comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 27 minutes ago
My fairy tale that was a real case that every company in the U.K. should be aware of? That one? No, I won't ask them about that one
I'll ask them about the Liverpool, City one. I'll even throw in detoured drivers too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this co text its a fairy tale. Why are we even discussing that at this point? The circumstances could and be different (this is a certainty for me). You want to be right so much that you are now introducing a whole new story in which you end up knowing what you're talking about.
The points I've raised on this thread are enough to counter anything you've brought up without me repeating them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first time I’ve experienced a debate like this with you Klopp, it’s been eye opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
I didn't say the manager was in on it in that post though,
------
But you did claim Klopp was in on it.
What was your basis for making this claim?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn’t, I haven’t suggested that once, why on earth would I?! What would it even have to do with Klopp anyway even if you did misinterpret anything I’ve said, did you secretly hire him a few years before you actually did?!
We normally have good chats on here Klopp. I’ve tried quite a few times to give you an out on this thread and for us not to leave it with me having to think you’re either lying or stupid or a combination of the two. You’ve really left no other options now though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Melts.
Comment by Melts
"Given the manager was specifically cited in the report (hence me saying if all of the information out there is true) then I don't think it would be that difficult at all to argue the prerequisites are there to determine liability."
Comment by Melts
"So I’ll reiterate, the manager knew and they were full time employees (that is the organisation and control elements of liability). How can it then be argued that manager didn’t have the power to stop it? Given that that’s essentially all that’s needed for it to then mean the employer (I.e. the company) is also liable, I really don’t get what you think you’re arguing?"
First off, on where did you get the idea that Klopp knew about it? Is there any source for this or is it your imagination?
Secondly, I honestly can't wait to see how you're gonna play this one because forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like you did claim that Klopp "knew about it" and therefore was in on it, and in a post where you laughably claim that that would mean the club is culpable.
What a mess to be honest.
Please tell me you’re not being serious?
Melton - to be fair I thought exactly the same until you explained what you meant. 'Manager' at a football club is always thought of of one position, not several positions throughout the club where there are managers.
Yes I am serious.
Manager in Football means the manager. I also asked you to provide the source for this info when you mentioned it but you didn't.
Yes I understood you misinterpreted it toor, we covered it at the time.
Given we did cover it at the time and given Klopp (allegedly ) knows about liability, then I’m amazed he can think it would be referring to the first team manager.
Klopp, it means the direct manager of the scouts.
Given in all of this we are talking about Liverpool as a company though, even if I was referring to a singular manager of the entire thing, then that wouldn’t be Klopp either would it, he doesn’t manage your company...
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melton - to be fair I thought exactly the same until you explained what you meant. 'Manager' at a football club is always thought of of one position, not several positions throughout the club where there are managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What else could manager be referring to? In football the manager is the manager. He said "your manager" and that's purposely misleading. If he Meant the IT manager or something like that then it's his mistake for being inarticulate and you can't blame football fans on a football forum for thinking its the actual manager.
Don’t mean to stir the pot but I read most of this with interest and I know he wasn’t referring to Klopp when he said manager - the discussion was obviously about one area at Liverpool? Maybe that’s because I read it from the start, I don’t know.
It happens, I suppose. I do struggle to believe Klopp really thought I meant that though, as the context was part of the basic tests of liability, anyone that knows that would have known who I was referring to (and I’d have hoped a lot of people who didn’t).
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melton - to be fair I thought exactly the same until you explained what you meant. 'Manager' at a football club is always thought of of one position, not several positions throughout the club where there are managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What else could manager be referring to? In football the manager is the manager. He said "your manager" and that's purposely misleading. If he Meant the IT manager or something like that then it's his mistake for being inarticulate and you can't blame football fans on a football forum for thinking its the actual manager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I put the manager in both of the posts you quoted though.
I can absolutely blame you for a lack of comprehension skills, particularly given its also on a topic that you’ve said you know about.
Is this just full on deflection now though?
Mamba being an expert in this field is the least believable thing he’s come out with, at least since he claimed to spend his time bedding a variety of exotic women that is.
Yes, which is the most frustrating bit.
Even if the Liverpool fans thought you were referring to the first team manager, why do they then think that you were referring to Jurgen Klopp?
He wasn’t even at the club when this happened.
I know, I said the same a couple of times. It’s part of the reason why I think it’s deliberate deflection and not just a misunderstanding, otherwise it’s incredibly dumb to say the least.
It is incredibly dumb. And unnecessary.
What you meant has been cleared up. They are just being obtuse by continuing to labour a point that they misunderstood.
A certain irony in deflecting away from what I said all along was a semantic argument in the first place by trying to create another one...
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
A certain irony in deflecting away from what I said all along was a semantic argument in the first place by trying to create another one...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because making out Liverpool are culpable for hacking is not a semantic issue.
