Tevez to sue Souness

[moomba]

Had Mancini been backed up by even one player, that would have been classed as proof enough, surely, unless he were overridden by other witnesses.
Either way, the charge could not be made to stick.

Neither you or I know what any of the players have said in the hearing.

Like I said before, we might not have wanted the more serious charges to stick, it might have left us open to sacking for gross misconduct rather than cashing in at the next transfer window. It might be that the administration of proving a gross misconduct charge is more difficult than a standard breach.

Either way the hearing is irrelevant, I believe the burden of proof in a slander lawsuit is down to the person making the claim, he'll have to explain why in his own words he told the world he wans't right to play.

Thats why this case, like the one with Mancini will never see the light of day.

 

[deynaskaz]

Employment law is different ,you only have to have reasonable belief the accusation is true,you dont need hard evidence like in a court of law,so im sure there were other reasons why they went for the lesser charge . namely the PFA there was obviously a deal done that the PFA backed out of at the last miniute.

 

[remoh]

The action that City have taken is of no relevance to this. When did Souness make the comments? Was it after Mancini's interview where mancini said that he wouldn't come on? If so, Tevez has no case. Souness was only reacting & commenting on a statement that a City official had made. Other than Hughes, everybody else said & thought the same thing.

Souness, quite recklessly, accepted Mancini's statement as a fact and went on to attack the player on the basis of that.
Tevez has denied refusing to play and the Club has been unable to prove him a liar, so Souness' attack was unjust and, perhaps, actionable imo.
In a court of law, his only defence would be that Tevez refused to play. Sooner him than me on that one.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:51 am --

Neither you or I know what any of the players have said in the hearing.

No, we don't. We only know that refusal to play was not charged, which is a damn good indication.

Like I said before, we might not have wanted the more serious charges to stick, it might have left us open to sacking for gross misconduct rather than cashing in at the next transfer window. It might be that the administration of proving a gross misconduct charge is more difficult than a standard breach.

Had the proof been there surely the Club would have made the charge since leaving it out is tantamount to contradicting the manager. It could either be proved or it couldn't.

Either way the hearing is irrelevant, I believe the burden of proof in a slander lawsuit is down to the person making the claim, he'll have to explain why in his own words he told the world he wans't right to play.

Thats why this case, like the one with Mancini will never see the light of day.[/quote]

No: Tevez would only have to prove that Souness made the statements and Souness would be required to defend himself by showing that they were true. He'd struggle with that.<br /><br />-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:07 am --<br /><br />

Employment law is different ,you only have to have reasonable belief the accusation is true,you dont need hard evidence like in a court of law,so im sure there were other reasons why they went for the lesser charge . namely the PFA there was obviously a deal done that the PFA backed out of at the last miniute.

This is a known fact?

 

[west didsblue]

I can't understand why people are saying that the club only found that he refused to warm up and did not refuse to play.

The relevant part of the club statement was:

"The five contractual obligations found by the disciplinary panel to have been breached are:

1. An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

Nothing about warming up and sounds much more like he was found to have refused to play

 

[remoh]

I can't understand why people are saying that the club only found that he refused to warm up and did not refuse to play.

The relevant part of the club statement was:

"The five contractual obligations found by the disciplinary panel to have been breached are:

1. An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

Nothing about warming up and sounds much more like he was found to have refused to play

But the actual charge which ended up being levelled at Tevez, was refusing to warm up, not refusing to play.

 

[edgecroft]

I can't understand why people are saying that the club only found that he refused to warm up and did not refuse to play.

The relevant part of the club statement was:

"The five contractual obligations found by the disciplinary panel to have been breached are:

1. An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

Nothing about warming up and sounds much more like he was found to have refused to play

But the actual charge which ended up being levelled at Tevez, was refusing to warm up, not refusing to play.

That's what the papers said because that's the spin that Kia gave them and you accepted in your naivety, but the actual first charge against him at the hearing was, as west didsblue told you, "An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

It doesn't matter how many times you say it wasn't one of the charges, or what agenda you have for saying it, but it is true that what you're saying and what your basing your argument on is in fact completely wrong.

Tevez was charged with and found guilty of refusing to take part in a Manchester City match when asked to do so by the manager. To date, he hasn't appealed that decision as far as I'm aware.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

would love souness to have five mins alone with them two cunts,tevez and kia,i know who my money would be on,slimey bast***s desperation springs to mind...

PMSL

(Souey pre-heart op though)

 

[halfcenturyup]

He's like a little kid and someone's told him the meaning of 'deformation of character' and now hes using it left right and centre as his defense case, hope we see the back of him in January

His character isn't the only thing that is deformed ...

Also, has anyone questioned, for example, the insurance implications of playing a player who isn't properly warmed up? I am guessing we would accept
the manager has the final say as to when a player is warmed up.

I think those people hoping the club have screwed up by "not charging him with refusing to play" may be disappointed and I doubt either Mancini or Souness are losing much sleep over a libel suit. Just more PR posturing from the Team CT if you ask me, and the quicker they realise no-one cares the better.

 

[remoh]

I can't understand why people are saying that the club only found that he refused to warm up and did not refuse to play.

The relevant part of the club statement was:

"The five contractual obligations found by the disciplinary panel to have been breached are:

1. An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

Nothing about warming up and sounds much more like he was found to have refused to play

But the actual charge which ended up being levelled at Tevez, was refusing to warm up, not refusing to play.

That's what the papers said because that's the spin that Kia gave them and you accepted in your naivety, but the actual first charge against him at the hearing was, as west didsblue told you, "An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2011/October/club-statement-Carlos-Tevez-Oct-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/20 ... vez-Oct-25</a>

It doesn't matter how many times you say it wasn't one of the charges, or what agenda you have for saying it, but it is true that what you're saying and what your basing your argument on is in fact completely wrong.

Tevez was charged with and found guilty of refusing to take part in a Manchester City match when asked to do so by the manager. To date, he hasn't appealed that decision as far as I'm aware.

That was not the actual wording used and of course the Club had to reduce the penalty when contradicted by Gordon Taylor (who has been known to back clubs against players in the past, I believe)
As much as you believe in the naivety of the media, somehow they decided to print Tevez' version of the outcome, rather than extracts from the Club website. Such a widespread and direct contradiction of the truth would be unusual even for our Press. You can call them cynical, if you like, but naive? Never.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. The legal threats by Tevez will either be carried out or not. It is hard to imagine that he,or his agent, would make such threats without a leg to stand on, but time will tell.

My only agenda, by the way, in getting involved in this thread, is to try to provide balance. Lynch-mob mentality is never to my taste and some on here are going way over the top re. the Tevez incident.

 

[taconinja]

He and his agent spew shit every day. Little **** took "family leave" to go screw a teenager and all we heard was how sad he was about his family.

You don't want a lynch mob? Fine. Just know that I wouldn't lift one finger to help him if both his and my life depended on it.