does make you wonder though that you can be ejected, arrested and banned from grounds as a supporter for trivial offences, unless it takes place in the directors box.....
There are in excess of 150 Judges‚ Registrars and Masters in the Royal Courts of Justice.
Two statues (amongst other things) were omitted from the roof during building due to lack of funds.
There is a secret corridor known as the Chicken Run.
There are over 1‚000 rooms and‚ in the main building alone‚ there are three and a half miles of corridors.
A transcript of one day’s hearing in the High Court contains about 35‚000 words - roughly half the length of a novel.
A man was once found living in the basement.
A tributary of the River Fleet is reputed to run under the buildings.
There used to be a blacksmith’s forge in the Law Courts.
In 1908 it was necessary to provide cells for appellants. It was not until 20 years later that an unfastened trapdoor under the linoleum was discovered just outside the cells where a prisoner could have dropped into a tunnel‚ through the engineering shop and out into the Strand!
The Thomas More building leans towards the west.
The Admiralty Marshal once arrested a motor cruiser in the Boat Show pool at Earls Court.
Simon Jordan yesterday told the High Court during a marathon cross examination that his former Crystal Palace manager Iain Dowie was a man lacking in respect whose "manners and outlook absolutely stank". The flamboyant Palace chairman, with his perma-tan and sharp suit, was in the witness box for five hours during the case he had brought against Dowie on charges of fraud and misrepresentation from which he is seeking a £1million pay-out. Amid the engrossing details of their frosty personal relationship, Jordan defended a perceived lack of big-money spending at Selhurst Park. He refused to pay the then- Millwall midfielder Tim Cahill's agents SFX a £125,000 fee, but insisted that Dowie had his own reservations about the player after hearing Cahill talk more about property than football. He also claimed that Palace agreed a £3.5m fee with West Ham for Michael Carrick during the 2004-5 season but that the midfielder, who subsequently moved to Tottenham, refused to talk to the club. A spiky, 90-minute longdistance phone conversation between Jordan — in his Spanish villa — and Dowie — sitting at home with his family in Bolton — following Palace's play-off semi-final defeat to Watford 12 months ago paved the way for the boss's departure. That he ended up down the road at Charlton shortly afterwards when his professed reason for unhappiness at Palace was wanting to be with his family in the north-west is the basis of Jordan's case. The chairman claims he would not have waived a £1m compensation clause had he known Dowie would move to The Valley. The divergence of opinion between them during that phone call was absolute. Jordan proposed the possible sale of four players — Andrew Johnson, Ben Watson, Tom Soares and Fitz Hall. Dowie disagreed. Jordan suggested watching the video of the previous match together, "so that I could better understand his viewpoint and how he saw the game". Dowie refused point-blank, according to Jordan. "Iain said, 'Under no circumstances am I going to watch matches with you, if you want to manage, do your coaching badges'." Jordan also said he would be withdrawing the "discretionary gesture of goodwill" of paying for Dowie to fly up to see his family every Saturday evening because he felt it had gone unappreciated. According to Jordan, Dowie then raised the subject of missing his family and asked that if a club in the north came in for him, the chairman would allow him to speak to that club. Throughout five hours of cross examination — Jordan admitted that his way is not to use 10 words when 100 will do — Dowie studied every sentence of his testimony. His eyes followed question and answer intently. To his right in Court Room 12 was Peter Varney, the Charlton Athletic chief executive. The Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, sat in the back row. The irony of their presence on Dowie's behalf is that they are the men who sacked him as their manager six months after hiring him. In spite of a dislike of Dowie, Jordan insisted that sacking him was the one option he was determined not to pursue. He said: "I told Iain in the past that I didn't enjoy working with him but I do have great regard for his ability to coach and to lose him before this season — such a critical season — was a bloody disaster. "After listening to 45 minutes of belligerence from him and a commentary of disrespect, I said, 'If you are that unhappy, why are you working for me?' "Iain said, 'Are you asking me to resign? I'm not independently wealthy, Simon, I can't afford to resign'."
