If its going to happen; it HAS to happen early so that those funds become available!!!!
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
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
Originally posted by QPR1976 View PostA 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
-
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
-
Originally posted by KLOS View PostIn 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
-
-
Originally posted by Nodge70 View PostIs £875k in fines plus 50% of the estimated £400k the FA spent pursuing the case enough loss?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dazzer1977 View PostThat 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