Originally posted by iheartwegerle
View Post
What the court will want to know is that, given that the charges were in the public domain and that it was common knowledge that a hearing was pending, what was the Sun's motive in attempting to prejudice the case , quoting an alleged FA source which has since been disavowed by the FA. Why in any case did the Journo cite it without checking its authenticity. Moreover, the FA could have disavowed it before challenged by our lawyers. It is actionable not only to cause a loss but also to seek to bring it about. This will open up a whole can of worms in connection with the Formula One issue.
The FA could even seek to sue the Sun for maliciously misrepresenting them which might cause the latter to throw their informant to the wolves i.e it was your own employee etc.
I can see us seking exemplary dangers in addition
Comment