5 figure compensation from news of the world

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

It could be £95k which will be helpful for something.

[/quote]

George Galloway was awarded £150,000 for what was an extremely serious defamation, and one that went to trial. I would be very surprised if the damages in our case, especially as it has been settled out of court, were anything like close to £100,000. A low five-figure sum is much more likely.

[/quote]

Yes but the majority of posters at the time were derriding the idea that we would get anything at all as the report was not actionable.  Not that any of them will admit it or apologise.

Good job the Club doesn''t take advice from the majority on here either in business or team selection

[Sephiroth Owa 0]

Seems they''re a bit premature with where we''ll be next season too. If you check here then look at the league we''re in ''supposedly''.http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/football/

[shefcanary 2,393]

A victory, whatever way you see it.  Should put the wind up Cowling and accelerate that settlement too!

[Jacko 0]

I just love the no nonsense attitude the club has now. Would this have happened under Doomy? No chance. Well done McNally and if nothing else it pays for Curo''s wages for a couple of weeks.

[singing canary 0]

10k more like a couple of weeks !!!

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

It could be £95k which will be helpful for something.

[/quote]

George Galloway was awarded £150,000 for what was an extremely serious defamation, and one that went to trial. I would be very surprised if the damages in our case, especially as it has been settled out of court, were anything like close to £100,000. A low five-figure sum is much more likely.

[/quote]

Yes but the majority of posters at the time were derriding the idea that we would get anything at all as the report was not actionable.  Not that any of them will admit it or apologise.

Good job the Club doesn''t take advice from the majority on here either in business or team selection

[/quote]

So true, and I was one of those that said we should get around 6 figures and gave logical reasons due to the damage that can be caused to credit lines etc. It''s nice to be proved right....

[......and Smith must score. 1,341]

[quote user="KingsLynnCanary"]That apology sounds like it was written by a child![/quote]Maybe that''s because the rest of the rag looks as though it has too......

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]

It could be £95k which will be helpful for something.

[/quote]George Galloway was awarded £150,000 for what was an extremely serious defamation, and one that went to trial. I would be very surprised if the damages in our case, especially as it has been settled out of court, were anything like close to £100,000. A low five-figure sum is much more likely.[/quote]

Yes but the majority of posters at the time were derriding the idea that we would get anything at all as the report was not actionable.  Not that any of them will admit it or apologise.

[/quote]

So true, and I was one of those that said we should get around 6 figures and gave logical reasons due to the damage that can be caused to credit lines etc. It''s nice to be proved right....

[/quote]Cambridge, there were as I recall also posters claiming we would win millions! The figure doesn''t seem to have leaked out yet (they have a habit of doing so eventually) but I would still be rather surprised if it is even halfway towards six figures.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

---

I hadn’t realised until today (having only seen it online) that the News of the World apology was at the top of a page, which is unusually prominent. Normally they are much more inconspicuous, at or towards the bottom of a page. They get put at the top (where they are pretty much bound to be seen) only if the paper feels it has little option in the matter.

As to why, a second expert opinion said it suggested either real concern about the seriousness of the libel and/or meant they paid substantially less damages than they might have expected to.

It would be interesting if it were the latter, particularly given the club’s decision not to hand the case over to a specialist firm of defamation lawyers. Having said that, I still doubt that the club actually suffered any remotely serious financial loss for which it needed compensating.

It was a serious libel in the sense that the one hard “fact” in the story turned out to be provably wrong (probable moral - don’t get a sports journalist to do a financial story) but not seemingly serious in its consequences. Come that Friday morning and life on planet Canary had gone on.

Of course, the romantic in me wants to believe that delicious idea that the paper got us mixed up with Notts County (which might well help explain the decision to settle out of court) but that would surely be too good to be true…

[birchfest 397]

10,000 or 99,000.... either way its money into the club that wont have been budgeted and so benifits it!

[Titch 0]

i bet its closer to 10k than 99k

[Chip20 69]

[quote user="Titch"]i bet its closer to 10k than 99k[/quote]I was thinking it''s probably something like £100.01 (still a five-figure sum).

