Luis Suárez

[Kenneth]

When people argue that a verbal agreement is in place (and there is no direct evidence of it and the terms are disputed) then evidence of both parties behaving according to the supposed agreement is needed to really establish its existence. E.g one party agrees to sell goods to another via verbal contract and one party delivers goods and the other party pays for them subsequently. I doubt comparable behaviour exists in this instance.

And he's not talking about going to court in the first instance, he seems to want the PL to arbitrate which will be aimed at finding a solution acceptable to both/all sides, not necessarily clarifying the contract terms directly.

A lot of these kind of disputes are about loaning money. Someone gave money to someone, the recipient paid back instalments and later claims there was no agreement so refuses to pay. The repayments made may establish that a loan agreement really was in place and a judge can enforce repayment. That evidence won't establish other details like early repayment charges and interest calculations etc.

[Pablo]

Or

I don't know what Suarez has been smoking, but he is more than welcome to smoke my pipe because he is going nowhere

I never get this type of insult ("he can go smoke my pipe, suck my cock" etc.) You want him to suck you off? It's always seemed an odd punishment

Anyway carry on talking ****e

[Chazza]

[Patricks_Berger]

Well, it does matter - see below.

I don't care about his arguments about why the club should sell him. It's irrelevant, just something someone in his position might say.


If the club led his team to believe that the clause meant what they think/thought it does then it's central to the dispute. If a judge decided that's what happened then the written contract would be trumped by the club acting in bad faith.

The idea that conversations are vague while written contracts aren't is erroneous. That's why contract disputes in all sorts of areas end up in court!

I don't think I said we were supposed to be grateful, did I?

There's too much emotion about all this. I can understand why but it's a bit silly IMO.

Fortunately my lapdog battery is at 4% so I'm going to have to log off for a while.

For my sins I am, by day, a mild mannererd lawyer.

In English law there is no general duty to act in good faith in contractual matters. Further, the negotiations between parties prior to concluding a written contract are not admissable as evidence to assist a court in the interpretation of a contractual clause. The words forming the clause are to be interpretated as a "reasonable person" would if that person was aware of the background, or context, in which this agreement was made. I could go on but will spare you all.

As for the gentlemen's agreement - there are all sorts of issues with this. However the principal one is that it does not appear in the written contract. There is a presumption in law that where the parties have entered into a written agreement they will have included all the terms of their agreement in writing. Any terms "agreed" previously, or at the same time, that are not recorded in writing are exlcuded. This is called the "Parol Evidence" rule.- The presumption can be overcome but only with great difficulty.

Further many written agreements include a term known as an "entire agreement" clause. By which all the parties agree that the written agreement consitutes the entire agreement between the parties and superecedes anything else. I would be surprised if Suarez's contract did not have one.

There is a related issue around misrepresentations. Suarez might say that Liverpool stated they would sell him in certain circumstances as a representation (not a contractual term and not part of the contract) in order to induce him to sign the contract. If Liverpool had misrepresented certain things this might be sufficient for Suarez to pick apart his contract.

However an actionable misrepresentation must be a statement of "material fact". A statement of "future intention or conduct" cannot be a misrepresentation. Therefore the law would not recognise Liverpool reneging on a statement that they intended to sell him this summer as a misrepresentation. It was not a statement of material fact at the time they made it.

Obviously this is a very brief overview of some of the issues and lawyers earn a living, and keep the courts busy, arguing over these points. Nevertheless these are all issues that Suarez would likely have to overcome to suceed in a legal challenge. I suspect the lawyers on both sides will have had a very good look at it and, as others have stated, the fact Suarez is speaking though the papers and not his lawyers tells you a lot about how he perceives his own position.

Obviously I havent seen the contract, I'm not privvy to all the issues, this is just my personal opinion and does not constitute in any way legal advice that should be relied upon by anyone. If you have a specific legal problem you should consult a legal professional.

[Kenneth]

The Guardian has ripped into him. It is the Forest/Utd fan Daniel Taylor though. They really do mock Suarez the press. He goes to them, gives an interview and the following day they're laying into him after starting the sh*tstorm.

I'd much rather that than have them blow smoke up his backside because he'd given them an exclusive interview. That would suggest dishonesty, and that's the job of the tabloids.

