The whole News of the World thing..

[Brendo 0]

What actually happened? I swear they went in Court a few weeks back, but never heard the result. Did we win? Or is it stil ongoing? Thanks. [Y]

[lappinitup 629]

yes

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="lappinitup"]yes[/quote]No, I thought no.

[king canary 8,754]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="lappinitup"]yes[/quote]No, I thought no.[/quote]I heard possibly.

[. 0]

NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. True or not.... the club was mentioned and information duly circulated among administrators and liquidators nationally. 

Any legal action is both pointless and folly.

 

[Bill 1,788]

These things usually take some time.

The newspaper will at some point print a retraction buried in the middle of the paper. It will pay ther club''s legal expenses and some small amount as recompense for distress etc. That amount is often made over to a charity to enable those bringing the action to retain the moral high ground.

The much trumpeted response about sueing the NOTW was merely a means of ensuring the club got as much coverage as the story was getting. The story would have continued along the lines of ''no smoke without fire etc '' otherwise.

I''m not sure if anyone ''wins'' other than us fans who can now can be assured that we finallyhave people running the club because they are good at it rather than that they were part of the ''Norwich City family''.

I expect Colchester will also back down nearer the day of their compensation case.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Cluck the Purist...."]

NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. True or not.... the club was mentioned and information duly circulated among administrators and liquidators nationally. 

Any legal action is both pointless and folly.

 [/quote]

No it isn''t.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

I''m actually with Cluck on this one. I don''t want this action to drag on and distract.

We showed our mettle but what both need now is a satisfactory exit strategy.

[Bill 1,788]

" NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. "

perhaps you would care to point us all towards that list

and maybe show us by what qualification that list had any worth

- other than to fire up your obviously over exited mind

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="City1st"]" NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. " perhaps you would care to point us all towards that list and maybe show us by what qualification that list had any worth - other than to fire up your obviously over exited mind[/quote]

The guy is just an idiot and a shit-stirrer, best to ignore him.

[Bill 1,788]

perhaps he''s from suffolk

that might explain things

[yellow blood 0]

[quote user="Cluck the Purist...."]

NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. True or not.... the club was mentioned and information duly circulated among administrators and liquidators nationally. 

Any legal action is both pointless and folly.

 

[/quote]

 

And therefore every company supplying goods and services have not pulled out for fear of only being paid 5p in the £...pillock

[Syteanric 1]

i dont think the club are in any danger of administration based on what McNally has said...

but what does it mean if the court rules against us? does that mean we are? does it mean the courts have seen the accounts? how does the entire case work? do we need to present figures?

[Bill 1,788]

errr

might I suggest you read my post above

[Niaga Dessip 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

i dont think the club are in any danger of administration based on what McNally has said...

but what does it mean if the court rules against us? does that mean we are? does it mean the courts have seen the accounts? how does the entire case work? do we need to present figures?

[/quote]

The club will not need to present figures - would be very surprised if it makes it to court in any case. There will be a bit of face saving on both sides, that''s all.

ND

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="Cluck the Purist...."]

NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. True or not.... the club was mentioned and information duly circulated among administrators and liquidators nationally. 

Any legal action is both pointless and folly.

 

[/quote]

Why?

Another typicaly pessimistic outlook from Cluck!

Norwich have every right to ensure the News of the World puts a piece in the paper stating the story about us going bust was bull!

[grantroederdisaster 0]

[quote user="Cluck the Purist...."]

NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. True or not.... the club was mentioned and information duly circulated among administrators and liquidators nationally. 

Any legal action is both pointless and folly.

 

[/quote]

Why?

Another typicaly pessimistic outlook from Cluck!

Norwich have every right to ensure the News of the World puts a piece in the paper stating the story about us going bust was bull!

[Canary Man of Kent 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

i dont think the club are in any danger of administration based on what McNally has said...

but what does it mean if the court rules against us? does that mean we are? does it mean the courts have seen the accounts? how does the entire case work? do we need to present figures?

[/quote]

The obligation is on NoTW to prove what they say is true and not on us to prove that it is not. So, if they wish to fight this case they will have to present the evidence they had to show we were going to go into administration and it is up to us to refute it.

[Barclay hero 0]

[quote user="Cluck the Purist...."]

NCFC were on a list of companies ''potentially'' facing financial difficulties. True or not.... the club was mentioned and information duly circulated among administrators and liquidators nationally. 