Jordan couldn't stand working with Dowie, talked to him like cr*p and held no respect for him. Also knew that Dowie was unhappy and long-term would not be rigt for Palace. Dowie in return had had a gut full of Jordan and wanted to get away.
Agreeing to split was the best scenario for all parties concerned; Dowie Jordan, and more importantly Crystal Palace, which should be Jordan's main concern.
The more i read, the more i am convinced this actually has very little to do with Dowie and Crystal Palace, but everything to do with Jordan's stupid ego and his hatred of Charlton.
[cite]Posted By: AFKA Bartram[/cite]what a pathetic situation to be in though.
Jordan couldn't stand working with Dowie, talked to him like cr*p and held no respect for him. Also knew that Dowie was unhappy and long-term would not be rigt for Palace. Dowie in return had had a gut full of Jordan and wanted to get away.
Agreeing to split was the best scenario for all parties concerned; Dowie Jordan, and more importantly Crystal Palace, which should be Jordan's main concern.
The more i read, the more i am convinced this actually has very little to do with Dowie and Crystal Palace, but everything to do with Jordan's stupid ego and his hatred of Charlton.
i think you'll find that's the tactic being employed but its worth bearing in mind we've only seen the start of it so far...no doubt his barrister will give as good as he got when its dowie's turn...and jordan's bound to want to make the most of the opportunity if he gets reg and/or murray on the stand...still, a great distraction so far for charlton fans after being relegated so a big thank you to simon jordan for that...he couldn't have timed it better...
Yes, he seems to enjoy the courtroom - he's been there on many occasions over the years. He obviously knew why Dowie wanted out and what he was intending on doing once released from his contract. The fact that he had the writ well prepared for Dowie's unveiling at The Valley would suggest he knew as well. If my assumptions are true, then surely the question would have to be asked why Jordan "agreed" to the compromise agreement ? he could have just said "I have evidence that you are intending to interview at Charlton blah blah blah" and refused to the agreement if he was so concerned about being legged over. The case may come down to Dowie's solicitors proving that Jordan knew all along what Dowie was intending on doing, but chose instead to use the situation to have ANOTHER of his days in court. I believe that the judge will conclude that Jordan based on all the evidence that will be produce, knew enough at the time to have realised that by agreeing to the compromise, Dowie was free to interview at Charlton (unless there was a specific clause in the compromise - which I doubt as it would never have got to court had it been). Therefore it was Jordan's willingness to let it all unfold and being prepared to take it to court that stopped Crystal Palace receiving the £1M compensation and not directly attributable to Dowie's lies. The fact that Dowie lied did not prevent CPFC (Jordan) from protecting themselves if they were already aware of his intentions. My view entirely but I think the Orange one will lose this one. Although he may prove that Dowie lied I wonder if airing all of CPFC's dirty washing in public, the cost of the case and trying but failing to muddy the good name of CAFC will be worth the ego boost he will give himself by proving what a manipulative twat he really is.
Jordan couldn't stand working with Dowie, talked to him like cr*p and held no respect for him. Also knew that Dowie was unhappy and long-term would not be rigt for Palace. Dowie in return had had a gut full of Jordan and wanted to get away. ....................
Agreed, I suspect that Jordan likes "yes men" around him, the type that'll say/do whatever it takes to get on the same side as the boss and feed his ego and thereby make him feel important - we all know people and have worked with people like that. Dowie it seems refused to play this game and so Jordan starting behaving like a kid, withdrawing from paying for his flights home, insisting on watching matches with him and generally setting out to make life difficult for ID and effectively constructively sack Dowie - ie put him in a position whereby he is forced to resign. Given that Palace weren't going to get promoted last season Jordan had plenty to gain from doing that, it'd get ID off the wage bill and allow Jordan to get someone in who'd be a bit more of an arse licker.
I wonder also if there was a loyalty bonus payable at the end of ID's contract - it had one more year to run and perhaps Jordan was reluctant to pay that, knowing that ID had no long term future at the Club and that he didn't want him there. The risk was that ID would see through the entire duration of his contract, trouser the loyalty bonus and then leave. If there was, then allowing ID to walk away a year early with no compensation owed on either side is good business for Palace/Jordan, unfortunately in the leaving agreement he didn't put anything in there about signing for a London club or specifically Charlton.