[Sarb]

I never get this type of insult ("he can go smoke my pipe, suck my cock" etc.) You want him to suck you off? It's always seemed an odd punishment

Anyway carry on talking ****e

Just because you don't get that type of insult doesn't mean it's ****e. It's used plenty, Pablo.

[Shaggy]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2013/aug/07/luis-suarez-liverpool-arsenal-loyalty?CMP=twt_gu

Luis Suárez has shown Liverpool fans the kind of player he really is - a cunt

By making clear his desire to leave Anfield, the Uruguayan has demonstrated there is no place in modern football for loyalty

Daniel Taylor
theguardian.com, Wednesday 7 August 2013 12.31 BST
Jump to comments (50)

The first thing to understand about Luis Suárez's interview with the Guardian is that he came to us. There was no pursuit this side. It was Suárez's idea, impatient that he was not getting his own way, aggrieved by some of the things he was hearing, increasingly starting to think of that red shirt as little more than a straitjacket.

You wonder, does he realise how rich it is he has turned to one of the newspapers he previously blamed for everything? Or whether he particularly cares now it is increasingly transparent how far he is willing to go to get his move to Arsenal and that, next, lawyers will be involved and Liverpool face the ultimate indignity of being reported to the authorities by the player they have cherished and protected and defended, often to the point of ridicule.

Suárez being Suárez, the story is littered with imperfections. It does not seem to register that Liverpool, after the battering their reputation has taken, might deserve better than this kind of mutiny. There is no apparent shame, or even recognition, of all the times when he has expanded on why he will be staying at Anfield come what may, or any form of appreciation that some people actually believed it.

And it boils down to this: can we actually trust a single damn thing he says? That is the difficult part here. Can we put our faith in a man with his previous for bluff and spin and downright deception when, at the heart of his complaints, he wants us to believe Brendan Rodgers promised he would be let free if Liverpool did not qualify for the Champions League? Or will it transpire that it is just another Suárez con-trick, more evidence that morality does not even come into it, and we are talking about someone who operates in a world where it is fine to play dirty, just as long as it means getting what he wants.

"I spoke with Brendan Rodgers several times and he told me: 'Stay another season and you have my word if we don't make it then I will personally make sure that you can leave,'" Suárez says. "I just want them to abide by the promises made last season."

If that is true, Suárez has legitimate reasons to be aggrieved. Yes, he appears to have forgotten, with alarming haste, the phenomenal support Rodgers and Liverpool have provided but a broken promise is a broken promise and, before anything, his manager surely has to clear up whether this is truth or fiction, on the record and with no incongruity.

Bucking the modern trend, there is also something to be said about the fact Suárez has at least had the gumption to say what he thinks, the old-fashioned way, rather than hiding behind an assortment of men in suits, in the style of Wayne Rooney and Gareth Bale, and employing people to get his information out, drip by drip, but with nothing attributed.

He also makes a valid point about the Champions League because it is true that a player of these gifts, in his prime years, should crave a place in Europe's premier club competition. For Liverpool, this is the cold reality of modern life. Suárez is just bringing it home what it is like to be permanently playing catch-up. And this, unfortunately for one of the great bastions of the sport, is what can happen when a club is approaching a quarter of a century since their last championship and finished 28 points and a country mile from the summit last time around. The best players want more. They don't remember the days when Liverpool ruled. It's history, another century.

What about loyalty, you might ask. Yet only if you had missed the fact that the modern-day football man does not share the same characteristics of the fan. The truth - and it appeals to nobody - is that it doesn't work like that, whether we like it or not, and there is little point expecting it to be different because doing so brings only one thing: disappointment.

Rodgers has talked of the need for Suárez to show loyalty and nobody has reminded him that in 2009, as Watford manager, he provided some of the answers himself. "People are questioning my integrity and one thing I have mentioned is I always have integrity," Rodgers, asked about the fact bookmakers had slashed the odds on him taking over at Reading, said back then. "I am loyal and find it disloyal when I am asked about other clubs when I am the Watford manager." Within two weeks, he was Reading manager.

Suárez, however, is a particularly spectacular example when you think back to those days when he talked about vendettas, mistranslations, miscarriages of justice, a media "controlled by Manchester United", and there would be a stampede of fans running to his defence, like ants, lapping it all up and blindly attacking anyone who saw him for what he was (incidentally, it will be a pretty bleak day when the Press don't criticise someone for using racist language).

