If its going to happen; it HAS to happen early so that those funds become available!!!!
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
3 weeks away from new owners/investor
Collapse
X
-
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
-
3 weeks to new owner/investor
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
-
Comment
-
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
-
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?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
-
Comment
-
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
-
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.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!Comment
-
Comment
Comment