Tevez to sue Souness

[remoh]

Strange one this and doesn't add up. For one thing if tevez was to take legal action then it would be against sky as it was sky that broadcast the comments. In the same way a newspaper would get done for publishing libelous comments in print and not the person quoted.
But either way he has a snowball in hell's chance of winning a case against either sky or souness.
Mancini gave an interview stating he refused to play and a statement said by someone of mancini's position during a press conference would carry qualified privilege. Therefore souness and sky would have qualified privilege and "fair comment" on their side. Absolutely zero possibility tevez could win.
If there is anyone he'd have a case against from a legal perspective I would say it's mancini. But again no way he would win.

The defence of privilege does not apply to these cicumstances and was never designed to.
They may, or may not, squeak through with fair comment.<br /><br />-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:28 pm --<br /><br />

This whole thing is getting right on my tits now. There is no evidence whatsoever that the charges against Teves were watered down in any way shape or form. There was nothing but speculation about what the charges were until the official statements from the club, which give no indication that charges were ever changed.

The first statement said that there would be an investigation. The second statement said that he had been found guilty of breach of contract with the first of 5 contractual obligations breached being,
"An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

This business about a 'lesser charge' is complete bollocks bourne out of idle speculation, and no doubt influenced by Kia.

There are two sides to this disagreement. I wonder which side has been leaking information to the press? Let me give you a clue - it isn't the club.

Dead right.

All the speculation on TV, radio and in the papers started before the club released their statement which proved that all the speculation was bollocks. Strangely there are still people that believe all the downgrading nonsense that has been proven to be incorrect.

This is truly desperate stuff. As I've already proved, the BBC carried the story of the dropping of the refusal to play allegation; so did the rest of the media. I repeat: the Club has at no time denied these reports.
Can your memories really be so faulty? Is it likely or possible that you are unable to research this yourselves? I doubt it. So what exactly is your motivation?

 

[west didsblue]

Remoh, You haven't proved anything. You're basing your argument on press and TV reports from well before the club released their statement and the fact the club hasn't denied them. But why should they bother to deny them? If they did, it would set a precedent and anyone could say anything they want and say it was true because it hasn't been denied. They are treating this shit with the contempt it deserves. It's only mugs like you that seem to believe it. What is your motivation????

 

[stonerblue]

This whole thing is getting right on my tits now. There is no evidence whatsoever that the charges against Teves were watered down in any way shape or form. There was nothing but speculation about what the charges were until the official statements from the club, which give no indication that charges were ever changed.

The first statement said that there would be an investigation. The second statement said that he had been found guilty of breach of contract with the first of 5 contractual obligations breached being,
"An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

This business about a 'lesser charge' is complete bollocks bourne out of idle speculation, and no doubt influenced by Kia.

There are two sides to this disagreement. I wonder which side has been leaking information to the press? Let me give you a clue - it isn't the club.

And so far there is no evidence whatsoever that tevez will sue Souness.

 

[element_mcfc]

This is awesome, total over reaction by souness, gogogo

 

[mcfcphil]

Strange one this and doesn't add up. For one thing if tevez was to take legal action then it would be against sky as it was sky that broadcast the comments. In the same way a newspaper would get done for publishing libelous comments in print and not the person quoted.
But either way he has a snowball in hell's chance of winning a case against either sky or souness.
Mancini gave an interview stating he refused to play and a statement said by someone of mancini's position during a press conference would carry qualified privilege. Therefore souness and sky would have qualified privilege and "fair comment" on their side. Absolutely zero possibility tevez could win.
If there is anyone he'd have a case against from a legal perspective I would say it's mancini. But again no way he would win.

The defence of privilege does not apply to these cicumstances and was never designed to.
They may, or may not, squeak through with fair comment.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:28 pm --

This whole thing is getting right on my tits now. There is no evidence whatsoever that the charges against Teves were watered down in any way shape or form. There was nothing but speculation about what the charges were until the official statements from the club, which give no indication that charges were ever changed.

