Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

3 weeks away from new owners/investor

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • davman
    Bronze Seat
    • Mar 2009
    • 871

    #16
    If its going to happen; it HAS to happen early so that those funds become available!!!!

    Comment

    • QPR1976
      Silver Seat
      • Mar 2009
      • 2391

      #17
      A lawsuit against a 'National' is likely to be built around the 'GUILTY' headline, which then quoted an FA source, more than the 'up to 15 points deducted' statement.
      The inference that an FA spokesman has already decided we're guilty and speculated on the punishment 4 days before a hearing starts is prejudice.

      Comment

      • weston
        Bronze Seat
        • Mar 2009
        • 325

        #18
        Would be great if we did get a couple of million out of that newspaper. Who'd have thought we would end up making a profit from the whole sorry episode.
        Don't you just love Gianni "I've never done nothing wrong for this club" Paladini..

        Comment

        • KLOS
          Bronze Seat
          • Apr 2011
          • 390

          #19
          3 weeks to new owner/investor

          Originally posted by QPR1976
          A lawsuit against a 'National' is likely to be built around the 'GUILTY' headline, which then quoted an FA source, more than the 'up to 15 points deducted' statement.
          The inference that an FA spokesman has already decided we're guilty and speculated on the punishment 4 days before a hearing starts is prejudice.

          In a civil writ , the Respomdent (Sun) will be required to name their source. If they refuse to do so ( they will not get PII) or say they do not know the identity they will be liable for damages in the first instance by default and the second as being reckless/malicious. If they do name the source, the FA, notwithstanding their disavowal, will be vicariously liable for the actions of their employee. Even in civil procedings, the Hack might be required to swear under oath or sworn affidavit ,risking perjury for lying. It will not be possible to show that the decison on guilt was not pre-determined.

          Comment

          • Pyrford Ranger
            Bronze Seat
            • Mar 2009
            • 516

            #20
            Originally posted by Nodge70
            Both. Informal talks may have occurred in Istanbul yesterday
            This will need to be done quickly as will impact transfers and budget

            Comment

            • QPR1976
              Silver Seat
              • Mar 2009
              • 2391

              #21
              I suspect we'll end up with a small retraction and apology hidden in the racing results with The Sun saying their journo printed the story on good belief at the time but has since proved unfounded. blah Blah BLAH !
              Small settlement out of court.

              Comment

              • paulmason
                Banned
                • Mar 2009
                • 7443

                #22
                I am no inspector Morse, but for me, it is crystal clear that Palios was his source, as they were saying the same thing and technically has he was the boss of the FA he could say FA source.

                Comment

                • iheartwegerle
                  Bronze Seat
                  • Nov 2009
                  • 563

                  #23
                  Originally posted by KLOS
                  In a civil writ , the Respomdent (Sun) will be required to name their source. If they refuse to do so ( they will not get PII) or say they do not know the identity they will be liable for damages in the first instance by default and the second as being reckless/malicious. If they do name the source, the FA, notwithstanding their disavowal, will be vicariously liable for the actions of their employee. Even in civil procedings, the Hack might be required to swear under oath or sworn affidavit ,risking perjury for lying. It will not be possible to show that the decison on guilt was not pre-determined.
                  Don't get me wrong here, it would be great to sue The Sun, but does there not need to be some kind of loss on our part as a result of their article?

                  Comment

                  • Nodge70

                    #24
                    Originally posted by iheartwegerle
                    Don't get me wrong here, it would be great to sue The Sun, but does there not need to be some kind of loss on our part as a result of their article?
                    Is £875k in fines plus 50% of the estimated £400k the FA spent pursuing the case enough loss?

                    Comment

                    • robloft
                      Bronze Seat
                      • Apr 2009
                      • 780

                      #25
                      Originally posted by Nodge70
                      Is £875k in fines plus 50% of the estimated £400k the FA spent pursuing the case enough loss?

                      Comment

                      • iheartwegerle
                        Bronze Seat
                        • Nov 2009
                        • 563

                        #26
                        Originally posted by Nodge70
                        Is £875k in fines plus 50% of the estimated £400k the FA spent pursuing the case enough loss?
                        Agree with you Nodge, but (and I stand to be corrected here, probably by The Leveller) I would have thought that to successfully sue The Sun, we would have to prove that the loss was a direct result of their article.

                        Comment

                        • maccatwo
                          Silver Seat
                          • Feb 2010
                          • 2404

                          #27
                          Originally posted by Dazzer1977
                          That was what I was told was the news coming out of HQ on Saturday. Now the case has finished and we are a Premiership side expect a media frenze in the coming weeks. Also we could be sueing a national spread for the sum of £2million. Watch this space...


                          ALL THINGS BRIGHT AND BEAUTIFUL,
                          ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL.....
                          RANGERS WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP,
                          AND CHELSEA WON F*CK ALL!
                          On sueing the national speard thinking of doing the same and me cheap just 2 years season tickets or could be more than the club.

                          Comment

                          • maccatwo
                            Silver Seat
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 2404

                            #28
                            If they did win against the papers would be great and good PR is to use that money in redusing our season tickets prices for next year.

                            Comment

                            • Dazzer1977
                              W12 Seat
                              • Mar 2009
                              • 4751

                              #29
                              Originally posted by maccatwo
                              On sueing the national speard thinking of doing the same and me cheap just 2 years season tickets or could be more than the club.
                              Anyone else confused here or is it just me who can't understand English?

                              Comment

                              • Gloucs_R
                                Apprentice
                                • Apr 2011
                                • 81

                                #30
                                Kingfisher Stadium
                                Kingfisher Sponsor
                                Kingfisher Beer

                                Happy with that?

                                Comment

                                Working...