Tevez to sue Souness

[BlueAnorak]

[Finally, Sky and Souness would a have a good defence to any claim of defamation - it's called fair comment.
Bring it on if you dare Carlos......]

No: It's only classed as fair comment if it is demonstrably true. The fact is that, after a thorough investigation, the Club could not charge Tevez with refusing to play. Not one of the coaching or playing staff supported that charge.
This being the case, Souness had the ground cut right out from under him, since he had attacked Tevez' character publicly without any proof. He was rash to say the least and if he ends up paying the price for it, I would lose no sleep over that.

As regards the comments on this thread re. free speech, none of us have the right to slander, libel or defame anyone; that's where free speech ends.
Tevez' behaviour has, from what I know, been poor and he had no right to refuse to warm up, but, like the rest of us, he is entitled to the protection of the law of the country.

Incorrect. Souness can demonstrably state that the actions of Mancini during and after the game stating that Tevez refused to pay back up his opinion at the time based on the available comment and available evidence- i.e. Telling Zabaletta in full view of the camera 'I said No' and telling the interpreter to fek off.
Carlos can only sue Mancini for any chance of success. Even then he's unlikely to win as he refused to do what Mancini told him to do. Tevez DID brake the terms of his contract and if he sued Mancini he might be very lucky and win but only get 1p in damages but have to pay his own legal fees. Most judges would try and throw such a case out well before it got to full trial though.

 

[moomba]

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)

The wording is pretty clear if you ask me.

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.

I wouldnt have ever thought naivety was the reason some journos decided to print one side of the story of the other (the stories were actually written before the club issued the statement). What would be naive is beleiving that newspapers only report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of them (I think it was Ollie Holt) even admitted contacting the Kia camp to get "their side".

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.

I'm considering suing Tevez and Joorabchian. There, wasn't so difficult was it.

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.[/quote]

 

[remoh]

[Finally, Sky and Souness would a have a good defence to any claim of defamation - it's called fair comment.
Bring it on if you dare Carlos......]

No: It's only classed as fair comment if it is demonstrably true. The fact is that, after a thorough investigation, the Club could not charge Tevez with refusing to play. Not one of the coaching or playing staff supported that charge.
This being the case, Souness had the ground cut right out from under him, since he had attacked Tevez' character publicly without any proof. He was rash to say the least and if he ends up paying the price for it, I would lose no sleep over that.

As regards the comments on this thread re. free speech, none of us have the right to slander, libel or defame anyone; that's where free speech ends.
Tevez' behaviour has, from what I know, been poor and he had no right to refuse to warm up, but, like the rest of us, he is entitled to the protection of the law of the country.

Incorrect. Souness can demonstrably state that the actions of Mancini during and after the game stating that Tevez refused to pay back up his opinion at the time based on the available comment and available evidence- i.e. Telling Zabaletta in full view of the camera 'I said No' and telling the interpreter to fek off.
Carlos can only sue Mancini for any chance of success. Even then he's unlikely to win as he refused to do what Mancini told him to do. Tevez DID brake the terms of his contract and if he sued Mancini he might be very lucky and win but only get 1p in damages but have to pay his own legal fees. Most judges would try and throw such a case out well before it got to full trial though.

Souness can state what he likes, but he will only be quoting the words of Roberto whose credibility has since been undermined by the decision of the Club to downgrade the charge to refusal to warm up (Ref. BBC News - not a red-top)
Since when can anyone attack someone's character in public, using a simple allegation rather than facts.
What did Tevez say no to before the camera, by the way? Was it referring to warm up? He's never denied that.
What he said to his interpreter, by the way, may have been rude, but definitely not a hanging offence.<br /><br />-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:49 pm --<br /><br />

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)

The wording is pretty clear if you ask me.

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.

I wouldnt have ever thought naivety was the reason some journos decided to print one side of the story of the other (the stories were actually written before the club issued the statement). What would be naive is beleiving that newspapers only report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One of them (I think it was Ollie Holt) even admitted contacting the Kia camp to get "their side".

