This is just getting ridiculous now You can't say "Let's just leave it at that" when you haven't even offered any sort of counter argument other than "Erm, no!" And this isn't even a difference of opinion... there are facts to be looked at.
Whether or not Allardyce is crooked or not, Kean needs to have the evidence to prove it if he's going to go round saying it. Whether he has or not, well that's a £90M question isn't it.
But as I said, any trial would take about 2 years to be heard. That's not going to help Sam if he gets sacked in a week's time is it? The award of costs is a red herring, you do not go to Court spending over a million quid just to get your costs. In any case, you're not guaranteed to get your costs, and even if you get awarded your costs, you only get about 70% back, so you're still significantly out of pocket. But what do you think would be more effective in the following scenario. On this forum I start a thread where I call you a thief and, in your accountancy world, you have been skimming off your clients. 1. You don't say anything but put the matter in the hands of your solicitors and barrister. You spend 2 years incurring massive legal fees tracing and interviewing people who read the thread to determine whether my comments lowered you in the estimation of other forum users. In all that time you cannot say anything in response to what I said in the thread as you cannot prejudice your case. Further, in that time the suggestion that you are a thief and are skimming off clients is in the mind of forum users. Come the day of the trial I decide to make a settlement offer. I offer to issue a public apology and pay nominal damages, but I won't pay your costs. I then come back on here and put in a thread something along the lines of "I'm sorry to Ricardo for calling him a thief and saying that he's skimming off his clients". That is an apology but does not say that I was wrong. Plus it puts it back into forum users' consciousness when they may have forgotten all about it. Alternatively: 2. You immediately respond to my thread denying that you are a thief or that you have been skimming off clients. You challenge me to produce any evidence to back up my allegations which, if I cannot do that, immediately discredits me and my allegations. Option 2 seems preferable to me as it immediately exonerates you. I don't know what other people think? By the way Ricardo, nothing in this post should be deemed to be an allegation that you are a thief or are skimming off clients. I have no money and am not worth suing
In that event, if it's costing me contracts my initial reaction is to tell you to put up and shut up or it goes to my lawyers. If you offer a settlement on the day of the trial I reject it, take it through the courts and get awarded costs and damages. In Allardyce's case the very fact he's put it into his lawyers hands is enough if he gets sacked next week. He doesn't need to have won the case by the time he needs a job, he just needs to have shown a willingness to challenge the claims as it's the failure to do that that represents an admission of guilt in people's eyes. But we're still waiting for Tickler to deal with the £90M question.
People do stupid deals on the steps of the Court as they don't want to give evidence, and they know that there is always a risk that you lose, in which case you'd be out of pocket for your own costs plus mine. I see what you're saying about Allardyce putting the matter in the hands of his lawyers, but there may still be a nagging doubt as it's not been determined. If Allardyce came out now in the news and said that Kean was in a bar when he made the comments, they are simply without foundation and challenge Kean to provide any evidence whatsoever that he was a crook, then if Kean back tracks any potential employers are more likely to disregard it. Just my opinion though. Has Tickler still not answered the £90m (or is is £100m now) question??!!
I'm not sure this is very likely, but could be quite interesting if both clubs and their respective managers meet next season!
You don't though, the whole thing is a farce, even if you win a spurious case, you still don't get your costs back. I brought a high court action against someone, I proved my case, but on a technicality they didn't have to pay any damages and then I was awarded 70% of my costs. The case had cost £100k, so despite winning, I was still £30k down. I hate the high court, it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with technicality, terminology and precedent. You can prove to the court that you were wronged, the court can hand down a judgement confirming you were wronged and you still end up getting ****ed over. A system of law that ignores justice is a waste of time and money and if I ever bump into Richard Arnold QC, I'll twat him. PS - If you're reading this Richard and you're offended by anything I've posted, then sue me you ****.
Olm I'm sorry to hear of your experience although it doesn't surprise me unfortunately. High court judges are made up of the very best legal minds in company law etc but the problem.is they are lawyers, not business people. What happens in business is rarely what ought to happen in accordance with company law. I've got better rbarrister's details if you're interested
Thanks for the offer, but I never want to go anywhere near the high court again. Having won the case, but got no damages, I went to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that I shouldn't have won and still been substantially out of pocket. In the Court of Appeal(as I'm sure you're aware), three judges review the evidence of the original case. The problem with this, is that they only read the court transcripts, they don't get to see anyone actually giving evidence, so they're not really able to make up their minds who's telling the truth. In my case, it was obvious in the court that the people I'd taken to court were lying trough their teeth, but in the court transcripts that wasn't evident at all. As a consequence they were passing judgement on a case they hadn't actually sat through and it was a complete waste of time. As it was a case that potentially established case law, I was invited to take it further and appeal to the House of Lords. Initially a top law firm offered to take up the case on the basis that it wouldn't cost me anything, but they had difficulty getting it underwritten and it never went ahead. What really disturbed me, was the fact that more time was spent arguing about the definition of individual words in the way the law was written, then was spent on the actual evidence in the case. In the Court of Appeal, there was nothing but discussion about the definition of each word, it was painful to sit through. The initial judge was actually half decent, he obviously understood what had gone on and was certain that the other party was guilty, he just couldn't get round the wording of the law to actually issue any sort of penalty. If you Google my name and the name of my company, you get 22,300 results, around 20,000 of them relate to this case, it might well be my only legacy.
I don't blame you. If you go appeal the only grounds are 1. It's a matter of public interest; 2. The judge got the law wrong, or 3. The judge couldn't have made the decision he did on the evidence he heard. Ground 3 is non existent as you say the appeal court doesn't hear evidence. Ground 2 is tough to show as is ground 1. The best thing is getting the best result 1st time round...