It's going to be difficult for Jordan to win this battle, argument is ultimately going to come down to proving that ID had a job offer from Charlton ready and waiting, as Charlton aren't listed as defendants, and that Varney, Murray etc will state that he hadn't, then that won't work. So it'll be down to his word against ID's and that depends on whom the court choose to believe. ID's brief is trying to build up a picture that Jordan interfered unnecessarily with the running of the team, forcing Dowie into a position whereby he could no longer professionally work with Jordan and therefore resigned or at least left the club "by mutual decision". Jordan will have to rely on Dowie leaving purely because he wanted to go back to the North West and then reneging on that agreement a week later.
Dowie had a clause in his contract at Palace that rewarded him with 5% of any transfer received on player sales. He would have picked up £400k on the Slaphead Johnson sale alone that happened the day after the compromise agreement was announced. Jordan isn't going to claim that Dowie had a job "offer" merely that he intended to be interviewed for the Charlton vacancy and lied to Jordan to get the compromise agreement signed. Today's evidence will show that Dowie's agent had a note in his diary for May 23rd (the day after he left Palace) which read "Iain Dowie - Charlton interview". So I suspect that Orangehead will be able to prove he lied. Where I think his case falls over, is in the probable answer to the question - when was he actually aware of Dowie's intentions ? - my view is that Jordan knew before the agreement was signed and set a trap for Dowie. The staged press conference where they had conflicting views on the reasons for Dowie's departure, the readiness for the unveiling at Charlton all point to Jordan being aware all along what Dowie's intentions were. Jordan was happy for it to all unfold in order that the egotistical herbert could satisfy his lust for the courtroom and a game of one-upmanship along the way. It appears that Dowie's defence team are setting out to prove that Jordan has an appetite for the court room and uses and sometimes "abuses" the system - refer to yesterday's evidence about him bragging about how he made "a woman convicted of stalking him spend extra time on remand in prison because he postponed a court hearing due to business". Jordan will lose, because any semi-intelligent judge will realise that Jordan could have protected Crystal Palace's £1M claim by not agreeing to the compromise agreement in the first place. Jordan actually states that it was "a gesture of goodwill, he agreed to waive that clause" - but if he knew all along that Dowie was lying, then it would seem only reasonable that he used the situation to satisfy his real motivation as pointed out by the defence team - "In reality, Mr Jordan's dislike of Charlton and a desire to damage that club, given that Mr Dowie became their team manager, was a particular motivation for Mr Jordan and Crystal Palace bringing this action.'' - what other reason could Jordan justifiably have for allowing it to happen. He knew in advance, there is proof in the Crystal Palace press conference where Jordan specifically mentions Charlton being a club that he would be very upset at Dowie turning up at next week - odd you may think if he wasn't already aware of Dowie's intentions.
[cite]Posted By: No.1 in South London[/cite] Today's evidence will show that Dowie's agent had a note in his diary for May 23rd (the day after he left Palace) which read "Iain Dowie - Charlton interview". So I suspect that Orangehead will be able to prove he lied.
.
means nothing...i put things in my diary for the same day and i put things in my diary retrospectively as a record of things done etc...unless jordan is planning on calling dr who as a witness to state that it was in the diary before that date the record is meaningless...and as we all know, dr who's word cannot be taken in a court of law because of his association with ace (or whatever she was called)...
[quote][cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite][quote][cite]Where did you get this from? and surely the point is when was the interview put into the diary. It could have been after the press conference.[/quote]
Someone who is there posted it elsewhere - apologies as above should have used "tried to prove he lied" - I'm sure they have other circumstantial stuff to prove Dowie had intentions to be interviewed - my point is however, even if Jordan can prove that Dowie already had it in his mind to apply for the Charlton job straight after his leaving Palace was announced, Jordan seemed to believe that was the case. Surely he would have put in a clause into the compromise agreement to prevent him applying to CAFC ? if not, why not ? reasonable to assume that he was quite happy for Dowie to proceed ?
