Backwards and Forwards

[Indy_Bones 444]

My latest (and long delayed) blog post is now up, looking back over the season just gone and with an early view to the season ahead:[url]http://indybonestruth.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/a-look-back-over-season-with-early-look.html[/url]Comments welcomed [:D]CheersIndy.

[Buh 0]

Stopped reading after you stated Neil Adams deliberately tried to get us relegated

Seek help

[Indy_Bones 444]

How else would you describe playing for a draw when we needed all 3 points?It was simply a means for Adams to show the NCFC board that he could mix it up with the big boys, which over the course of a season may well be fair enough, but in such a desperate situation there was no excuse for it IMHO and he rightly deserves calling on it (just like many others did at the time).

[Move Klose 303]

I kinda agree with your point but I dont think he deliberately tried to get us relegated.

I think he used it to show what he could do. His tactical nous and show he could set a side up to do a job. Bringing on Redmond as a striker in that game summed the whole shambles up.

[Buh 0]

I mean, this is just libel, right?

The club could sue for defamation.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Deliberate or not, I was furious at the time and so were many others.

It might have been a long shot us beating Chelsea that day, but it was our only chance of survival after all. It almost seemed as if Adams was unaware of this fact as he stood motionless on the touchline refusing to embrace any genuine assault on the Chelsea goal.

Interesting summary OP. I would have liked Berbatov as well, but I believe he is now taken. It wasn''t a generally popular idea though.

[Buh 0]

I''m no legal beagle by any stretch but is the following, which is in the article in question, considered character defamation?

"we started with the permanent appointment of Neil Adams (despite having ZERO experience and deliberately trying to get us relegated whilst showing the board he could play for a draw against the likes of Chelsea)"

To me its posted as a statement of pure fact, not as an opinion or even a conspiracy theory. You are implying Neil Adams went against premier league rules and breached his contract in deliberately not trying to win the game.

To me, this is libel against Neil Adams, and he could sue. It''s not on the front of a newspaper sure but it''s in the public domain surely?

are you suggesting that the players colluded in this? I seem to remember snodgrass coming within inches of winning the game for us.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

What could he sue for? How much has this blog affected his reputation or his ability to earn?

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Buh"]I''m no legal beagle by any stretch but is the following, which is in the article in question, considered character defamation?

"we started with the permanent appointment of Neil Adams (despite having ZERO experience and deliberately trying to get us relegated whilst showing the board he could play for a draw against the likes of Chelsea)"

To me its posted as a statement of pure fact, not as an opinion or even a conspiracy theory. You are implying Neil Adams went against premier league rules and breached his contract in deliberately not trying to win the game.

To me, this is libel against Neil Adams, and he could sue. It''s not on the front of a newspaper sure but it''s in the public domain surely?

are you suggesting that the players colluded in this? I seem to remember snodgrass coming within inches of winning the game for us.[/quote]Strictly speaking, and without knowing what the defence might be, it is on the face of it defamatory against Adams. Not against the club, as an earlier poster suggested. But there is a wise rule of thumb in libel, that you only sue people whose opinion might be taken seriously. So I doubt the OP need worry too much about a write being served on them.

[Buh 0]

It''s suggested that he breached contract and deliberately threw a game. As a football manager surely that''s as harmful to your reputation and ability to find a job as it gets?

[Buh 0]

Haha purples response is awesome

Me-ow!!!

Btw it was me that said about the club suing I agree that is far more tenuous. But I''d say it''s pure libel against Adams.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

[quote user="Buh"]Haha purples response is awesome

Me-ow!!!

Btw it was me that said about the club suing I agree that is far more tenuous. But I''d say it''s pure libel against Adams.[/quote]I am shocked that read that as me being catty. I was genuinely just trying to allay any worries the OP might suddenly have started having...[;)]

[Nicko 0]

He deliberately tried to get the club relegated? Deary me. Indy Bones you''ve had some shockers in the past, but this takes the biscuit.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

Apart from the Chelsea game claim I see it was Adams fault we lost at Wolves on the opening day of last season. He obviously told Ollson to get sent off I take it ?

[Indy_Bones 444]

Original article had now been edited to clarify my view on the situation and to allay any suggestions that there was any deliberate libel against either Adams or the club.

Please accept my apologies for any confusion the original wording may have caused.

There is NO statement of fact there, simply an opinion regarding the feelings at the time that were expressed by a number of fans.

[chicken 0]

This translates to be someone desperately seeking attention to me.

I thought it was a piece on last season, not the season before and even then - why slag anyo e off like that.

It''s not only uncalled for but crazy, spiteful and just downright disrespectful of Adams and the club.

[lappinitup 629]

Dodgy streamer writes dodgy blog. No surprise there.....

[93vintage 16]

I think the OP''s sentiments were that it was almost as if Adams had given up trying to keep us in the Premier League in the match against Chelsea. Not quite equivalent to deliberately trying to relegate us, which seemed to be poorly worded rather than intentionally libellous.But I doubt Adams would want everyone publicly reminded of his managerial disaster by way of having it dragged through court. It seems he''s swiftly moved on and won''t ever be coming back to the club.

[Indy_Bones 444]

[quote user="93vintage"]I think the OP''s sentiments were that it was almost as if Adams had given up trying to keep us in the Premier League in the match against Chelsea. Not quite equivalent to deliberately trying to relegate us, which seemed to be poorly worded rather than intentionally libellous.[/quote]Absolutely correct 93v, and as per my earlier response, I agree that it was poorly worded and hence why it was quickly changed upon this realisation.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

Moving very swiftly on from the specific, there is a general point here that might be helpful, always bearing in mind that although very few people are likely to sue over what might appear on a football message-board it has happened. And will again.A common defence is that "it is only my opinion". If that opinion is on something that is by its nature a matter of opinion - "I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a lousy actor" - that is fine.But often the "opinion" is actually an accusation of fact. For example, that such and such an English football manager, or such and such a world football administrator, is corrupt. And that is a matter of fact - either they are on the take (which would almost certainly be a criminal offence) or they are not.Saying it is only your opinion doesn''t change anything. You are still stating something as a fact and in doing so making an accusation of criminal behaviour which you almost cetainly cannot not prove.

[Indy 3,471]

The sad thing for me is for me Adams should not receive such criticism without some focus on those who put him there in the first place.

[Buh 0]

OP didn''t like Adams because he didn''t see him on a midnight highlight reel for the Italian 3rd tier, so decided to just tell lies about him

In my opinion

[Indy_Bones 444]

Good points, and well made Purple.Certainly when writing it, I had no conception that anyone would raise such a potential trapdoor (that I simply hadn''t realised myself), which is why I hastily changed the wording and offered apologies for the confusion around the point I was trying to make.It''s getting to be a complete minefield these days, where even simple things can be taken completely out of context and the next thing you know someone''s potentially sending legal representation round to see you!Next thing we''ll be having to watch what we say in the pub after the match in case someone takes offence and there''s suddenly a slander case against you!!!

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

It isn''t that much of a minefield, people just need to realise that the internet is effectively ''publishing'' what you say, it will appear on a google search and is out there for all to see. If you say ''x'' is corrupt, it remains out there in the ether, whether it is true or not.