Maybe, without wishing to generalise too much, this is just the psyche of the football fan. Just watch how many Arsenal supporters will start to use the same old lines about Suárez - you know the ones: "misunderstood," "victimised," etc etc - if that unlikely marriage with Arsene Wenger happens. Not all of them, granted. But there is something particularly revealing about the reaction the Arseblog website has experienced after it dared oppose the move on the grounds of morality.

"Objecting to the signing of Suárez has led to some of the most virulent abuse I've ever received," Arseblog's Andrew Mangan wrote recently. "There have been veiled threats of violence because I'm honest about the fact I'd prefer if we didn't sign him.

"But what I find most dismaying is the revisionism that's gone on since our interest has become public knowledge. I don't remember too many Arsenal fans defending him when he was banned for eight games for the Evra incident. I don't remember too many Arsenal fans saying that biting somebody isn't really that bad when you think about it. I don't remember too many Arsenal fans who said anything other than Suárez, for all his talent on the field, was a pretty despicable person whose antics, cheating and nasty play made him one of the most loathed characters in the game. Yet now, people are falling over themselves to make excuses for him."

At Liverpool, all the brainwashing, the blind loyalty, the partisanship - call it what you will - is fast wearing off. Liverpool's supporters had, for the most part, liked to think that Suárez saw Anfield as more than just another workplace, that there was a special bond, that he was one of their own. More than anything, they believed in him. Suárez has made it incredibly difficult now to imagine him playing in front of the Kop, where pride is everything, again. Perhaps that was all part of the plan.

"I have to put my career first," Suárez says. "People say Liverpool deserve more from me but I have scored 50 goals in less than 100 games and now they could double the money they paid for me. It is not as if I am asking to move to a local rival."

Yet Arsenal are just that if Liverpool have serious aspirations about clambering back into the Champions League. And everything Suárez says - a mix of ambition, frustration, selfishness and that familiar persecution complex - is contained in the threat of an impending legal battle.

The clause in Suárez's contract, leaked to Arsenal and resulting in them going a pound over what they believed was the £40m release fee, is clearly ambiguous to some degree. What is absolutely clear is that Suárez is going to be as proactive as he can to make sure he gets his way. He is "happy" to go to the Premier League if a formal transfer request does not do the trick. He has already enlisted the support of the Professional Footballers' Association. These are statements that must make Liverpool's fans yearn for the days when everything was so much more simple and innocent.

Arsenal, in the meantime, can sit tight and see how it plays out. They will deny it, of course, but they may have known what Suárez was planning in advance. And if it was all part of a strategy - strengthen Arsenal's position, weakens Liverpool's - it has probably worked. Rodgers, until this point, has argued that Liverpool are bigger than any player then repeatedly acted in a way that completely contradicts that view. Now it must surely be about trying to extract as much money as possible and rushing through a replacement before the transfer window clanks shut.

In one way, it would represent a wretched episode for the modern Liverpool because of what it says about their place in the order of English football these days, and the knowledge that players of this ability, like rare butterflies, do not come along that often. In another sense, it might be a blessed relief when Suárez becomes someone else's problem. If "problem" is the right word for someone who can score goals from any distance or angle. "My record shows that I'm not the kind of player who wants to change clubs every season," Suárez says. No, this would be his fourth transfer in eight years. So, to clarify, every other season. That kind of player.

[Pablo]

Just because you don't get that type of insult doesn't mean it's ****e. It's used plenty, Pablo.

It's fine mate, each to their own. Just be wary of those gnashers you're so fond of insulting

[Sarb]

It's fine mate, each to their own. Just be wary of those gnashers you're so fond of insulting

Why would I need to be wary? I was talking about what JWH could tweet him.

[Kenneth]

For my sins I am, by day, a mild mannererd lawyer.

In English law there is no general duty to act in good faith in contractual matters. Further, the negotiations between parties prior to concluding a written contract are not admissable as evidence to assist a court in the interpretation of a contractual clause. The words forming the clause are to be interpretated as a "reasonable person" would if that person was aware of the background, or context, in which this agreement was made. I could go on but will spare you all.

As for the gentlemen's agreement - there are all sorts of issues with this. However the principal one is that it does not appear in the written contract. There is a presumption in law that where the parties have entered into a written agreement they will have included all the terms of their agreement in writing. Any terms "agreed" previously, or at the same time, that are not recorded in writing are exlcuded. This is called the "Parol Evidence" rule.- The presumption can be overcome but only with great difficulty.