About to log out but basically there's 3 benches, the room's much smaller than I thought - a mad old building. I sat in the middle where there were a couple of spare seats where some of Jordan's people were, Dowie was in front of me next to Varney they were muttering to each other... Murray in the row behind with some others in their group. He was chuckling loudly whenever Jordan said anything ridiculous!!
Five Live reported that Jordan has claimed that the PFA bloke who was represented Dowie in his negotiations with Jordan lied to him. Jordan says he has seen evidence that the PFA bloke was aware of Dowie having an interview lined up at Charlton (I think that was the gist of it anyway).
This is presumably his trump card. I suppose it's going to be a question of whether that is a credible claim and whether, and whether much weight can be assigned to it if it is substantiated?
Players' union executive Mick McGuire has been accused of telling lies by denying he had anything to do with former Crystal Palace manager Iain Dowie's move to rivals Charlton. The accusation came from Palace chairman Simon Jordan on the third day of his club's £1million High Court compensation claim against Dowie for "fraudulent misrepresentation". Jordan told the court that on May 26 last year - 10 days after he had agreed to release Dowie on the understanding that he would move to the north of England to be near his family - McGuire phoned to say he had nothing to do with the manager's decision to go to Charlton and he apologised for what had happened. This was not true, Jordan told Mr Justice Tugendhat. Dowie's counsel, Michael McParland, asked: "Are you saying you believe that Mick McGuire colluded with Mr Dowie in a fraud on you?" Jordan replied: "I believe he had a conversation with me which was not founded on the truth. With the benefit of hindsight and having seen evidence from his diary, I am led to believe he was telling an untruth." Crystal Palace, who won promotion to the Premiership under Dowie's command but were relegated after only one season, accuse him of breaking an "amicable" compromise agreement releasing him from his contract. The Professional Footballers' Association, of which Mick McGuire is deputy chief executive, was involved in drawing up the agreement. Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract to the effect that, if he left to join another club, Palace would receive £1million compensation. Jordan claims he agreed to waive that clause because Dowie had stated he wanted to move nearer to his wife and family. But within days of leaving, Dowie was appointed manager of Charlton. Under cross-examination today, Jordan said the agreement releasing Dowie was a "pragmatic compromise". "He left the club at a very difficult time. It was a disaster for us to lose him at that time in a critical season, but you have to make the best of the hand you are dealt," he said. He denied Mr McParland's suggestion that he was a "victim of your own Machiavellian attempt to get money out of Charlton". Mr McParland said his insistence that he would have been just as angry if Dowie had gone to any other London club or anywhere south of Watford was "absolute rubbish". "When he got to Charlton, you thought, in your Machiavellian way, 'great, I can get on the media and rant and rave and claim compensation'," Mr McParland said. Jordan replied: "I don't need to go on the media to rant and rave - I can do that by myself. "But there is nothing Machiavellian about me. This man (Dowie) lied to me and I asked my lawyers about it and they advised me what to do." He pointed out that, although consideration was given to suing Charlton, no writ was issued against them.
He left the club at a very difficult time. It was a disaster for us to lose him at that time in a critical season, but you have to make the best of the hand you are dealt," he said.
Comments
Loved these:
Did you know that ...
There are in excess of 150 Judges‚ Registrars and Masters in the Royal Courts of Justice.
Two statues (amongst other things) were omitted from the roof during building due to lack of funds.
There is a secret corridor known as the Chicken Run.
There are over 1‚000 rooms and‚ in the main building alone‚ there are three and a half miles of corridors.
A transcript of one day’s hearing in the High Court contains about 35‚000 words - roughly half the length of a novel.
A man was once found living in the basement.
A tributary of the River Fleet is reputed to run under the buildings.
There used to be a blacksmith’s forge in the Law Courts.
In 1908 it was necessary to provide cells for appellants. It was not until 20 years later that an unfastened trapdoor under the linoleum was discovered just outside the cells where a prisoner could have dropped into a tunnel‚ through the engineering shop and out into the Strand!
