Charlton chairman Richard Murray admitted in the High Court yesterday being embarrassed by his language in an outburst against Crystal Palace counterpart Simon Jordan in the club's directors' box. Palace were relegated in May 2005 by a 2-2 draw at Charlton. Murray said Jordan had arrived late and had not informed him he would not be attending the chairmen's pre-match lunch. Murray said: 'The match had kicked off and I was in my seat in the directors' box when five or six men wearing dark glasses came down in a line past me. I recognised Simon by his hair but wasn't able to talk to him. 'At half-time in the boardroom, Simon and his entourage stood in front of the television looking at the scores from the other matches. I went over towards them but Simon gave me a look that said: "I'm busy". 'Simon could have said: "Sorry I was late, Richard" and shaken my hand, but he didn't. 'At the end of the match when his team had been relegated, I said: "Hard luck, Simon". There was no response. 'So I said: "Enjoy the Championship, tosser" in reference to a newspaper article Simon had written. 'He said: "What did you effing call me?" 'I replied: "An effing tosser". Simon's brother Dominic came up to me. He said: "What did you effing call my brother?" 'I said: "An effing tosser". 'He then threatened me physically. I regret using the word "tosser" and I regret swearing.' Jordan is suing former Palace manager Iain Dowie for fraudulent misrepresentation.
IAIN Dowie has spoken of the "very abusive, ultra-aggressive, demeaning and angry" telephone call with Palace chairman Simon Jordan which signalled the end of his tenure as manager. He told a top judge that he was prepared for Mr Jordan to be "upset" after the club failed to win promotion to the Premiership in May 2006 and, from past experience, he also said he knew that the club chairman "would be aggressive and outspoken". But Mr Dowie added: "However,I was not prepared for the way that Simon spoke to me on the telephone and the very abusive,ultra-aggressive, demeaning and angry nature of the call. "Simon shouted and swore at me constantly," he told Mr Justice Tugendhat. "I was used to Simon being aggressive and swearing,but this was by far the worst I had ever experienced either by Simon or generally in my time in football. This put me on the back foot and I was taken aback." Mr Dowie is being sued by Palace for a £1million for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic. Mr Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract to the effect that, if he left to join another club, Palace would be due a six-figure compensation payout. Mr Jordan says that, as a gesture of good will, he agreed to waive that clause when Mr Dowie left because he had stated he wanted to move nearer to his wife and family in Bolton. Within days, Mr Dowie - who denies any wrong-doing - had joined Charlton, but left after just 12 matches in charge.He is now manager of Coventry City. In his written evidence before the court, Mr Dowie said: "I believe that I have acted properly and honestly at all times." And he insisted that there was nothing in the "compromise agreement" under which he left Palace to prevent him taking a job with Charlton. Mr Dowie said the "new regime" he had introduced after taking charge at Palace had reversed the decline in player performances and team morale, culminating in the club's promotion to the Premiership for the 2004/2005 season. Palace had very nearly escaped relegation back to the Championship despite what Mr Dowie claimed was Mr Jordan's failure to abide by his "repeated promises" that large sums would be made available to buy new players. Palace were only relegated on the last day of the season - after losing to Charlton - and, in the 2005-06 season the club almost made it back into the Premiership after qualifying for the play-off semi-finals, before finally losing out to Watford on May 9 2006. Soon after that defeat, Mr Dowie had his heated telephone conversation with Mr Jordan. "During this conversation, Simon criticised me, the team and generally what had been achieved at the club since I had arrived,"he told the court. He said Mr Jordan had described the team as "a complete failure", but Mr Dowie countered that he had "hugely benefitted" the club financially since his arrival, including an extra £25 million in TV revenues and about £7 million in "parachute" payments from the Premiership. He said he had improved player performance, making them more valuable,and gave the example of Andy Johnson, who developed into an England international under his management and was eventually sold by Palace at a "signifi-cant profit" for £8.6 million. Turning to the crux of the case,Mr Dowie said the "compromise agreement" under which he left the club meant he gave up his claim to "a potentially large sum of money" by foregoing bonuses on player transfer profits and any claim for compensation over the ending of his contract. He said he considered the deal "the best out-come for both myself and Crystal Palace". And he insisted that it had never been "discussed or agreed" that he would be "moving back up north" or that there would be any limitation on him working for any other club in the future, including Charlton. He told the court: "I would never have agreed to such a limitation if it had been suggested by Simon. It was my view that I had reached an agreement with Simon on behalf of Crystal Palace that we would release each other from our on-going contractual obligations and, subject to signing the formal compromise agreement, my employment as team manager of Crystal Palace was finished and all the terms had been agreed." When Mr Jordan told the media that Mr Dowie was leaving because of the strain of working so far away from his family,Mr Dowie said he did not contradict his boss as he thought he was putting a "public gloss" on his departure "to appease the Crystal Palace fans". And he told the court that at no point did Mr Jordan tell him that "I could not apply and, if successful, accept the position at Charlton Athletic". Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 2006, but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job". Mr Dowie told the court: "I believe that Simon has brought this claim because I left Crystal Palace, which is what he wanted, and then went to a local rival club which Simon particularly dislikes.I do not think he would have reacted in the same way if I had gone to another club elsewhere in the country."