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.

I'm considering suing Tevez and Joorabchian. There, wasn't so difficult was it.

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.

[/quote]

I tend to believe BBC reports when they confirm press articles.
What's wrong with a reporter trying to get both sides of a dispute? This is not yet Stalin's USSR.

As someone who is not in the public eye or involved in a major and career-threatening dispute, it's easy to make threats about suing - and fatuous.

 

[west didsblue]

[Finally, Sky and Souness would a have a good defence to any claim of defamation - it's called fair comment.
Bring it on if you dare Carlos......]

No: It's only classed as fair comment if it is demonstrably true. The fact is that, after a thorough investigation, the Club could not charge Tevez with refusing to play. Not one of the coaching or playing staff supported that charge.
This being the case, Souness had the ground cut right out from under him, since he had attacked Tevez' character publicly without any proof. He was rash to say the least and if he ends up paying the price for it, I would lose no sleep over that.

As regards the comments on this thread re. free speech, none of us have the right to slander, libel or defame anyone; that's where free speech ends.
Tevez' behaviour has, from what I know, been poor and he had no right to refuse to warm up, but, like the rest of us, he is entitled to the protection of the law of the country.

Incorrect. Souness can demonstrably state that the actions of Mancini during and after the game stating that Tevez refused to pay back up his opinion at the time based on the available comment and available evidence- i.e. Telling Zabaletta in full view of the camera 'I said No' and telling the interpreter to fek off.
Carlos can only sue Mancini for any chance of success. Even then he's unlikely to win as he refused to do what Mancini told him to do. Tevez DID brake the terms of his contract and if he sued Mancini he might be very lucky and win but only get 1p in damages but have to pay his own legal fees. Most judges would try and throw such a case out well before it got to full trial though.

Souness can state what he likes, but he will only be quoting the words of Roberto whose credibility has since been undermined by the decision of the Club to downgrade the charge to refusal to warm up (Ref. BBC News - not a red-top)
Since when can anyone attack someone's character in public, using a simple allegation rather than facts.
What did Tevez say no to before the camera, by the way? Was it referring to warm up? He's never denied that.
What he said to his interpreter, by the way, may have been rude, but definitely not a hanging offence.

Unless I'm mistaken, the club have only put out two statements. One detailing the contractual obligations that were breached and one expressing disappointment at the PFA decision. I haven't seen a statement downgrading the charge. Can anyone provide a link to it? Can you provide the link to the BBC report also? I bet it doesn't refer to any official statement from the club.

I think the "refusal to warm up" is a lie that is being repeated so often by the Tevez camp and the newspapers that it's now being accepted as the truth.

 

[remoh]

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.

WOW!
I'm not fond of him myself, but...

 

[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.

WOW!
I'm not fond of him myself, but...

I'm a spiteful bastard. Never said otherwise.

 

[sinnerman]

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

 

[west didsblue]

I've had a good look round the web and can't find any evidence of the charge being downgraded.

If Tevez were to sue Souness he would first have to prove in court that the club came to the wrong conclusions because everything Souness said was consistent with what has been found in the investigation.

In other words, Tevez sueing Souness is not going to happen.

 

[mancunial]

What would happen if souness won?

 

[remoh]

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

I should think that a court would put a TV pundit in a similar position to a newspaper. He wasn't in his front room swearing at the telly.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:50 pm --

Defences to claims of defamation include:

Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.

Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.[28]

Two pretty good defences there for Souness if it ever got to court (which I very much doubt)

What about libel or slander? I can't believe that, in this country, we can call anyone anything we like without consequences.<br /><br />-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 4:56 pm --<br /><br />

I've had a good look round the web and can't find any evidence of the charge being downgraded.

If Tevez were to sue Souness he would first have to prove in court that the club came to the wrong conclusions because everything Souness said was consistent with what has been found in the investigation.

In other words, Tevez sueing Souness is not going to happen.

Ref. BBC Sport David Ornstein 21 Oct.
At the time, it was all over the media, very unlikely for just a Kia J fable.