The Thomas More building leans towards the west.
The Admiralty Marshal once arrested a motor cruiser in the Boat Show pool at Earls Court.
The flamboyant Palace chairman, with his perma-tan and sharp suit, was in the witness box for five hours during the case he had brought against Dowie on charges of fraud and misrepresentation from which he is seeking a £1million pay-out.
Amid the engrossing details of their frosty personal relationship, Jordan defended a perceived lack of big-money spending at Selhurst Park.
He refused to pay the then- Millwall midfielder Tim Cahill's agents SFX a £125,000 fee, but insisted that Dowie had his own reservations about the player after hearing Cahill talk more about property than football.
He also claimed that Palace agreed a £3.5m fee with West Ham for Michael Carrick during the 2004-5 season but that the midfielder, who subsequently moved to Tottenham, refused to talk to the club.
A spiky, 90-minute longdistance phone conversation between Jordan — in his Spanish villa — and Dowie — sitting at home with his family in Bolton — following Palace's play-off semi-final defeat to Watford 12 months ago paved the way for the boss's departure.
That he ended up down the road at Charlton shortly afterwards when his professed reason for unhappiness at Palace was wanting to be with his family in the north-west is the basis of Jordan's case.
The chairman claims he would not have waived a £1m compensation clause had he known Dowie would move to The Valley.
The divergence of opinion between them during that phone call was absolute. Jordan proposed the possible sale of four players — Andrew Johnson, Ben Watson, Tom Soares and Fitz Hall.
Dowie disagreed.
Jordan suggested watching the video of the previous match together, "so that I could better understand his viewpoint and how he saw the game".
Dowie refused point-blank, according to Jordan. "Iain said, 'Under no circumstances am I going to watch matches with you, if you want to manage, do your coaching badges'."
Jordan also said he would be withdrawing the "discretionary gesture of goodwill" of paying for Dowie to fly up to see his family every Saturday evening because he felt it had gone unappreciated.
According to Jordan, Dowie then raised the subject of missing his family and asked that if a club in the north came in for him, the chairman would allow him to speak to that club.
Throughout five hours of cross examination — Jordan admitted that his way is not to use 10 words when 100 will do — Dowie studied every sentence of his testimony. His eyes followed question and answer intently.
To his right in Court Room 12 was Peter Varney, the Charlton Athletic chief executive. The Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, sat in the back row.
The irony of their presence on Dowie's behalf is that they are the men who sacked him as their manager six months after hiring him.
In spite of a dislike of Dowie, Jordan insisted that sacking him was the one option he was determined not to pursue.
He said: "I told Iain in the past that I didn't enjoy working with him but I do have great regard for his ability to coach and to lose him before this season — such a critical season — was a bloody disaster.
"After listening to 45 minutes of belligerence from him and a commentary of disrespect, I said, 'If you are that unhappy, why are you working for me?'
"Iain said, 'Are you asking me to resign? I'm not independently wealthy, Simon, I can't afford to resign'."
Jordan couldn't stand working with Dowie, talked to him like cr*p and held no respect for him. Also knew that Dowie was unhappy and long-term would not be rigt for Palace. Dowie in return had had a gut full of Jordan and wanted to get away.
Agreeing to split was the best scenario for all parties concerned; Dowie Jordan, and more importantly Crystal Palace, which should be Jordan's main concern.
The more i read, the more i am convinced this actually has very little to do with Dowie and Crystal Palace, but everything to do with Jordan's stupid ego and his hatred of Charlton.
i think you'll find that's the tactic being employed but its worth bearing in mind we've only seen the start of it so far...no doubt his barrister will give as good as he got when its dowie's turn...and jordan's bound to want to make the most of the opportunity if he gets reg and/or murray on the stand...still, a great distraction so far for charlton fans after being relegated so a big thank you to simon jordan for that...he couldn't have timed it better...