I've just got back from spending the last hour and a half in the court.
A very interesting experience. The room's pretty small so all the protagonists are sitting pretty close to each other in about 4 rows of benches; I was sitting directly behind Dowie.
The whole session was the unctious Murray getting cross-examined by both lawyers. There were a few interesting points that came out that I'll try to recall later.
What I think was the most interesting thing heard came in an obviously rehearsed set-piece in which Dowie's lawyer asked him what effect this case had had on Charlton. Murray delivered a speech in which he initially accepted that he'd sworn at Jordan at the infamous final match of the season and deeply regretted it but refered to a comment made by Jordan (I don't know where from) that he would get his revenge when it would have the most effect.
He said that in his opinion, Dowie's ability to do his job at Charlton was negatively influenced from day-one by Jordan's actions in serving the writ and persuing the case throughout his tenure. That the press were always more interested in the case than engaging Dowie about his job as Charlton manager. That generally Dowie was unable to do as good a job as he'd have liked because of Jordan's actions.
We got a sob story about how, over the past few weeks he's been engaged in urgent meetings with bankers over funding and their reduced income and arranging the sale of players as a result of Charlton's relegation. He then clearly stated that if Dowie was completely exhonerated, that he would be persuing legal action against Simon Jordan !
The other most significant event came in what was a long and boring legal argument about whether Jordan was allowed to enter Dowie's computer records as evidence.
His lawyer said that their expert had examined Dowie's files and was sure that the "Advancing The Addicks" file had been created on the 19th and that it's last modification had been at about mid-day on the 22nd.
Unsurprisingly, Jordan's side want to enter this as official evidence when it wasn't initially. Dowie's side weren't too happy and there was a lot of legal guff about how it would delay the case as Dowie's side didn't have an equivalent expert immediately available plus a bit of other legal waffle. I think the judge is going to rule on it later. I had to go anyway but I got the impression that proceedings had been concluded for today.
The first thing that I heard them discussing was the interview procedure for the Charlton job although I think this has been covered before.
There was a short-list of five that had been interviewed. Billy Davies; their number 1 choice. Dowie, Peter Taylor, Sammy Lee and Glenn Hoddle. Davies was the first choice but either pulled out or they couldn't agree terms (I'm not sure which). Murray clearly stated that Taylor withdrew his availability before an appointment had been made.
This led to a bit of duelling with Jordan's lawyer, trying to get Murray to admit to having met Dowie much earrlier in the interview process and that the first contact had occured before leaving Palace. All Murray would admit to was that the first time he spoke to Dowie was on the day of, but after the press conference at Selhurst when his Palace resignation was announced. Obviously I'm biased, but he really didn't sound very convincing on that point.
He was forced to again admit that dates relating to his contact with Dowie in his statement were incorrect and made another gushing apology "Your Lordship !" that simply oozed insincerity.