Any legal action is both pointless and folly.

 

[/quote]

Wow Cluck, I wish I was a legal expert like you.......I stand in awe of your awesome knowledge and expert opinion [8-)]

[Barclay hero 0]

[quote user="SimonOTBC"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

i dont think the club are in any danger of administration based on what McNally has said...

but what does it mean if the court rules against us? does that mean we are? does it mean the courts have seen the accounts? how does the entire case work? do we need to present figures?

[/quote]

The obligation is on NoTW to prove what they say is true and not on us to prove that it is not. So, if they wish to fight this case they will have to present the evidence they had to show we were going to go into administration and it is up to us to refute it.

[/quote]

I''d like to clarify this a bit, Simon

Libel and Slander is a CIVIL case.  Therefore neither side have to actually PROVE anything - its done on the basis of probabilities, and the

So NOTW will have their ''facts'' to show we were about to go into Administration, and Delia wasnt going to put in any more money.  Likewise NC will have their ''facts'' to prove this wasnt true

These facts may include accounts, letters, court summons, or other documentation, or ''expert witnesses'' that prove said documents show NC was - or wasnt - about to enter Administration etc

The judge or panel of judges (dependant on size of damages claimed - juries don''t usually get involved due to the complex nature of these cases) will usually look at all the evidence and then decide how likely the story was to be true.  If its more than 50% likely then NOTW will win.  If its less then NC will win. 

If the club do win then the same judges will assess the losses/damage caused to the club as a result and will order a compensation amount in line with that

[Barclay hero 0]

[quote user="Barclay hero"][quote user="SimonOTBC"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

i dont think the club are in any danger of administration based on what McNally has said...

but what does it mean if the court rules against us? does that mean we are? does it mean the courts have seen the accounts? how does the entire case work? do we need to present figures?

[/quote]

The obligation is on NoTW to prove what they say is true and not on us to prove that it is not. So, if they wish to fight this case they will have to present the evidence they had to show we were going to go into administration and it is up to us to refute it.

[/quote]

I''d like to clarify this a bit, Simon

Libel and Slander is a CIVIL case.  Therefore neither side have to actually PROVE anything - its done on the basis of probabilities, and the

So NOTW will have their ''facts'' to show we were about to go into Administration, and Delia wasnt going to put in any more money.  Likewise NC will have their ''facts'' to prove this wasnt true

These facts may include accounts, letters, court summons, or other documentation, or ''expert witnesses'' that prove said documents show NC was - or wasnt - about to enter Administration etc

The judge or panel of judges (dependant on size of damages claimed - juries don''t usually get involved due to the complex nature of these cases) will usually look at all the evidence and then decide how likely the story was to be true.  If its more than 50% likely then NOTW will win.  If its less then NC will win. 

If the club do win then the same judges will assess the losses/damage caused to the club as a result and will order a compensation amount in line with that

[/quote]

Hmm - no edit button.  Should have read "its done on the basis of probabilities, and the likelihood of an event happening or not happening in the courts opinion".....

[PurpleCanary 6,384]

[quote user="Barclay hero"][quote user="SimonOTBC"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

i dont think the club are in any danger of administration based on what McNally has said...

but what does it mean if the court rules against us? does that mean we are? does it mean the courts have seen the accounts? how does the entire case work? do we need to present figures?

[/quote]

The obligation is on NoTW to prove what they say is true and not on us to prove that it is not. So, if they wish to fight this case they will have to present the evidence they had to show we were going to go into administration and it is up to us to refute it.

[/quote]

The judge or panel of judges (dependant on size of damages claimed - juries don''t usually get involved due to the complex nature of these cases) will usually look at all the evidence and then decide how likely the story was to be true.  If its more than 50% likely then NOTW will win.  If its less then NC will win. 

[/quote]Defamation is a complicated subject and, with respect, I''m afraid that paragraph above is not entirely accurate. For starters, juries are quite common in defamation cases. But more importantly it is not right to say the outcome will depend purely on the balance of probabilities.If, for example, the NoTW uses as its defence (and this is only one of several libel defences) that of truth, then it will have to show that the important bits of the story are true. It will not be enough to demonstrate that the story is probably true.The NoTW will in this case, for example, almost certainly have to prove it was right that two named firms were hired as potential administrators. That will be a matter of fact, not probability.