I believe that the judge will conclude that Jordan based on all the evidence that will be produce, knew enough at the time to have realised that by agreeing to the compromise, Dowie was free to interview at Charlton (unless there was a specific clause in the compromise - which I doubt as it would never have got to court had it been). Therefore it was Jordan's willingness to let it all unfold and being prepared to take it to court that stopped Crystal Palace receiving the £1M compensation and not directly attributable to Dowie's lies. The fact that Dowie lied did not prevent CPFC (Jordan) from protecting themselves if they were already aware of his intentions.
My view entirely but I think the Orange one will lose this one. Although he may prove that Dowie lied I wonder if airing all of CPFC's dirty washing in public, the cost of the case and trying but failing to muddy the good name of CAFC will be worth the ego boost he will give himself by proving what a manipulative twat he really is.
LOL
....................
Agreed, I suspect that Jordan likes "yes men" around him, the type that'll say/do whatever it takes to get on the same side as the boss and feed his ego and thereby make him feel important - we all know people and have worked with people like that. Dowie it seems refused to play this game and so Jordan starting behaving like a kid, withdrawing from paying for his flights home, insisting on watching matches with him and generally setting out to make life difficult for ID and effectively constructively sack Dowie - ie put him in a position whereby he is forced to resign. Given that Palace weren't going to get promoted last season Jordan had plenty to gain from doing that, it'd get ID off the wage bill and allow Jordan to get someone in who'd be a bit more of an arse licker.
I wonder also if there was a loyalty bonus payable at the end of ID's contract - it had one more year to run and perhaps Jordan was reluctant to pay that, knowing that ID had no long term future at the Club and that he didn't want him there. The risk was that ID would see through the entire duration of his contract, trouser the loyalty bonus and then leave. If there was, then allowing ID to walk away a year early with no compensation owed on either side is good business for Palace/Jordan, unfortunately in the leaving agreement he didn't put anything in there about signing for a London club or specifically Charlton.
It's going to be difficult for Jordan to win this battle, argument is ultimately going to come down to proving that ID had a job offer from Charlton ready and waiting, as Charlton aren't listed as defendants, and that Varney, Murray etc will state that he hadn't, then that won't work. So it'll be down to his word against ID's and that depends on whom the court choose to believe. ID's brief is trying to build up a picture that Jordan interfered unnecessarily with the running of the team, forcing Dowie into a position whereby he could no longer professionally work with Jordan and therefore resigned or at least left the club "by mutual decision". Jordan will have to rely on Dowie leaving purely because he wanted to go back to the North West and then reneging on that agreement a week later.
Some more to go in this case.
Where I think his case falls over, is in the probable answer to the question - when was he actually aware of Dowie's intentions ? - my view is that Jordan knew before the agreement was signed and set a trap for Dowie. The staged press conference where they had conflicting views on the reasons for Dowie's departure, the readiness for the unveiling at Charlton all point to Jordan being aware all along what Dowie's intentions were. Jordan was happy for it to all unfold in order that the egotistical herbert could satisfy his lust for the courtroom and a game of one-upmanship along the way.
It appears that Dowie's defence team are setting out to prove that Jordan has an appetite for the court room and uses and sometimes "abuses" the system - refer to yesterday's evidence about him bragging about how he made "a woman convicted of stalking him spend extra time on remand in prison because he postponed a court hearing due to business". Jordan will lose, because any semi-intelligent judge will realise that Jordan could have protected Crystal Palace's £1M claim by not agreeing to the compromise agreement in the first place.
Jordan actually states that it was "a gesture of goodwill, he agreed to waive that clause" - but if he knew all along that Dowie was lying, then it would seem only reasonable that he used the situation to satisfy his real motivation as pointed out by the defence team - "In reality, Mr Jordan's dislike of Charlton and a desire to damage that club, given that Mr Dowie became their team manager, was a particular motivation for Mr Jordan and Crystal Palace bringing this action.'' - what other reason could Jordan justifiably have for allowing it to happen. He knew in advance, there is proof in the Crystal Palace press conference where Jordan specifically mentions Charlton being a club that he would be very upset at Dowie turning up at next week - odd you may think if he wasn't already aware of Dowie's intentions.
means nothing...i put things in my diary for the same day and i put things in my diary retrospectively as a record of things done etc...unless jordan is planning on calling dr who as a witness to state that it was in the diary before that date the record is meaningless...and as we all know, dr who's word cannot be taken in a court of law because of his association with ace (or whatever she was called)...
