Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Mail on Sunday comments

CharltonparklaneCharltonparklane
edited July 2009 in General Charlton
Please feel free to sink if this has been mentioned but I have probably read about 1700 posts in the past week (probably only about 5 different topics)

BUT

If the MoS comments do scupper any deal that was supposed to happenand we are not £40mill in debt couldnt we sue them? Even if it is for loss of revenue from ST buyers who may have been 'put off' from the article?

Comments

  • RodneyCharltonTrottaRodneyCharltonTrotta
    Doubt wed have the money for a court case in all seriousness and it would be hard to prove that an article was the reason for a breakdown in the deal.
  • PragueAddickPragueAddick
    I don't know Mick Collins personally, but I do know that he is very strong on libel law. He used to lecture the Mailing List on it regularly, to the point where I became scared to even write the words "Ken Bates" for fear of bringing a lawsuit crashing down on the List's server.

    So you can be sure, Mick will have done his homework. And I would be really surprised if he did not ask the Charlton board for a comment before finishing, let alone running, the article.

    Don't shoot the messenger, people.
  • Ormiston_AddickOrmiston_Addick
    [cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]Doubt wed have the money for a court case in all seriousness and it would be hard to prove that an article was the reason for a breakdown in the deal.

    Bang on. The article did not libel us anyway and the last thing we need is paying lawyers fees in a lengthy court case. No thanks.
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    [cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: RodneyCharltonTrotta[/cite]Doubt wed have the money for a court case in all seriousness and it would be hard to prove that an article was the reason for a breakdown in the deal.

    Bang on. The article did not libel us anyway and the last thing we need is paying lawyers fees in a lengthy court case. No thanks.

    No win, No fee. If we had this with the players over the last few seasons, we wouldn't be in this mess.
  • No.1 in South LondonNo.1 in South London
    [cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite]
    So you can be sure, Mick will have done his homework. And I would be really surprised if he did not ask the Charlton board for a comment before finishing, let alone running, the article.

    Even if he did, who on the board or what kind of response could they make whilst in NDA without fear of being named ? good timing on Mick's part in releasing the story, whilst their lips were zipped perhaps ?
  • PragueAddickPragueAddick
    [cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite]Even if he did, who on the board or what kind of response could they make whilst in NDA without fear of being named ? good timing on Mick's part in releasing the story, whilst their lips were zipped perhaps ?

    I really don't believe the NDA would be written in such a way that it would stop them being able to refute the more contentious implications of the story. It didn't stop Derek Chappell talking to AFKA, in the full knowledge that his words would be put in the public domain.
  • MortimericianMortimerician
    This is a non-starter. Even if you could prove what they said was untrue, it'd be virtually impossible (and completely exaggerated) to suggest that a £40M deal collapsed because of a couple of paragraphs in the paper. Scapegoats aren't what we need right now.
  • ColinTatColinTat
    Really? If the club was viable and worthy of investment the deal would have been completed long ago, with many interested parties ready to pounce. If the deal collapses and the article is used as an excuse, you'll know for sure that it's closer to the truth.
  • Sailor BrowneyeSailor Browneye
    edited July 2009
    [cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]This is a non-starter. Even if you could prove what they said was untrue, it'd be virtually impossible (and completely exaggerated) to suggest that a £40M deal collapsed because of a couple of paragraphs in the paper. Scapegoats aren't what we need right now.

    Agreed. Particularly as the only 'National' Press quote came from the buyers themselves in the afore-mentioned article with the message being 'mmm, not sure we want to do this actually'.

    The article was about the deal being in trouble and the consortium's source backed that up and gave Mick the reasons why.

    The only other press quote came from Richard Murray before that, earlier in the week, to the SLP and these words apparently weren't popular with the consortium.

    But Mortimerician you are spot on in that quotes in a paper aren't the reason the deal appears in trouble. It is the crucial factors behind the quotes.
  • BlackForestRedsBlackForestReds
    [quote][cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite]I don't know Mick Collins personally, but I do know that he is very strong on libel law. He used to lecture the Mailing List on it regularly, to the point where I became scared to even write the words "Ken Bates" for fear of bringing a lawsuit crashing down on the List's server.

    So you can be sure, Mick will have done his homework. And I would be really surprised if he did not ask the Charlton board for a comment before finishing, let alone running, the article.

    [/quote]

    You might want to google: "Daily Mail + Libel laws" (and variations such as Evening Standard/Mos etc) for a different take on the Mail's attitude to libel law...
  • Sponsored links:


  • LenGloverLenGlover
    Actual debt plus potential debt (contingent liabilities) is £35m-£40m as suggested in his original text so no libel there.

    A prospective purchaser,especially in the present uncertain economic climate, will look both at what COULD happen (ie contingent liabilities) and what HAS happened (ie actual liabilities).

    It was therefore perfectly reasonable for Mick to draw attention to both inhis article and not libellous at all.

    In my humble opinion.
  • PragueAddickPragueAddick
    [cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]You might want to google: "Daily Mail + Libel laws" (and variations such as Evening Standard/Mos etc) for a different take on the Mail's attitude to libel law...

    I'm no apologist for the Daily Mail, you can be sure. But trust me, Mick is paranoiac about libel. There's nothing remotely libellous in what he wrote.
  • BlackForestRedsBlackForestReds
    [quote][cite]Posted By: PragueAddick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]You might want to google: "Daily Mail + Libel laws" (and variations such as Evening Standard/Mos etc) for a different take on the Mail's attitude to libel law...[/quote]

    I'm no apologist for the Daily Mail, you can be sure. But trust me, Mick is paranoiac about libel. There's nothing remotely libellous in what he wrote.[/quote]

    I think you'll find that most journalists are experts on libel law, which in the UK is quite stringent - a bit like athletes being lectured on performance enhancing drugs, it doesn't stop them transgressing though.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!