Tevez to sue Souness

[moomba]

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.

You do not know what evidence was presented, or affirmed at the hearing.

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.

Souness didn't slander, libel or defame anyone as far as I'm concerned. Do you know exactly what he said after the match?

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)

Given that the club has never specified the breaches of contract he was charged with I wonder how you "know" that a charge has been downgraded. Remember that the first breach he was found guilty of is "An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

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.

From <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/8810659/What-Manchester-City-refusnik-Carlos-Tevez-really-said-in-his-post-match-interview-with-Sky-Sports.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... ports.html</a>

“I didn’t want to warm up because I wasn’t feeling very well so I thought it was better not to (interrupted). So I didn’t think I was in a good situation to come on, because my head wasn’t in the right place.”

In response to the question “Roberto has also said in a press conference that you will never play for him again. Do you think your future lies elsewhere now? Are you finished at this club for refusing to play?” he said “Those are decisions which he makes and I agree with that. It’s just that I have been professional up until now. It’s just that I have been professional up until now. I was the top goalscorer last season so I don’t think I deserve this treatment. "

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.

Nothing wrong with getting both sides, but to write one side of the story only without investigation or critical comment makes you a PR man, not a journalist.

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.

No harder for Tevez to issue an idle threat than me.

 

[remoh]

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.

You do not know what evidence was presented, or affirmed at the hearing.

Had any of the staff supported the allegation of refusal to play, then surely we would have heard about that, in support of our manager.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:48 pm --

Souness didn't slander, libel or defame anyone as far as I'm concerned. Do you know exactly what he said after the match?

Yes, I fact I think it was on this forum.

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:51 pm --

Given that the club has never specified the breaches of contract he was charged with I wonder how you "know" that a charge has been downgraded. Remember that the first breach he was found guilty of is "An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

See info re. BBC

-- Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:56 pm --

Nothing wrong with getting both sides, but to write one side of the story only without investigation or critical comment makes you a PR man, not a journalist.

Surely if you deny the press have a right to question Kia J., then you are arguing against yourself.

 

[west didsblue]

Just because the BBC report something doesn't make it true. As I said earlier, the only relevant statement is the official one put out by the club saying that he was in breach of his contract for refusing to participate in the match. This statement was made on 25th October, 4 days after after the BBC article.

 

[remoh]

Just because the BBC report something doesn't make it true. As I said earlier, the only relevant statement is the official one put out by the club saying that he was in breach of his contract for refusing to participate in the match. This statement was made on 25th October, 4 days after after the BBC article.

So the TV was wrong, the Radio was wrong and all the press was wrong? Head out of sand, please!

I've always accepted that Tevez is in breach of his contract, but Souness' attack was triggered by his belief that the player refused to play and this is the charge which was later dropped. That's the basis of my point.

 

[west didsblue]

Just because the BBC report something doesn't make it true. As I said earlier, the only relevant statement is the official one put out by the club saying that he was in breach of his contract for refusing to participate in the match. This statement was made on 25th October, 4 days after after the BBC article.

So the TV was wrong, the Radio was wrong and all the press was wrong? Head out of sand, please!

I've always accepted that Tevez is in breach of his contract, but Souness' attack was triggered by his belief that the player refused to play and this is the charge which was later dropped. That's the basis of my point.

You pointed me to an article supposedly proving your point that was published 4 days before the club made their statement. Show me one that shows the charge was downgraded after 25 Oct.

Is your name Kia??

 

[edgecroft]

Just because the BBC report something doesn't make it true. As I said earlier, the only relevant statement is the official one put out by the club saying that he was in breach of his contract for refusing to participate in the match. This statement was made on 25th October, 4 days after after the BBC article.

So the TV was wrong, the Radio was wrong and all the press was wrong? Head out of sand, please!

I've always accepted that Tevez is in breach of his contract, but Souness' attack was triggered by his belief that the player refused to play and this is the charge which was later dropped. That's the basis of my point.

lol!

The TV might be wrong, but the radio is never wrong.

 

[remoh]

Just because the BBC report something doesn't make it true. As I said earlier, the only relevant statement is the official one put out by the club saying that he was in breach of his contract for refusing to participate in the match. This statement was made on 25th October, 4 days after after the BBC article.

So the TV was wrong, the Radio was wrong and all the press was wrong? Head out of sand, please!

I've always accepted that Tevez is in breach of his contract, but Souness' attack was triggered by his belief that the player refused to play and this is the charge which was later dropped. That's the basis of my point.

You pointed me to an article supposedly proving your point that was published 4 days before the club made their statement. Show me one that shows the charge was downgraded after 25 Oct.

Is your name Kia??

Well, I've given you evidence enough, I think. We could go over old ground forever. Do your own digging!

And no, I'm not Kia, are you Roberto?

 

[west didsblue]

I've done plenty of digging and can't find any evidence that the charge was downgraded other than speculative newspaper and TV reports that probably originate from Kia or his mates; certainly nothing official from MCFC.

 

[edgecroft]

As remoh said, "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."

So we will only know that remoh is right after Tevez successfully sues Souness for slander for saying that he refused to play in a match after seeing Tevez refuse to get up, strip off and warm up to go on in a match.

If that happens, well I don't know what, it's inconceivable to me. To me, it's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that he and his agent would make such threats without a leg to stand on, to make himself look a little bit better.

 

[west didsblue]

As remoh said, "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."

So we will only know that remoh is right after Tevez successfully sues Souness for slander for saying that he refused to play in a match after seeing Tevez refuse to get up, strip off and warm up to go on in a match.

If that happens, well I don't know what, it's inconceivable to me. To me, it's a hell of a lot easier to imagine that he and his agent would make such threats without a leg to stand on, to make himself look a little bit better.

I think they just hope that City won't want the bad publicity and will let him go on the cheap in January and they think that the more shit they stir now will make it more likely for them to get their way. I'd be amazed if any legal action actually happens and if it does it will be because his legal team are hoping to cash in by giving him bad advice.