Can't see it happening - the Club must have had a bellyful of litigation surely? And precisly what damages have resulted from the reports if they are inaccurate?
The amount spent on agents is high, but would like to see how much they spent on legal fees over the past twelve months, gets more like America every day, say a word out of line and you end up getting sued
[cite]Posted By: WhenIwasLittleBoy[/cite]The amount spent on agents is high, but would like to see how much they spent on legal fees over the past twelve months, gets more like America every day, say a word out of line and you end up getting sued
Weren't our costs in the Dowie case awarded against Jordan?
Anyway, surely having people think we rejected an (under valued) offer is better than them knowing we weren't of interest to anybody!
It sounds strategic to me. The board seem to want to send a message to journos (or a specific journo) for the next time. And they didn't say there wasnt any interest, just that there wasnt a bid.
That's me playing Devil's Avocado and attempting to read between the lines in favour of the Board's strategy.
'Meanwhile it has emerged that Charlton spent the third highest amount of money on agents’ fees in the Championship between July 1 and December 31 2007 - £782,305.'
The irony is the club ignored the fact that Charlton fans were apparently arrested for attacking the fans on the Sydenham train according to both the BBC and ITV back in Sept/Oct.....now that did show us in a bad light.
[cite]Posted By: Tel-in-Oz[/cite]The irony is the club ignored the fact that Charlton fans were apparently arrested for attacking the fans on the Sydenham train according to both the BBC and ITV back in Sept/Oct......
Apart from the fact it's doubtful you could claim defamation of a third party (i.e. Charlton fans as opposed to Charlton itself), one of the basic things you must do in a libel case is give the offender the opportunity to put the record straight. The club asked for a retraction in the case of the Sydenham train attack and one was provided. Libel juries are very unlikely to find for the litigant on the basis of honest mistakes immediately acknowledged and adequately corrected.
Comments
It's not defamatory, either.
All the club needed to do was simply release another statement, clearly stating no bids had been received.
Very strange, and very unlike 'us'.
As Barts says- very unlike us........
Anyway, surely having people think we rejected an (under valued) offer is better than them knowing we weren't of interest to anybody!
That's me playing Devil's Avocado and attempting to read between the lines in favour of the Board's strategy.
'Meanwhile it has emerged that Charlton spent the third highest amount of money on agents’ fees in the Championship between July 1 and December 31 2007 - £782,305.'
Should we be pleased or displeased with that.
I think we should largely be disinterested to be honest. We have had a massive turnaround in staff so these things happen.
Remember, we needed to shift off a number of players who were on good contracts. That doesn't necessarily come easily, and sometimes at a price.
It doesnt warn the journo off does it, stuff like this is amazingly common place and not really newsworthy itself.
Not true
We've done a huge amount of business so far this season, which goes some way to explaining the big pay-outs.