I'd be astonished if they'd give a toss, but a summary + a link to the original so they harvest the clicks is very strictly speaking the right way to do it.

George Street-Bridge wrote:I'd be astonished if they'd give a toss, but a summary + a link to the original so they harvest the clicks is very strictly speaking the right way to do it.

Which of course is true. But how many of us put the car into neutral and apply the hand-brake when we stop at traffic lights?

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:I'd be astonished if they'd give a toss, but a summary + a link to the original so they harvest the clicks is very strictly speaking the right way to do it.

Which of course is true. But how many of us put the car into neutral and apply the hand-brake when we stop at traffic lights?

The more lucid amongst us must understand this logic is only relevant if one owns a car

Well, "fair dealing" was the term used by the specialist media lawyers hired at great expense to train journalists where I worked, whose work involved gathering news and other information from published sources.

George Street-Bridge wrote:Well, "fair dealing" was the term used by the specialist media lawyers hired at great expense to train journalists where I worked, whose work involved gathering news and other information from published sources.

Well they got it wrong. As with Alan Waddle paying a lot of money does not necessarily equate to getting a decent product.

Edit.

To be entirely fair in the junior branch of my professsion, solicitors, it is not an uncommon mistake. Fair dealing is where there is an exception to the rule on copyright. This is clearly not the case here. What we have is a limitation of the rule. That is fair use. I may be being a little unfair also on the expensive media lawyers. It is entirely possible that they knew the nuanced difference but were unable to get the point across to trainee journalists.

No surprise there.

'You can not hope to bribe nor twist (thank God) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed,
There's no occasion to.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:Well, "fair dealing" was the term used by the specialist media lawyers hired at great expense to train journalists where I worked, whose work involved gathering news and other information from published sources.

Well they got it wrong. As with Alan Waddle paying a lot of money does not necessarily equate to getting a decent product.

Edit.

To be entirely fair in the junior branch of my professsion, solicitors, it is not an uncommon mistake. Fair dealing is where there is an exception to the rule on copyright. This is clearly not the case here. What we have is a limitation of the rule. That is fair use. I may be being a little unfair also on the expensive media lawyers. It is entirely possible that they knew the nuanced difference but were unable to get the point across to trainee journalists.

No surprise there.

'You can not hope to bribe nor twist (thank God) the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do,
Unbribed,
There's no occasion to.

A pretty fair description of the present state of MSM in this country, hilarious

BBC Wiltshire reports Swindon assistant manager Tommy Wright saying there's a good chance they'll recall Twine.
"He has got to prove his worth but he's definitely got the technical ability. He's got a goal in him too"

Exile 1976 wrote:BBC Wiltshire reports Swindon assistant manager Tommy Wright saying there's a good chance they'll recall Twine.
"He has got to prove his worth but he's definitely got the technical ability. He's got a goal in him too"

Sounds to me that they are trying to tease a bid out of us now, aware that he becomes a free agent in a few months.

Flynny give a interview a couple of weeks ago saying that Swindon already had three players to choose from that played a similar position to Twine ,but it was their decision whether they had him back or not.Lets be honest it would be a big blow to our promotion if they recalled him.

Taunton Iron Cider wrote:

Exile 1976 wrote:BBC Wiltshire reports Swindon assistant manager Tommy Wright saying there's a good chance they'll recall Twine.
"He has got to prove his worth but he's definitely got the technical ability. He's got a goal in him too"

Sounds to me that they are trying to tease a bid out of us now, aware that he becomes a free agent in a few months.

Well if that is the case, he's already proved his worth to us - getting him to sign must be a priority - it could be another Christian Jolley moment..........parent club takes him back, we manage to agree a deal and, well you know the rest....

That's why we need players fundraising as well as another fundraising for the Stadium. We need the right people to organise these fundraisings. I nominate two people, the first being Taff (don't know his real name), the second being Stan because he Would be the ideal candidate as he's a barrister, one for the legal reasons and I believe he can be trusted (again sorry that I don't know his real name).

We need to sign him up. He wants to stay. Sheridan might not be at Swindon much longer ? Use the Brighton tv money if necessary.

Coxy wrote:We need to sign him up. He wants to stay. Sheridan might not be at Swindon much longer ? Use the Brighton tv money if necessary.

You know, in any other season, I'd definitely agree with this. Push the boat out to buy him regardless of cost and expected wages. He's had a big impact and another season developing with us and I think he'll be a £million pound player for a team in the top 2 divisions.

But, right now, I think the timing is wrong to overstretch ourselves financially..... reduced income caused by the pandemic, no guarantee when things will get back to normal, wage cap in place, another year closer to when we need to spend big to buy a new stadium or extend the lease at RP.

I think the very best we can hope for is to take advantage of the recent and forthcoming turmoil on and off the pitch at Swindon, offer to buy him for £100K with a 20% sell-on clause and then watch him bloom for us. But in reality I can't see this happening.

DeePeeNCAFC wrote:

Coxy wrote:We need to sign him up. He wants to stay. Sheridan might not be at Swindon much longer ? Use the Brighton tv money if necessary.

You know, in any other season, I'd definitely agree with this. Push the boat out to buy him regardless of cost and expected wages. He's had a big impact and another season developing with us and I think he'll be a £million pound player for a team in the top 2 divisions.

But, right now, I think the timing is wrong to overstretch ourselves financially..... reduced income caused by the pandemic, no guarantee when things will get back to normal, wage cap in place, another year closer to when we need to spend big to buy a new stadium or extend the lease at RP.

I think the very best we can hope for is to take advantage of the recent and forthcoming turmoil on and off the pitch at Swindon, offer to buy him for £100K with a 20% sell-on clause and then watch him bloom for us. But in reality I can't see this happening.

I suppose the counter argument is that given the transfer fee and wage restrictions in place from the bailout, this is probably the only year we're going to be able to compete with clubs above us for the signature of a player of his quality. I think provided the bank balance for 21-22 still looks healthy, we should at least make an offer.

Though COVID is the great unknown. It could easily end up as a terrible move if (for some reason) fans don't return next season, or if there are bigger than expected losses this year.

Putting yourself in Sheridan's shoes, he'd get more flak if he leaves Twine with us and they still struggle than if he recalls him and it doesn't make any difference. If he is recalled and they move up even a few places, it would look like a stroke of genius.

Bearing in mind also that the change of manager means no humble pie - could you imagine Wellens admitting a mistake in lending him out? - and the possibility the L1 and L2 seasons might end early.