Sueing News of the World - a bit OTT?

[canary cherub 1]

We threatened to sue, NotW called our bluff so we''re going through with it.

But haven''t we got more important things to do?  We have our work cut out already, trying to sort out the club''s financial problems and secure promotion.  Why take our eye off the ball and get involved in expensive and time consuming legal action over a story that everyone except us (and whoever briefed the News of the World) has forgotten by now?

 

[DOGGER 0]

Maybe it''s to help the club''s financial problems?

[DOGGER 0]

If we win!!!

[morty 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

We threatened to sue, NotW called our bluff so we''re going through with it.

But haven''t we got more important things to do?  We have our work cut out already, trying to sort out the club''s financial problems and secure promotion.  Why take our eye off the ball and get involved in expensive and time consuming legal action over a story that everyone except us (and whoever briefed the News of the World) has forgotten by now?

 

[/quote]I don''t see how it occupies any time of ours, hand it to the solicitors and let them get on with it.And I don''t think we would be bothering unless we had taken advice about this and liked our odds of winning.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]But haven''t we got more important things to do? [/quote]That''s what solicitors are for.

[a1canary 0]

I thought we''d done this to death! Some think it is, some think it isn''t. My thoughts as on the other thread...:

There''s no doubt their ''story'' could have been damaging to our financial credibility with our creditors, and there''s no doubt it was 100% fabrication.

These pitiful rags need to be shown that clubs won''t stand for this. If we sit back and say, "ho ho, silly old red tops, aren''t they a tease" they''ll just do it again and again. If we do this, and succeed, others will follow suit you can be sure and it will make them think twice or do a modicum of research next time, and bag us some much needed cash in the process.

Totally the right thing to do in my view.

[Albinozak 0]

Providing we win it will cover the costs of what we will have to pay col who.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="canary cherub "]

We threatened to sue, NotW called our bluff so we''re going through with it.

But haven''t we got more important things to do?  We have our work cut out already, trying to sort out the club''s financial problems and secure promotion.  Why take our eye off the ball and get involved in expensive and time consuming legal action over a story that everyone except us (and whoever briefed the News of the World) has forgotten by now?

 

[/quote]

I don''t see how it occupies any time of ours, hand it to the solicitors and let them get on with it.

And I don''t think we would be bothering unless we had taken advice about this and liked our odds of winning.
[/quote]

No doubt NotW took legal advice too when they decided not to print an apology.  

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="morty"][quote user="canary cherub "]

We threatened to sue, NotW called our bluff so we''re going through with it.

But haven''t we got more important things to do?  We have our work cut out already, trying to sort out the club''s financial problems and secure promotion.  Why take our eye off the ball and get involved in expensive and time consuming legal action over a story that everyone except us (and whoever briefed the News of the World) has forgotten by now?

 

[/quote]I don''t see how it occupies any time of ours, hand it to the solicitors and let them get on with it.And I don''t think we would be bothering unless we had taken advice about this and liked our odds of winning.[/quote]

No doubt NotW took legal advice too when they decided not to print an apology.  

 

[/quote]Or more likely were advised by their legal counsel not to, as in doing so would admit to being wrong.They will have handed it over to their solicitors, while they get on with their business.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="Albinozak"]Providing we win it will cover the costs of what we will have to pay col who.[/quote]

Unlikely, these kind of libel cases generally have a pay out in the tens of thousands; especially as there is no real evidence it has harmed the club in any major way.

We will probably have to pay Colchester in the hundreds of thousands.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="a1canary"]

 there''s no doubt it was 100% fabrication. [/quote]

No it wasn''t actually.  The crucial bit about ''administration by Thursday'' was fabricated.  The estimate of Delia''s investment in the club at £8m was just that - an estimate, I don''t think the actual amount has ever been made public.  The other details about our financial state were 100% accurate.