Further many written agreements include a term known as an "entire agreement" clause. By which all the parties agree that the written agreement consitutes the entire agreement between the parties and superecedes anything else. I would be surprised if Suarez's contract did not have one.

There is a related issue around misrepresentations. Suarez might say that Liverpool stated they would sell him in certain circumstances as a representation (not a contractual term and not part of the contract) in order to induce him to sign the contract. If Liverpool had misrepresented certain things this might be sufficient for Suarez to pick apart his contract.

However an actionable misrepresentation must be a statement of "material fact". A statement of "future intention or conduct" cannot be a misrepresentation. Therefore the law would not recognise Liverpool reneging on a statement that they intended to sell him this summer as a misrepresentation. It was not a statement of material fact at the time they made it.

Obviously this is a very brief overview of some of the issues and lawyers earn a living, and keep the courts busy, arguing over these points. Nevertheless these are all issues that Suarez would likely have to overcome to suceed in a legal challenge. I suspect the lawyers on both sides will have had a very good look at it and, as others have stated, the fact Suarez is speaking though the papers and not his lawyers tells you a lot about how he perceives his own position.

Obviously I havent seen the contract, I'm not privvy to all the issues, this is just my personal opinion and does not constitute in any way legal advice that should be relied upon by anyone. If you have a specific legal problem you should consult a legal professional.

Thanks.

[kingfunk]

By David Maddock | 7 Aug 2013 12:26

Rarely are you inclined to offer sympathy towards anyone successful in the ruthless world of football, given the rhino-hide skin required to achieve it.

Yet if sympathy isn't the right response for the position Brendan Rodgers finds himself in this morning, then you can at least empathise with the anger, frustration and hurt the Liverpool manager must be feeling right now.

Luis Suarez's comments yesterday went beyond the usual cynical utterances we are all wearily accustomed to, as footballers play their idiotic games to ensure they can grasp the object of their latest desire - which is almost always yet more money, as though they haven't already got enough of it.

The South American's toddler tantrum attacks were personal, accusing his manager of amongst other thing, "lying"...which is pretty rich coming from a man who was found by an FA disciplinary to have seriously distorted the truth with inconsistencies whilst offering testimony against racism charges.

We can go into the rights of wrongs of what Suarez is doing to force himself out of Anfield, but really, what is the point? He is a spoilt man-child, no doubt indulged to the point of never having to face adult responsibility so of course he is going to temper tantrum his way towards what he wants.

And Liverpool must have surely known that was what they were getting when they signed him from Ajax. He had gone on strike to force a move to the Dutch club (after mistakenly believing his contract had allowed him a transfer, it is important to note).

He arrived at Anfield in the middle of a ban for biting an opponent , suggesting he wanted to move to England because he felt unjustly vilified back in Holland. It is easy now to join the dots, but let's face it they were plenty big enough back then to identify without reading glasses.



So Liverpool must have known this was coming, the moment the Uruguayan opened his mouth at the end of the last season, to suggest he needed to get away from England because he was, wait for it,...sick of being unjustly persecuted. Though of course, those particular goalposts have changed, and Arsenal's large contract offer seems miraculously to have eased the poor lamb's hurt feelings.

They probably deserve much of what they get as well, because they knowingly signed a man with such a checkered past, and such a potentially explosive future (and he didn't disappoint in that regard, did he?), and then kept him when all logic suggested he was toxic waste that needed to be disposed of.

Rodgers though, wasn't the manager who bought him, nor was he the manager who so sadly put his wonderful reputation on the line to defend the indefensible when Suarez took football to new depths with his ugly, primeval racism against Patrice Evra.

He was simply a manager who took a tainted footballer, worked with the flawed raw materials he inherited, and turned him into a much better player (even if he clearly couldn't turn him into a much better man).

Perhaps the single biggest reason you have to feel a certain loathing for Suarez is derived from this point. He was a talented player when he came to Anfield, and before Rodgers arrived, he had a good record.

It wasn't a great one though, because he missed a helluva lot of chances for a top player - and the fact he seemed to need six or seven openings for every goal perhaps kept him outside the truly top class bracket.