Someone who is there posted it elsewhere - apologies as above should have used "tried to prove he lied" - I'm sure they have other circumstantial stuff to prove Dowie had intentions to be interviewed - my point is however, even if Jordan can prove that Dowie already had it in his mind to apply for the Charlton job straight after his leaving Palace was announced, Jordan seemed to believe that was the case. Surely he would have put in a clause into the compromise agreement to prevent him applying to CAFC ? if not, why not ? reasonable to assume that he was quite happy for Dowie to proceed ?
No way is Jordan gonna win simply cos he didn't put a clause re Charlton/going oop north in the contract.
Can't believe how Orange he looks - it's ridiculous!!!!
PS You can get single tickets to Liverpool on the first bus/train (8.30 from Euston)for £12.50 if you book now!
Peter Taylor is about to give evidence, and Dominic Jordan has been in the stand talking about the ETCYT moment
Billy Davies agent has backed up Charlton story and Dowie.
Peter Taylor backed up Charlton's story and said he didn't want to slag off another manager off.
The feeling is that Palace don't have a case, as they don't have any evidence
His own manager!!!!
Really? you don't say ;-0
When is the Inspector going to give us the full works and on here or AQITES?
The other tit bit, was that Curbs recommendation for the next manager was Peter Taylor
[/quote] His own manager!!!! [quote[/quote]
For how much longer I wonder ?
This is presumably his trump card. I suppose it's going to be a question of whether that is a credible claim and whether, and whether much weight can be assigned to it if it is substantiated?
Sounds like fun in court. I wish I was there.
But a date in a diary is a load of old tosh ain't it?
The accusation came from Palace chairman Simon Jordan on the third day of his club's £1million High Court compensation claim against Dowie for "fraudulent misrepresentation".
Jordan told the court that on May 26 last year - 10 days after he had agreed to release Dowie on the understanding that he would move to the north of England to be near his family - McGuire phoned to say he had nothing to do with the manager's decision to go to Charlton and he apologised for what had happened.
This was not true, Jordan told Mr Justice Tugendhat.
Dowie's counsel, Michael McParland, asked: "Are you saying you believe that Mick McGuire colluded with Mr Dowie in a fraud on you?"
Jordan replied: "I believe he had a conversation with me which was not founded on the truth. With the benefit of hindsight and having seen evidence from his diary, I am led to believe he was telling an untruth."
Crystal Palace, who won promotion to the Premiership under Dowie's command but were relegated after only one season, accuse him of breaking an "amicable" compromise agreement releasing him from his contract.
The Professional Footballers' Association, of which Mick McGuire is deputy chief executive, was involved in drawing up the agreement.
Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract to the effect that, if he left to join another club, Palace would receive £1million compensation.
Jordan claims he agreed to waive that clause because Dowie had stated he wanted to move nearer to his wife and family.
But within days of leaving, Dowie was appointed manager of Charlton.
Under cross-examination today, Jordan said the agreement releasing Dowie was a "pragmatic compromise".
"He left the club at a very difficult time. It was a disaster for us to lose him at that time in a critical season, but you have to make the best of the hand you are dealt," he said.
He denied Mr McParland's suggestion that he was a "victim of your own Machiavellian attempt to get money out of Charlton".
Mr McParland said his insistence that he would have been just as angry if Dowie had gone to any other London club or anywhere south of Watford was "absolute rubbish".
"When he got to Charlton, you thought, in your Machiavellian way, 'great, I can get on the media and rant and rave and claim compensation'," Mr McParland said.
Jordan replied: "I don't need to go on the media to rant and rave - I can do that by myself.
"But there is nothing Machiavellian about me. This man (Dowie) lied to me and I asked my lawyers about it and they advised me what to do."
He pointed out that, although consideration was given to suing Charlton, no writ was issued against them.
thats rubissh isnt it? He wanted him gone.