There was some quite amusing piss-taking from SJ's lawyer about the short-list for the Charlton job and the apparent unwillingness of more than one of the interviewed applicants to follow through with their interest. It made me wonder why, if they'd been keen enough on Hoddle to interview him in the first place, that they didn't go after him again instead of Les Reed but that's another story.
the latest copy from one of the agencies which covers the courts:
Crystal Palace's marathon legal battle against former manager Iain Dowie will enter its final stages on Tuesday. (May 22)
Mr Dowie is being sued by Palace for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentation" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic.
The 42-year-old had a clause in his contract to the effect that if he left to join another club, Palace would be due #1million compensation.
Palace chairman Simon Jordan says that, as a gesture of good will, he agreed to waive that clause when Mr Dowie left because he had stated he wanted to move nearer to his wife and family in Bolton.
Within days, Mr Dowie had joined Charlton, but left after just 12 matches in charge. He is now at Coventry City.
Today, after the final witness in the case had given evidence, Mr Justice Tugendhat adjourned proceedings until Tuesday (May 22).
On Monday afternoon, the judge will receive written final arguments from John Davies QC, for Crystal Palace, and Michael McParland, for Mr Dowie.
The lawyers will then return to court on Tuesday for further, oral, submissions to the judge.
He is expected to reserve his judgement in the case after he has heard closing arguments.
Earlier today, Charlton Athletic chairman Richard Murray took the stand and denied approaching Mr Dowie for an interview before he had left Palace on May 22, 2006.
However Mr Murray said he had phoned Mr Dowie before he left Palace and suggested meeting up after a press conference announcing he would be leaving Selhurst Park, although he insisted he had not made any mention of him becoming Charlton's manager.
Mr Dowie says he thought Mr Murray wanted to talk about Palace players who would be of interest to Charlton.
At the time, the Addicks were looking for a replacement for long term boss Alan Curbishley, but Mr Murray said that then Preston North End manager Billy Davies was in the frame.
"I did want to meet him," said Mr Murray, who admitted that his call could have been viewed as a "nod and wink" to Mr Dowie that he would be considered for Charlton.
However he added: "As I have said many times, he was not my first choice. Billy Davies was. But I was not going to say 'You are totally ruled out'".
John Davies QC put it to him that he had invited Mr Dowie to attend an interview before he left Palace on May 22.
But Mr Murray replied: "Absolutely not."
The barrister also suggested that Mr Murray had been an "eager beaver" in making a number of calls to Mr Dowie on the day of the press conference to confirm he was leaving Palace.
"You were very eager indeed," said Mr Davies.
Mr Murray replied that he had only wanted to get back to Mr Dowie as a matter of "courtesy".
In his written defence statement, Mr Dowie says the compromise agreement was a "clean break" under which Palace dispensed with his services and avoided having to pay him substantial contractual entitlements.
The case against him was "entirely without merit in fact or law and should never have been brought", he says.
Mr Dowie also claims he obtained "huge financial benefits for an impecunious club", when he took Palace up in May 2004, netting the club a windfall of #30million plus.
The case, in which Mr Jordan and Mr Dowie have already given evidence, continues on Tuesday.
"I left at what would normally have been lunch, but I'm pretty sure that that was the end of today's proceedings and that it was adjourned, I think until Tuesday.
Murray was certainly finished with so unless there's somebody else, that's probably it for the witnesses but there were no summing-up from either barrister or the judge (which presumably should happen)
As I said, the final exchanges was discussing whether Dowie's computer could belatedly be admitted onto the official list of evidence. The judge is also waiting on a DVD of one of the press conferences and some other transcripts.
There was also a cryptic reference to a "counter claim" which was the first I've heard of one; I'm not sure what the outcome of that was. I'm sure there's at least another day to go though; on Tuesday I think."
This is starting to look ominous for Dowie if they are trying to keep the computer evidence out. If Dowie is saying that there was nothing to stop him going to Charlton and that he never said that he wouldn't go to Charlton, why are they worried about this Advance the Addicks file. Or am I missing the point?
seems to me that it just depends what is in the file. Say you are out of a job, and an executive search agency says "company A is looking for someone just like you, I am sure I could interest them in you". If you are smart you might easily start rehearsing your ideas on how you might improve that company's business, so that you are ready to impress them at the interview. There would be nothing wrong with that.