 

[Unhinged Canary 375]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Albinozak"]Providing we win it will cover the costs of what we will have to pay col who.[/quote]

Unlikely, these kind of libel cases generally have a pay out in the tens of thousands; especially as there is no real evidence it has harmed the club in any major way.

We will probably have to pay Colchester in the hundreds of thousands.

[/quote][:O]You''re kidding, right? I''ll have a pint of whatever you''re having........ [:O]

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Let''s hope we don''t go into administration in the next few weeks then - that would be embarrasing!

[Whats a right winger 0]

Oh and the bit about the administrators we''d contacted was fact was it? Apart from getting the fact that we in common with virtually every other club are struggling financially they got every other FACT wrong

[AndyCanary 0]

Sometimes in the papers opinion printing an apology is more damaging than paying out compensation to a team like Norwich.NCFC don''t need any hard evidence to show damages. Think about it every damages case I can think about there has been no proof of the damages other than the damage to ones reputation.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="morty"][quote user="canary cherub "]

We threatened to sue, NotW called our bluff so we''re going through with it.

But haven''t we got more important things to do?  We have our work cut out already, trying to sort out the club''s financial problems and secure promotion.  Why take our eye off the ball and get involved in expensive and time consuming legal action over a story that everyone except us (and whoever briefed the News of the World) has forgotten by now?

 

[/quote]

I don''t see how it occupies any time of ours, hand it to the solicitors and let them get on with it.

And I don''t think we would be bothering unless we had taken advice about this and liked our odds of winning.
[/quote]

No doubt NotW took legal advice too when they decided not to print an apology.  

 

[/quote]

Or more likely were advised by their legal counsel not to, as in doing so would admit to being wrong.


[/quote]

Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it.

But we hdon''t just have to prove that they were wrong, we have to show that the club has been damaged in some way.  Given that our financial woes are no secret, it might prove to be less straightforward than we think.  The most likely outcome is that the court will find in our favour and award an embarrassingly small amount of compensation.  We might have to pay our own costs too.  Not worth the trouble or the expense imo.  No one else cares.

 

[Barclaybred 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="a1canary"]

 there''s no doubt it was 100% fabrication. [/quote]

No it wasn''t actually.  The crucial bit about ''administration by Thursday'' was fabricated.  The estimate of Delia''s investment in the club at £8m was just that - an estimate, I don''t think the actual amount has ever been made public.  The other details about our financial state were 100% accurate.

 

[/quote]

There was loads more that was frabrication!,the fact we had called people in to handle it,the fact we need an injection of cash by thursday and the fact we are on the brink..all refuted by mcnally! ...It spoiled by sunday as well! :)

[AndyCanary 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it.

But we hdon''t just have to prove that they were wrong, we have to show that the club has been damaged in some way.  Given that our financial woes are no secret, it might prove to be less straightforward than we think.  The most likely outcome is that the court will find in our favour and award an embarrassingly small amount of compensation.  We might have to pay our own costs too.  Not worth the trouble or the expense imo.  No one else cares.[/quote]

I think you''re wrong. They shouldn''t have to prove any damages as it''s impossible to prove that potential sponsors looked at other teams instead of you... They''re not claiming for loss of earnings, but for damages. The damages are factual because they were printed in a national newspaper.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Barclaybred"][quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="a1canary"]

 there''s no doubt it was 100% fabrication. [/quote]

No it wasn''t actually.  The crucial bit about ''administration by Thursday'' was fabricated.  The estimate of Delia''s investment in the club at £8m was just that - an estimate, I don''t think the actual amount has ever been made public.  The other details about our financial state were 100% accurate.

 

[/quote]

There was loads more that was frabrication!,the fact we had called people in to handle it,the fact we need an injection of cash by thursday and the fact we are on the brink..all refuted by mcnally! ...It spoiled by sunday as well! :)

[/quote]

As I said, the bit about administration was fabricated.

