Ade a case for the defence - SUE EM'

[tolmie's hairdoo]

There is a simple way to throw the onus back on Arsenal and bog this whole thing down.

Based on Van Persie's personal comments, and the sanctioning/airing of them on Arsenal website.

Our lawyers should be on to this very quick and sue for 'Defamation of Character'

After all, it will be up to Arsenal and Van Persie to prove otherwise with regards intent.

All they have managed to air in the public domain so far, is denegrate Adebayor as a person and as a professional footballer, and provide a guilty agenda for those who want to hear it.

There is absolutely no way an FA decision can be meted out with regards 'intent' only on dangerous play (only forcing Ade into a lie detector test would achieve otherwise)

A retraction should at the very least be demanded from the Arsenal end. There are also ground for subjudicy, with regards additional reporting and comment ahead of any FA hearing.

There is a legal argument to be won, even in terms of the PR was which is now being waged.

 

[Montgomery Burns]

A very interesting idea. Only rich people sue in this country, and we're certainly that.

 

[Garry.Cook]

You sound like you know what you're talking about mate. I just made a thread hoping city know how to handle this the right way. Let's hope so eh?

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I have listened all morning to the TalkShite crap from Irani. It has been toned down now Parry and Townsend are on - something to do with intelligence, probably, Ronnie - and I have seen the video a hundred times. As far as the lawyers are concerned there is only one verdict that can be returned - the video evidence is INCONCLUSIVE. That one has been used before by the FA. No reason why they can't use it again.

Also, we are told by the clowns at the FA that if a referee has seen an incident and meted out appropriate punishment, red or yellow card, that incident cannot be revisited. (Well, that's what they tell us!) Well if Ade got a yellow for his celebration that should be the end of the matter. I'm just off the Ladbrokes to see if they are offering odds!

 

[Montgomery Burns]

You sound like you know what you're talking about mate. I just made a thread hoping city know how to handle this the right way. Let's hope so eh?

Fingers crossed. What is undeniable is that we have the funds to access the best legal brains in the country, and as some of the arguments put forward on Sky's behalf (sorry, the FA's behalf) have more holes than a string vest then I would hope that our very own Rumpole can mitigate against some of the worst excesses proposed.

 

[wandarah]

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I have ever read on a football forum.

Congratulations.

 

[Fanzone Danny]

You sir sound like you know what u r talking about!

Can you get me off with some speeding fines? .......................

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

I have listened all morning to the TalkShite crap from Irani. It has been toned down now Parry and Townsend are on - something to do with intelligence, probably, Ronnie - and I have seen the video a hundred times. As far as the lawyers are concerned there is only one verdict that can be returned - the video evidence is INCONCLUSIVE. That one has been used before by the FA. No reason why they can't use it again.

Also, we are told by the clowns at the FA that if a referee has seen an incident and meted out appropriate punishment, red or yellow card, that incident cannot be revisited. (Well, that's what they tell us!) Well if Ade got a yellow for his celebration that should be the end of the matter. I'm just off the Ladbrokes to see if they are offering odds!

There is now a caveat in place (there's a surprise) which allows for retrospective action from the FA.

This is only moved forward if the match official states that he did not see the actual tackle (Mark Clattenburg will not be going against his employers any time soon after his recent suspension)

If Clattenburg insists that he would have issued a card for the offence, that will be good enough for the FA.

With regards the caution for the celebration...the FA rules quite clearly state incitement when leaving the field of play.

Ade certainly did not leave the field of play and retrospective action will be a little more difficult to enforce (the rules aren't there... YET) on this score, having received a yellow.

This could change if the police want to force the matter.

Subjudicy is an easy one to argue (although the FA is not a High Court) in terms of a fair hearing. AKA Lee Bowyer case being dropped after an article appeared in a newspaper, one day prior to trial.

Again, Defamation of character should be pursued because the accusation is one of intent a premeditated action.

The only reason Roy Keane was hit with a whopping fine and further suspension on top of an automatic three match ban, is because the clown confessed to it in his book.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

This is possibly the most ridiculous post I have ever read on a football forum.

Congratulations.

And that is possibly the most ridiculous over-reaction to a post I have ever read on a football forum.

Congrats to you.

Please at least qualify your opinion, so not to bother offering up any of my own in the future.

I would hazard a guess you already have a pre-conceived opinion as to the type of character/person that Emmanuel Adebayor is.

Fortunately, in this country, well most of the time, people still have to prove their accusations are with foundation and evidence.

Not a City fan, perhaps?

 

[wandarah]

I wouldnt call that an over-reaction? It's not like I took my pants off, shat on your post, and then molested your cat.

If you guys seriously think this has legs, you're either ignorant, or deluded. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but you cannot possibly be serious.

I dont claim to know Adebayor personally, and I suspect - neither would you. However it's worth noting that he was a troublemaker at Monaco, with the Togo national team, and at Arsenal.

The lad has history. The stamp was without doubt, deliberate.