Next time you want to talk about the scouting manager the say scouting manager.
This might be news to you but "manager" on a football forum like this one means Klopp. Not my fault you failed to articulate yourself.
Also, could you link us to where it says the "manager" was aware?
I honestly haven't seen it.
As someone openly lacking knowledge on the intricacies of this subject, I have to say I’ve found it interesting and baffling in equal measure.
Employees of Liverpool FC were guilty of doing something wrong and the club settled.
The only debate seems to be whether you should refer to what they did as ‘hacking’ and whether you may imply that the club were found guilty as an organisation.
Not sure I see the importance of either, really, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
One other point; if the club can’t be held accountable, why did they pay the settlement?
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 18 minutes ago
Also, could you link us to where it says the "manager" was aware?
I honestly haven't seen it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the thread properly then.
Sorry Klopp, I’ve been assuming you were someone that understood liability laws, like you said you did, not just as a football fan. Had you said in the first place you didn’t understand the topic, then I’d have been more simple in my explanations. Perhaps don’t lie in the future though?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
As someone openly lacking knowledge on the intricacies of this subject, I have to say I’ve found it interesting and baffling in equal measure.
Employees of Liverpool FC were guilty of doing something wrong and the club settled.
The only debate seems to be whether you should refer to what they did as ‘hacking’ and whether you may imply that the club were found guilty as an organisation.
Not sure I see the importance of either, really, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely. It goes back to exactly what I said at the start.
The only debate seems to be whether you should refer to what they did as ‘hacking’ and whether you may imply that the club were found guilty as an organisation.
------
That's the point. I've explained what Liverpool are culpable for and if you've read the thread its clear that Melton doesn't know what he's on about.
I've explained why Liverpool had to pay the relatively puny sum of a million and everything else.
Can't stop people from stating otherwise but the record will reflect the truth. We can leave it at that.
Seems to me Melton knows a lot on the subject.
Also seems to me that LFC are in some way culpable otherwise they wouldn’t have paid a settlement.
Sign in if you want to comment
Where’s the media uproar?
Page 24 of 27
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27
posted on 15/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 18 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 27 minutes ago
My fairy tale that was a real case that every company in the U.K. should be aware of? That one? No, I won't ask them about that one
I'll ask them about the Liverpool, City one. I'll even throw in detoured drivers too
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this co text its a fairy tale. Why are we even discussing that at this point? The circumstances could and be different (this is a certainty for me). You want to be right so much that you are now introducing a whole new story in which you end up knowing what you're talking about.
The points I've raised on this thread are enough to counter anything you've brought up without me repeating them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first time I’ve experienced a debate like this with you Klopp, it’s been eye opening
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 15/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 hours, 13 minutes ago
I didn't say the manager was in on it in that post though,
------
But you did claim Klopp was in on it.
What was your basis for making this claim?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No I didn’t, I haven’t suggested that once, why on earth would I?! What would it even have to do with Klopp anyway even if you did misinterpret anything I’ve said, did you secretly hire him a few years before you actually did?!
We normally have good chats on here Klopp. I’ve tried quite a few times to give you an out on this thread and for us not to leave it with me having to think you’re either lying or stupid or a combination of the two. You’ve really left no other options now though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK Melts.
Comment by Melts
"Given the manager was specifically cited in the report (hence me saying if all of the information out there is true) then I don't think it would be that difficult at all to argue the prerequisites are there to determine liability."
Comment by Melts
"So I’ll reiterate, the manager knew and they were full time employees (that is the organisation and control elements of liability). How can it then be argued that manager didn’t have the power to stop it? Given that that’s essentially all that’s needed for it to then mean the employer (I.e. the company) is also liable, I really don’t get what you think you’re arguing?"
First off, on where did you get the idea that Klopp knew about it? Is there any source for this or is it your imagination?
Secondly, I honestly can't wait to see how you're gonna play this one because forgive me if I'm wrong but it looks like you did claim that Klopp "knew about it" and therefore was in on it, and in a post where you laughably claim that that would mean the club is culpable.
What a mess to be honest.
posted on 15/2/20
Please tell me you’re not being serious?
posted on 15/2/20
Melton - to be fair I thought exactly the same until you explained what you meant. 'Manager' at a football club is always thought of of one position, not several positions throughout the club where there are managers.
posted on 15/2/20
Yes I am serious.
Manager in Football means the manager. I also asked you to provide the source for this info when you mentioned it but you didn't.
posted on 15/2/20
Yes I understood you misinterpreted it toor, we covered it at the time.
Given we did cover it at the time and given Klopp (allegedly ) knows about liability, then I’m amazed he can think it would be referring to the first team manager.
Klopp, it means the direct manager of the scouts.