 

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Pity the Dirty Digger''s crappy News Corporation can''t be put out of business, with it''s politically naive and biased "news" output. It''s dreadful rubbish from Sky TV downwards. Brain rotting stuff.

[UEAstudent 0]

Canary Cherob wrote

"Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it."

THEY DIDN''T SAY WE WOULD. They said we could or might.

The devil is in the detail I am afraid with these things.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="AndyWhyteUK"][quote user="canary cherub "]

Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it.

But we hdon''t just have to prove that they were wrong, we have to show that the club has been damaged in some way.  Given that our financial woes are no secret, it might prove to be less straightforward than we think.  The most likely outcome is that the court will find in our favour and award an embarrassingly small amount of compensation.  We might have to pay our own costs too.  Not worth the trouble or the expense imo.  No one else cares.[/quote]

I think you''re wrong. They shouldn''t have to prove any damages as it''s impossible to prove that potential sponsors looked at other teams instead of you... They''re not claiming for loss of earnings, but for damages. The damages are factual because they were printed in a national newspaper.

[/quote]

For any club in our situation, rumours of administration are never far from the surface.  If I were representing NotW I might argue that City''s reputation has actually been enhanced, since despite our financial problems - which were already in the public domain - the allegation that we were about to go into admin has been publicly demonstrated not to be true.  We''ve received a sort of backhanded endorsement.

The allegations won''t have put off potential investors - quite the reverse in fact.  A club with good infrastructure, large fanbase, football going in the right direction but financially vulnerable, is a very attractive target.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]If I were representing NotW I might argue that City''s reputation has

actually been enhanced, since despite our financial problems

- which were already in the public domain - the allegation that we were

about to go into admin has been publicly demonstrated not to be

true.  We''ve received a sort of backhanded endorsement.[/quote]And to think that you accuse me of defending the indefensible. [:)]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="UEAstudent"]Canary Cherob wrote "Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it." THEY DIDN''T SAY WE WOULD. They said we could or might. The devil is in the detail I am afraid with these things.[/quote]

Thanks for that UEA.  Doesn''t improve our chances of success in a libel case, does it?

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]If I were representing NotW I might argue that City''s reputation has actually been enhanced, since despite our financial problems - which were already in the public domain - the allegation that we were about to go into admin has been publicly demonstrated not to be true.  We''ve received a sort of backhanded endorsement.[/quote]

And to think that you accuse me of defending the indefensible. [:)]
[/quote]

That''s what lawyers do blah [:)]

 

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="UEAstudent"]Canary Cherob wrote "Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it." THEY DIDN''T SAY WE WOULD. They said we could or might. The devil is in the detail I am afraid with these things.[/quote]

Is that right UEA? devil in the detail hey?

What like talking to a specific admin company when we actually, in fact, hadn''t?[:|]

[UEAstudent 0]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

[quote user="UEAstudent"]Canary Cherob wrote "Given that they self-evidently were wrong (administration didn''t happen as they said it would) I don''t see what they had to lose by admitting it." THEY DIDN''T SAY WE WOULD. They said we could or might. The devil is in the detail I am afraid with these things.[/quote]

Thanks for that UEA.  Doesn''t improve our chances of success in a libel case, does it?

 

[/quote]

No - but it is the truth which I accept often looks out of place on a football message board!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="canary cherub "]That''s what lawyers do blah [:)][/quote]All this time I took it as an insult, when what you actually meant was that I am horribly underpaid and in the wrong job ?What I could have done with a private education... Ruined it probably [:)]

[First Wizard 0]

Your silence on my reply to you speaks volumes UEA.............you couldn''t answer it could you?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="canary cherub "]That''s what lawyers do blah [:)][/quote]

All this time I took it as an insult, when what you actually meant was that I am horribly underpaid and in the wrong job ?

What I could have done with a private education... Ruined it probably [:)]
[/quote]

lol

you might have become prime minister, think of that blah [:)]