Without doubt, that changed last season, as a mere glimpse at his stats shows irrefutably. He scored 29 goals in 41 games - a world class strike rate. Why? Well, his manager created a system tailored around the striker's assets, instead of asking him to work around a system that wasn't.

The system introduced by Rodgers created as many chances for Suarez, but in different areas, asking him to utilise different skills and techniques in taking them...and no longer was he so profligate.

It may seem bizarre to a layman, but Suarez is not suited to trying instinctively to convert knock-downs. He is no Robbie Fowler, he is not a natural born finisher. So Andy Carroll was jettisoned - despite the obvious embarrassment to the club, because of the ridiculous price they paid - and the ball was offered to the South American in different parts of the penalty area, and in different ways.

You can't argue: it worked, he had his best ever season...by a mile. Suarez has gone from being very good to world class; last season his status rocketed to join the elite of international football and was rightly mentioned in the same breath as Bale, Van Persie and even Messi and and Ronaldo.

Of course, his earning potential has rocketed commensurately too, which is why Arsenal are prepared to pay him £150,000 a week-plus to desert the Anfield ship like a scuttling rat that senses looming rocks.

Those who believe Suarez owes Rodgers and Liverpool some loyalty for improving him, for elevating him towards a whole new world of earning potential, clearly don't understand the mercenary nature of football. There is no loyalty - on either side - just tunnel-vision self-interest (again on both sides).

But surely Rodgers DOES deserve just a little respect for the part he has played in giving Suarez the platform to attract not just clubs like Arsenal, but also Real Madrid. His part in earning him a pay rise that will no doubt earn the South American tens of extra millions.

And he doesn't deserve the tirade that came from the player's lips yesterday, comments and insinuations which reveal the striker as bordering on the despicable.

It shouldn't really surprise anyone though. Football had stooped this low a long time ago, and merely continues to scrape along the bottom in a subterranean world deprived of moral oxygen.

Perhaps though, it should serve to give Arsene Wenger the merest pause for thought, as he encourages the striker to aim his tiresome barbs at a decent football club in Liverpool, and a decent football man in Rodgers.

Does Wenger really think he can change Suarez? Does he really believe the forward won't do exactly the same in a year's time if Real Madrid come calling?

When Suarez picks up his near obligatory lengthy ban towards the end of next season to cost Arsenal any chance of a top four finish, does he really think this immoral tart of a footballer won't lift up his skirts and flash at any passing lust-filled club whose blood is coursing with a desire to win that offsets all logic?

Does he seriously believe the player will thank him for investing so much time, effort, money and the last shreds of any dignity in the unholy pursuit of his signature, that contradicts everything both club and manager stand for?

Wenger is rare in football in that he's an intelligent man who appears to have a wider world view, and so deep down he will know the indelible truth about Luis Suarez...he shouldn't be touched with a barge pole.

[Kenneth]

Luis Suárez has shown Liverpool fans the kind of player he really is - a cunt

[Kenneth]

By David Maddock | 7 Aug 2013 12:26

Rarely are you inclined to offer sympathy towards anyone successful in the ruthless world of football, given the rhino-hide skin required to achieve it.

Yet if sympathy isn't the right response for the position Brendan Rodgers finds himself in this morning, then you can at least empathise with the anger, frustration and hurt the Liverpool manager must be feeling right now.

Luis Suarez's comments yesterday went beyond the usual cynical utterances we are all wearily accustomed to, as footballers play their idiotic games to ensure they can grasp the object of their latest desire - which is almost always yet more money, as though they haven't already got enough of it.

The South American's toddler tantrum attacks were personal, accusing his manager of amongst other thing, "lying"...which is pretty rich coming from a man who was found by an FA disciplinary to have seriously distorted the truth with inconsistencies whilst offering testimony against racism charges.

We can go into the rights of wrongs of what Suarez is doing to force himself out of Anfield, but really, what is the point? He is a spoilt man-child, no doubt indulged to the point of never having to face adult responsibility so of course he is going to temper tantrum his way towards what he wants.

And Liverpool must have surely known that was what they were getting when they signed him from Ajax. He had gone on strike to force a move to the Dutch club (after mistakenly believing his contract had allowed him a transfer, it is important to note).

He arrived at Anfield in the middle of a ban for biting an opponent , suggesting he wanted to move to England because he felt unjustly vilified back in Holland. It is easy now to join the dots, but let's face it they were plenty big enough back then to identify without reading glasses.