Given in all of this we are talking about Liverpool as a company though, even if I was referring to a singular manager of the entire thing, then that wouldn’t be Klopp either would it, he doesn’t manage your company...
posted on 15/2/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melton - to be fair I thought exactly the same until you explained what you meant. 'Manager' at a football club is always thought of of one position, not several positions throughout the club where there are managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What else could manager be referring to? In football the manager is the manager. He said "your manager" and that's purposely misleading. If he Meant the IT manager or something like that then it's his mistake for being inarticulate and you can't blame football fans on a football forum for thinking its the actual manager.
posted on 15/2/20
Don’t mean to stir the pot but I read most of this with interest and I know he wasn’t referring to Klopp when he said manager - the discussion was obviously about one area at Liverpool? Maybe that’s because I read it from the start, I don’t know.
posted on 15/2/20
It happens, I suppose. I do struggle to believe Klopp really thought I meant that though, as the context was part of the basic tests of liability, anyone that knows that would have known who I was referring to (and I’d have hoped a lot of people who didn’t).
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
Melton - to be fair I thought exactly the same until you explained what you meant. 'Manager' at a football club is always thought of of one position, not several positions throughout the club where there are managers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What else could manager be referring to? In football the manager is the manager. He said "your manager" and that's purposely misleading. If he Meant the IT manager or something like that then it's his mistake for being inarticulate and you can't blame football fans on a football forum for thinking its the actual manager.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I put the manager in both of the posts you quoted though.
I can absolutely blame you for a lack of comprehension skills, particularly given its also on a topic that you’ve said you know about.
Is this just full on deflection now though?
posted on 15/2/20
Mamba being an expert in this field is the least believable thing he’s come out with, at least since he claimed to spend his time bedding a variety of exotic women that is.
posted on 15/2/20
Yes, which is the most frustrating bit.
posted on 15/2/20
Even if the Liverpool fans thought you were referring to the first team manager, why do they then think that you were referring to Jurgen Klopp?
He wasn’t even at the club when this happened.
posted on 15/2/20
I know, I said the same a couple of times. It’s part of the reason why I think it’s deliberate deflection and not just a misunderstanding, otherwise it’s incredibly dumb to say the least.
posted on 15/2/20
It is incredibly dumb. And unnecessary.
What you meant has been cleared up. They are just being obtuse by continuing to labour a point that they misunderstood.
posted on 15/2/20
A certain irony in deflecting away from what I said all along was a semantic argument in the first place by trying to create another one...
posted on 15/2/20
Very true
posted on 15/2/20
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
A certain irony in deflecting away from what I said all along was a semantic argument in the first place by trying to create another one...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because making out Liverpool are culpable for hacking is not a semantic issue.
Next time you want to talk about the scouting manager the say scouting manager.
This might be news to you but "manager" on a football forum like this one means Klopp. Not my fault you failed to articulate yourself.
posted on 15/2/20
Also, could you link us to where it says the "manager" was aware?
I honestly haven't seen it.
posted on 15/2/20
As someone openly lacking knowledge on the intricacies of this subject, I have to say I’ve found it interesting and baffling in equal measure.
Employees of Liverpool FC were guilty of doing something wrong and the club settled.
The only debate seems to be whether you should refer to what they did as ‘hacking’ and whether you may imply that the club were found guilty as an organisation.
Not sure I see the importance of either, really, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
posted on 15/2/20
One other point; if the club can’t be held accountable, why did they pay the settlement?
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Klopptimus Prime (U1282)
posted 18 minutes ago
Also, could you link us to where it says the "manager" was aware?
I honestly haven't seen it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the thread properly then.
Sorry Klopp, I’ve been assuming you were someone that understood liability laws, like you said you did, not just as a football fan. Had you said in the first place you didn’t understand the topic, then I’d have been more simple in my explanations. Perhaps don’t lie in the future though?
posted on 15/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 minutes ago
As someone openly lacking knowledge on the intricacies of this subject, I have to say I’ve found it interesting and baffling in equal measure.
Employees of Liverpool FC were guilty of doing something wrong and the club settled.
The only debate seems to be whether you should refer to what they did as ‘hacking’ and whether you may imply that the club were found guilty as an organisation.
Not sure I see the importance of either, really, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely. It goes back to exactly what I said at the start.
posted on 15/2/20
The only debate seems to be whether you should refer to what they did as ‘hacking’ and whether you may imply that the club were found guilty as an organisation.
------
That's the point. I've explained what Liverpool are culpable for and if you've read the thread its clear that Melton doesn't know what he's on about.
I've explained why Liverpool had to pay the relatively puny sum of a million and everything else.
Can't stop people from stating otherwise but the record will reflect the truth. We can leave it at that.
posted on 15/2/20
Seems to me Melton knows a lot on the subject.
Also seems to me that LFC are in some way culpable otherwise they wouldn’t have paid a settlement.
Page 24 of 27
23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27