
I just hope Eduardo takes legal action against Taylor.
Even when Roy Keane admitted injuring somebody on purposes, his victim was unable to win the court case. Doubt Dudu has much chance either and would only make things worse as it all gets dragged out

The problem with Haaland suing Roy Keane was that Haaland had a pre-existing injury. To sue someone, you need to be able to show certain things: (1) a duty on the part of the person being sued to behave towards the person suing in a particular way, (2) a breach of that duty by the person sued, (3) damage or harm suffered by the person suing and (4) a causal link between the breach and the damage suffered.

In Haaland's case, the problem was that his pre-existing injury (which no-one knew about at the time of the injury caused by Keane) meant that he didn't lose that much of his career as a result of Keane's actions, because Haaland would have had to have retired early anyway. In law, this meant that he could not recover any meaningful compensation, even though Keane had done everything to make himself (and Man U) liable.

Unless Eduardo has a serious pre-existing injury similar to Haaland's, he would not lose a case for the same reason as Haaland was unable to sue. However, I doubt legal action is very sensible for Eduardo to start: it would attract lots of negative PR from the neanderthals in the British press and (as set out below) it would probably fail for different reasons.

To answer The Joy of Cesc's point, sportsmen and women accept a degree of risk of injury when they compete, but there is a limit to what they accept. The question would be whether Taylor's challenge was of such seriousness that it was beyond the scope of what a player would accept as being reasonably possible. Personally, I think the challenge was beyond the pale but a court would very likely decide that there is insufficient evidence to rule that Taylor had breached his duty to Eduardo. Any case would therefore likely go the way of Paul Elliott's claim against Dean Saunders in the 1990s, i.e. the claim would fail.

Pancho · Post by **Pancho** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:55 pm

There are several reasons for there being no case to answer re:Keane/Haarland

1) it didnt end his career
2) in fact it didnt end that game..he carried on until the final whistle
3) in fact it didnt end that season , he completed all remaining fixtures
4) in fact he played on the following season
5)..but the main reson there was no case to answer was....

IT WAS THE OTHER F++KING LEG

26may1989 · Post by **26may1989** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:16 pm

Matt, you may or may not know that Panto is our resident Man U sage. He is reasonable, fair, amusing and not in the slightest bit smug. I just wish I could be more like him.

He does however have a problem understanding anything suggesting that Roy Keane was at fault re Haaland. There was a debate a while ago in which he got very upset about the whole thing:

http://www.onlinegooner.com/phpbb2/view ... ght=#70571

So go easy on him, he may take offence again if you were to point out how utterly moronic and ridiculous his views on this topic are. When he gets really wound up, he starts banging on about "FACTS" and how everyone else's "credibility is shot". We don't want to get into all that again....

Pancho · Post by **Pancho** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:22 pm

[quote="26may1989"]Matt, you may or may not know that Panto is our resident Man U sage. He is reasonable, fair, amusing and not in the slightest bit smug. I just wish I could be more like him.

He does however have a problem understanding anything suggesting that Roy Keane was at fault re Haaland. There was a debate a while ago in which he got very upset about the whole thing:

[url]http://www.onlinegooner.com/phpbb2/view ... ght=#70571[/url]

So go easy on him, he may take offence again if you were to point out how utterly moronic and ridiculous his views on this topic are. When he gets really wound up, he starts banging on about "FACTS" and how everyone else's "credibility is shot". We don't want to get into all that again....[/quote]

my point exactly ...much better to ignore facts and revert to old fashioned mythology, it works better for the insular ABUs

Pancho · Post by **Pancho** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:22 pm

my point exactly ...much better to ignore facts and revert to old fashioned mythology, it works better for the insular ABUs

and BTW your signature is exactly 10yrs too early :lol:

Post by **SPUDMASHER** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:23 pm

You're completely right there Panto. I bet thats a starnge feeling for you

But seriously,

There's no point in Eddy attempting to sue at any time. His likelyhood of succeeding is minimal.

Clubs need to be held accountable for the actions of players. Imagine if you lost points! You wouldn't want a player like Vinnie Jones or Savage in your team would you! That would help take ridiculous challenges out of the game. I'm not going to lump Roy Keane in with them two as he could at least play football but I never understood why he was like that at Manure. I used to watch him regularly for Forest when he was there (my missus was in Notts and I spent weekends there for a couple of years) and he wasn't anywhere near as physical a player then. He could fairly be accused of being over aggressive regularly when at Manure but then I am aware some ex-Arsenal players were no angels.

I'd just like to see that type of tackle gone from the game. All that has happened is that everyone has been deprived of seeing a good player, regardless of who he plays for. Bloody shame really!

26may1989 · Post by **26may1989** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:24 pm

Oh and despite claiming to work in IT, he also doesn't know how to avoid double-posting.

Pancho · Post by **Pancho** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:27 pm

[quote="26may1989"]Oh and despite claiming to work in IT, he also doesn't know how to avoid double-posting.[/quote]

I dont control your servers do I ...duurrrr...now give me admin rights and I could have some fun

Post by **SPUDMASHER** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:27 pm

26may1989 wrote:Oh and despite claiming to work in IT, he also doesn't know how to avoid double-posting.

Does it matter

Beat him by all means but at least use a sensible argument

Matt M · Post by **Matt M** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:03 pm

But there is no argument with the Keane-Haaland incident is there?

Keane himself has said he went out to seriously injure him, so how can it be argued?

Post by **SPUDMASHER** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:20 pm

The argument is that Haarlands early retirement was not bought about by that tackle. His retirement was caused by an injury to his other leg. It doesn't justify Keanes actions but he shouldn't be blamed for something that is not accurate.

20.01.96 · Post by **20.01.96** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:50 pm

This isnt going to be very popular, but what makes you lot think he has grounds to take taylor to court? 'That' tackle was bad but I think the suggestion of taking him to court is ridiculous.

Taylor deserved more than a 3 match ban, no question, but no one in their right mind (except keane

) would go out to inflict an injury that bad. I do however believe Taylor could have pulled out, not even my reactions are that slow!!!

If eduardo can move on i think the rest of us should. All credit to eduardo he seems like a great character with a great attitude, something which players more than often lack. If you read the rest of the article Taylor apparently attempted tp visit Eduardo, but he was in surgery