The first statement said that there would be an investigation. The second statement said that he had been found guilty of breach of contract with the first of 5 contractual obligations breached being,
"An obligation to participate in any matches in which the player is selected to play for the club when directed by a Club official."

This business about a 'lesser charge' is complete bollocks bourne out of idle speculation, and no doubt influenced by Kia.

There are two sides to this disagreement. I wonder which side has been leaking information to the press? Let me give you a clue - it isn't the club.

Dead right.

All the speculation on TV, radio and in the papers started before the club released their statement which proved that all the speculation was bollocks. Strangely there are still people that believe all the downgrading nonsense that has been proven to be incorrect.

This is truly desperate stuff. As I've already proved, the BBC carried the story of the dropping of the refusal to play allegation; so did the rest of the media. I repeat: the Club has at no time denied these reports.
Can your memories really be so faulty? Is it likely or possible that you are unable to research this yourselves? I doubt it. So what exactly is your motivation?

I think qualified privilege would come into it. He's basing his comments on a statement by mancini which carries qualified privilege.

 

[Benarbia's Fat Dad]

Remoh, I remember reading in the press that none of the City players and staff were backing Mancini's version of events. I also remember reading the complete opposite - that several of the players and staff were backing Manicini's version of events and that no-one was backing Teves' stance of refusing to warm up.

The club have not issued statements denying either version of events - does that mean that both must be true?

There are very few facts in the whole sorry mess. One of them is that the club have found Teves guilty of breach of contract on 5 counts, the first of which 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."

The club have quite clearly found him guilty of refusing to play. As yet, he has appealed the fine but not the charge.

Everything else is just supposition.

 

[remoh]

Remoh, You haven't proved anything. You're basing your argument on press and TV reports from well before the club released their statement and the fact the club hasn't denied them. But why should they bother to deny them? If they did, it would set a precedent and anyone could say anything they want and say it was true because it hasn't been denied. They are treating this shit with the contempt it deserves. It's only mugs like you that seem to believe it. What is your motivation????

Why should they not deny false statements? Everyone else does and your argument is faulty in as much as the precedent which would have been set, if the story were false,would work in the opposite way. Failure to rebutt would encourage more untrue stories, surely?
The BBC - and I keep quoting them because it is the most respected news source in the Country - is not known for broadcasting invention as news, let alone 'shit'. Only a true mug would try to make your false points.
I have already explained my motivation, by the way, but for your sake I'll repeat it. It is to provide balance to a very one-sided thread. Had I had any other motivation, I would have started a similar thread myself.<br /><br />-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:50 pm --<br /><br />

Strange one this and doesn't add up. For one thing if tevez was to take legal action then it would be against sky as it was sky that broadcast the comments. In the same way a newspaper would get done for publishing libelous comments in print and not the person quoted.
But either way he has a snowball in hell's chance of winning a case against either sky or souness.
Mancini gave an interview stating he refused to play and a statement said by someone of mancini's position during a press conference would carry qualified privilege. Therefore souness and sky would have qualified privilege and "fair comment" on their side. Absolutely zero possibility tevez could win.
If there is anyone he'd have a case against from a legal perspective I would say it's mancini. But again no way he would win.

The defence of privilege does not apply to these cicumstances and was never designed to.
They may, or may not, squeak through with fair comment.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:28 pm --

Dead right.

All the speculation on TV, radio and in the papers started before the club released their statement which proved that all the speculation was bollocks. Strangely there are still people that believe all the downgrading nonsense that has been proven to be incorrect.

This is truly desperate stuff. As I've already proved, the BBC carried the story of the dropping of the refusal to play allegation; so did the rest of the media. I repeat: the Club has at no time denied these reports.
Can your memories really be so faulty? Is it likely or possible that you are unable to research this yourselves? I doubt it. So what exactly is your motivation?

I think qualified privilege would come into it. He's basing his comments on a statement by mancini which carries qualified privilege.