So Liverpool must have known this was coming, the moment the Uruguayan opened his mouth at the end of the last season, to suggest he needed to get away from England because he was, wait for it,...sick of being unjustly persecuted. Though of course, those particular goalposts have changed, and Arsenal's large contract offer seems miraculously to have eased the poor lamb's hurt feelings.

They probably deserve much of what they get as well, because they knowingly signed a man with such a checkered past, and such a potentially explosive future (and he didn't disappoint in that regard, did he?), and then kept him when all logic suggested he was toxic waste that needed to be disposed of.

Rodgers though, wasn't the manager who bought him, nor was he the manager who so sadly put his wonderful reputation on the line to defend the indefensible when Suarez took football to new depths with his ugly, primeval racism against Patrice Evra.

He was simply a manager who took a tainted footballer, worked with the flawed raw materials he inherited, and turned him into a much better player (even if he clearly couldn't turn him into a much better man).

Perhaps the single biggest reason you have to feel a certain loathing for Suarez is derived from this point. He was a talented player when he came to Anfield, and before Rodgers arrived, he had a good record.

It wasn't a great one though, because he missed a helluva lot of chances for a top player - and the fact he seemed to need six or seven openings for every goal perhaps kept him outside the truly top class bracket.

Without doubt, that changed last season, as a mere glimpse at his stats shows irrefutably. He scored 29 goals in 41 games - a world class strike rate. Why? Well, his manager created a system tailored around the striker's assets, instead of asking him to work around a system that wasn't.

The system introduced by Rodgers created as many chances for Suarez, but in different areas, asking him to utilise different skills and techniques in taking them...and no longer was he so profligate.

It may seem bizarre to a layman, but Suarez is not suited to trying instinctively to convert knock-downs. He is no Robbie Fowler, he is not a natural born finisher. So Andy Carroll was jettisoned - despite the obvious embarrassment to the club, because of the ridiculous price they paid - and the ball was offered to the South American in different parts of the penalty area, and in different ways.

You can't argue: it worked, he had his best ever season...by a mile. Suarez has gone from being very good to world class; last season his status rocketed to join the elite of international football and was rightly mentioned in the same breath as Bale, Van Persie and even Messi and and Ronaldo.

Of course, his earning potential has rocketed commensurately too, which is why Arsenal are prepared to pay him £150,000 a week-plus to desert the Anfield ship like a scuttling rat that senses looming rocks.

Those who believe Suarez owes Rodgers and Liverpool some loyalty for improving him, for elevating him towards a whole new world of earning potential, clearly don't understand the mercenary nature of football. There is no loyalty - on either side - just tunnel-vision self-interest (again on both sides).

But surely Rodgers DOES deserve just a little respect for the part he has played in giving Suarez the platform to attract not just clubs like Arsenal, but also Real Madrid. His part in earning him a pay rise that will no doubt earn the South American tens of extra millions.

And he doesn't deserve the tirade that came from the player's lips yesterday, comments and insinuations which reveal the striker as bordering on the despicable.

It shouldn't really surprise anyone though. Football had stooped this low a long time ago, and merely continues to scrape along the bottom in a subterranean world deprived of moral oxygen.

Perhaps though, it should serve to give Arsene Wenger the merest pause for thought, as he encourages the striker to aim his tiresome barbs at a decent football club in Liverpool, and a decent football man in Rodgers.

Does Wenger really think he can change Suarez? Does he really believe the forward won't do exactly the same in a year's time if Real Madrid come calling?

When Suarez picks up his near obligatory lengthy ban towards the end of next season to cost Arsenal any chance of a top four finish, does he really think this immoral tart of a footballer won't lift up his skirts and flash at any passing lust-filled club whose blood is coursing with a desire to win that offsets all logic?

Does he seriously believe the player will thank him for investing so much time, effort, money and the last shreds of any dignity in the unholy pursuit of his signature, that contradicts everything both club and manager stand for?

Wenger is rare in football in that he's an intelligent man who appears to have a wider world view, and so deep down he will know the indelible truth about Luis Suarez...he shouldn't be touched with a barge pole.

[/bender]

[Alex]

If you have a specific legal problem you should consult a legal professional.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIfuaUTH9Y4"]THE A-TEAM intro - YouTube[/ame]

[kingfunk]

[/bender]

Such a good read though! Spot on imo.