Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Football] Have Manchester United conspired to fail to sell De Gea to Real Madrid?



G

Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,360
Uffern
Wardy said:
Seems you are correct. Law must have changed in the last 7 years or so because the view was that an email was never proof of receipt while a letter and a fax where.
Click to expand...

No. The view was that email was not proof of identity, it's relatively easy to spoof someone's account so if Real Madrid received an email from Ed Woodward, they'd have no guarantee that it was genuinely from him. Emails have had the facility to show whether a mail has been opened for some time now.

But i can't speak for the legal status: you were right that emails weren't recognised in law and I don't know what's changed but the issue was always about identity rather than receipt
 






Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,216
Goldstone
Wardy said:
Seems you are correct. Law must have changed in the last 7 years or so because the view was that an email was never proof of receipt while a letter and a fax where.
Click to expand...
I'm no expert, but I was just saying that emails can be used for signatures. I wasn't saying they can be used as proof of delivery/receipt, but I don't think proof of delivery makes a difference in this case - ie, if Man U had sent the stuff by email in time, and Madrid had given it to the La Liga in time, then all would be ok, they wouldn't need proof of delivery. And similarly, if Man U sent it in time (via fax), and had proof, and Madrid didn't file it with the league in time, it wouldn't make a difference that Man U had delivered it in time, it's not relevant.

Gwylan said:
Emails have had the facility to show whether a mail has been opened for some time now.
Click to expand...
Do they? How so? The bit that says 'confirm receipt' doesn't count, as the receiver doesn't have to click 'yes'.
 




Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,216
Goldstone
TWOCHOICEStom said:
The wrong file format?? I'm not buying that at all. What kind of format could you send which could possibly be wrong?
Click to expand...
Are you responding to a joke, or has that been used as an official excuse?
 














Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,216
Goldstone


Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,216
Goldstone
mothy said:
I think Madrid did it on purpose. Why pay £29m this year when they can get him for free next..
Click to expand...
If it's as simple as that, why make the offer in the first place?
 




C

Cian

Well-known member
Jul 16, 2003
14,262
Dublin, Ireland
Gwylan said:
Emails have had the facility to show whether a mail has been opened for some time now.
Click to expand...

System specific (its an Exchange extension some other systems support) and with zero reliability, though.

Proof of delivery to an MX at the recipients domain doesn't mean it has been opened.
 


Honky Tonx

Honky Tonx

New member
Jun 9, 2014
872
Lewes
mothy said:
I think Madrid did it on purpose. Why pay £29m this year when they can get him for free next..
Click to expand...

Totally agree. No point in United scuppering the deal as they would end up the losers. It seems obvious even to me
 








Easy 10

Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
61,789
Location Location
From what I've been reading, its not so much a case of emails. Both clubs had to register the deal on FIFA's online Transfer Matching System (TMS). This was apparently done at 11.59. But in addition to this, Real Madrid also had to register the player with the LFP (the Spanish League) before that midnight deadline. But they didn't do this till 12.28, hence the deal not being sanctioned.

Looks more like a cock-up on RM's side than Utd's. Still hilarious though.
 










You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here