I doubt that either Mancini or Souness would be able to use this defence.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Remoh, You haven't proved anything. You're basing your argument on press and TV reports from well before the club released their statement and the fact the club hasn't denied them. But why should they bother to deny them? If they did, it would set a precedent and anyone could say anything they want and say it was true because it hasn't been denied. They are treating this shit with the contempt it deserves. It's only mugs like you that seem to believe it. What is your motivation????

Why should they not deny false statements? Everyone else does and your argument is faulty in as much as the precedent which would have been set, if the story were false,would work in the opposite way. Failure to rebutt would encourage more untrue stories, surely?
The BBC - and I keep quoting them because it is the most respected news source in the Country - is not known for broadcasting invention as news, let alone 'shit'. Only a true mug would try to make your false points.
I have already explained my motivation, by the way, but for your sake I'll repeat it. It is to provide balance to a very one-sided thread. Had I had any other motivation, I would have started a similar thread myself.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:50 pm --

The defence of privilege does not apply to these cicumstances and was never designed to.
They may, or may not, squeak through with fair comment.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:28 pm --



This is truly desperate stuff. As I've already proved, the BBC carried the story of the dropping of the refusal to play allegation; so did the rest of the media. I repeat: the Club has at no time denied these reports.
Can your memories really be so faulty? Is it likely or possible that you are unable to research this yourselves? I doubt it. So what exactly is your motivation?

I think qualified privilege would come into it. He's basing his comments on a statement by mancini which carries qualified privilege.

I doubt that either Mancini or Souness would be able to use this defence.

The BBC broadcasts 'shit' by the bucketload, especially when it comes to football. What planet have you been on ?

 

[remoh]

Remoh, You haven't proved anything. You're basing your argument on press and TV reports from well before the club released their statement and the fact the club hasn't denied them. But why should they bother to deny them? If they did, it would set a precedent and anyone could say anything they want and say it was true because it hasn't been denied. They are treating this shit with the contempt it deserves. It's only mugs like you that seem to believe it. What is your motivation????

Why should they not deny false statements? Everyone else does and your argument is faulty in as much as the precedent which would have been set, if the story were false,would work in the opposite way. Failure to rebutt would encourage more untrue stories, surely?
The BBC - and I keep quoting them because it is the most respected news source in the Country - is not known for broadcasting invention as news, let alone 'shit'. Only a true mug would try to make your false points.
I have already explained my motivation, by the way, but for your sake I'll repeat it. It is to provide balance to a very one-sided thread. Had I had any other motivation, I would have started a similar thread myself.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:50 pm --

I think qualified privilege would come into it. He's basing his comments on a statement by mancini which carries qualified privilege.

I doubt that either Mancini or Souness would be able to use this defence.

The BBC broadcasts 'shit' by the bucketload, especially when it comes to football. What planet have you been on ?

Are you another one who has somehow conveniently 'forgotten' that this item was all over the media?

What planet were you on at the time?

You are just choosing to disbelieve what does not suit you.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Why should they not deny false statements? Everyone else does and your argument is faulty in as much as the precedent which would have been set, if the story were false,would work in the opposite way. Failure to rebutt would encourage more untrue stories, surely?
The BBC - and I keep quoting them because it is the most respected news source in the Country - is not known for broadcasting invention as news, let alone 'shit'. Only a true mug would try to make your false points.
I have already explained my motivation, by the way, but for your sake I'll repeat it. It is to provide balance to a very one-sided thread. Had I had any other motivation, I would have started a similar thread myself.

-- Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:50 pm --



I doubt that either Mancini or Souness would be able to use this defence.

The BBC broadcasts 'shit' by the bucketload, especially when it comes to football. What planet have you been on ?

Are you another one who has somehow conveniently 'forgotten' that this item was all over the media?

What planet were you on at the time?

You are just choosing to disbelieve what does not suit you.

I've seen in the media the exact translation of Tevez admitting to refusing to play. The only other things relating to this that I have seen in the media have been opinion, not fact. Where have you seen a media response accurately detailing the exact charges to which Tevez was found guilty & what was the source ? I would like to read it.