[Snoots 0]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]The old lot would not have had the balls to do that, nice to see that we are no longer a soft touch.[/quote]

 

Ha ha ha, yes, we really showed the NOTW what for, didn''t we ? A 5 figure sum and an exchange of letters between both sides'' lawyers. This was chicken feed for the NOTW. Circulation of around 3 million copies every Sunday, therefore annual turnover from title sales alone of c£156,000,000 not to mention significant revenue from advertising. So, annual turnover in excess of £200,000,000. What did we get ? probably no more than £30K. Come on, calm down you lot. As for Doncaster not reacting to the story, of course he would have done. He would have been under the same fiduciary duty as the new Directors. The story was blatantly wrong and defamatory, he would have received the same advice from NCFC''s law firm and he would have given the lawyers the same instruction. One thing''s for sure, Doncaster wouldn''t have been spouting off to anybody who would listen and beating his chest as if to say "look how hard I am".

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Alf Tupper"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]The old lot would not have had the balls to do that, nice to see that we are no longer a soft touch.[/quote]

 

Ha ha ha, yes, we really showed the NOTW what for, didn''t we ? A 5 figure sum and an exchange of letters between both sides'' lawyers. This was chicken feed for the NOTW. Circulation of around 3 million copies every Sunday, therefore annual turnover from title sales alone of c£156,000,000 not to mention significant revenue from advertising. So, annual turnover in excess of £200,000,000. What did we get ? probably no more than £30K. Come on, calm down you lot. As for Doncaster not reacting to the story, of course he would have done. He would have been under the same fiduciary duty as the new Directors. The story was blatantly wrong and defamatory, he would have received the same advice from NCFC''s law firm and he would have given the lawyers the same instruction. One thing''s for sure, Doncaster wouldn''t have been spouting off to anybody who would listen and beating his chest as if to say "look how hard I am".

[/quote]---I suspect Alf is quite right that Doncaster and the old board would have taken the same

action, and achieved the same result.

The point about winning this action (and this applies to most such cases) is

not the amount of damages but publicly righting a wrong. The story provoked a

great deal of anger but probably did little actual quantifiable harm.

So the settlement provides doesn’t swell our coffers much or seriously diminish

those of News International (who in any event, of course, have libel insurance

to soften the very slight blow).

But it is embarrassing to have to print an apology, and – in this case – so

prominently. Newspapers greatly dislike doing that.

---

[Snoots 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Alf Tupper"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]The old lot would not have had the balls to do that, nice to see that we are no longer a soft touch.[/quote]

 

Ha ha ha, yes, we really showed the NOTW what for, didn''t we ? A 5 figure sum and an exchange of letters between both sides'' lawyers. This was chicken feed for the NOTW. Circulation of around 3 million copies every Sunday, therefore annual turnover from title sales alone of c£156,000,000 not to mention significant revenue from advertising. So, annual turnover in excess of £200,000,000. What did we get ? probably no more than £30K. Come on, calm down you lot. As for Doncaster not reacting to the story, of course he would have done. He would have been under the same fiduciary duty as the new Directors. The story was blatantly wrong and defamatory, he would have received the same advice from NCFC''s law firm and he would have given the lawyers the same instruction. One thing''s for sure, Doncaster wouldn''t have been spouting off to anybody who would listen and beating his chest as if to say "look how hard I am".

[/quote]

---

I suspect Alf is quite right that Doncaster and the old board would have taken the same action, and achieved the same result.

The point about winning this action (and this applies to most such cases) is not the amount of damages but publicly righting a wrong. The story provoked a great deal of anger but probably did little actual quantifiable harm.

So the settlement provides doesn’t swell our coffers much or seriously diminish those of News International (who in any event, of course, have libel insurance to soften the very slight blow).

But it is embarrassing to have to print an apology, and – in this case – so prominently. Newspapers greatly dislike doing that.

---

[/quote]

"But it is embarrassing to have to print an apology, and – in this case – so prominently. Newspapers greatly dislike doing that."

You''re right of course, but I''m not sure how wise it is to humiliate a major Sunday rag. Mind you, I suppose we are so used to being insulted by all and sundry in the media and receiving scant coverage of our matches that a bit more and a bit less won''t make much difference ! When we look back and with the perspective borne of the distance of time it will seem more like a pyrrhic victory.