But if it refers to or implies a discussion which he has alreay had with RM, he could be in trouble. Bu then again not, if he is just one of the candidates. I think it'll be OK.
Interested in the idea of RM suing Jordan though. If this were the US, we as season ticket holders could probably join in, in a class action suit (well, I'd like to think so)
the file from his computer proves diddly-sqwat...we already know dowie was moving on...he therefore needed another job...if i had to guess, the file advancing the addicks was probably advancing the eagles, updated to advancing the latics, advancing the preston or whatever jobs were likely to be in the frame close to his home, the obvious starting point when his departure from palace became a done deal...then a call from murray and the charlton job being turned down by billy davies and dowie could probably argue that he renamed the file advancing the addicks on 22 may and automatically changed references to oldham, preston or whoever to charlton...the file proves nothing imho...
Former Eagles boss Iain Dowie could not have spoken to Charlton about becoming their manager when he left Crystal Palace because someone else was poised to get the job, the High Court heard today. Mr Dowie is being sued by Palace for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic. The 42-year-old had a clause in his contract to the effect that if he left to join another club, Palace would be due £1million compensation. Palace chairman Simon Jordan says he agreed to waive the clause when Mr Dowie left because he had stated he wanted to move nearer to his family in Bolton. Within days Mr Dowie had joined Charlton. He left after just 12 games in charge and is now at Coventry City. Today, as both sides began their final submissions, Mr Dowie's barrister, Michael McParland, dismissed claims that his client had discussed the Charlton job before he left Palace. The court heard Mr Dowie had spoken to Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, two days before leaving Palace, not about taking charge of the Addicks but about players. Mr McParland said that was because Mr Murray already had another man lined up for the job - former Preston North End manager Billy Davies. In the end, Mr Davies changed his mind, but Mr McParland said that would not have been known to Mr Murray at the time he spoke to Mr Dowie. Mr McParland also said Mr Murray phoned Mr Dowie on May 22 last year - the day he left Palace - to find out the time of the press conference announcing his departure as he was keen to watch it on TV. And the judge heard from Mr McParland that, just because Mr Dowie had started writing a document called "Advancing the Addicks" before he left Palace, it did not mean he had talked about getting a job at the club.
Been reading bits and pieces from this but to save me looking through it all can someone tell me what was in this 'advancing the addicks' document and why he had such a document if he hadn't talked about the job?
It is a document that he puts together to present to prospective employers - he had the same document when he applied for the jobs at Oldham Athletic and Crystal Palace apparently. He probably just changes the names etc. but uses it as a presentation on his vision of a team under his leadership. You have to make up your own mind as to why this was being prepared before he officially left Palace. I don't think the case hinges on this to be honest as he was aware as early as 16th May that CPFC and he were to go there separate ways. Most of what has been alleged happened between that date and his "official" leaving. The judge has to determine if the intent was to go for the Charlton job all along and if Dowie has misrepresented this by telling Jordan that he just wanted a job up north.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]Thanks for that mate. What in your unbiased opinion do you think will happen based on what you've seen/heard?[/quote]
Too close to call. I don't believe that Jordan proved that he only let Dowie out of his contract to go up north. However, Dowie has lied and some of his evidence is weak to say the least, therefore the judge may decide that he is unreliable. As the judgement is based on probability, the judge could then side with CPFC, which would leave the compensation element. Again, although CPFC have shown that the £1M clause was in the original contract, have they proved that it was binding ? or in fact if anyone would pay it ? even more debatable, so are CPFC really out of pocket ? (I sound like Dowie asking myself the question ! ) The major plus for Dowie's case, is that Jordan didn't put the release clause into the compromise agreement and this could be his undoing. My unbiased view is that no one wins this. I can't see Jordan getting his £1M, but as Dowie has proved such an unreliable witness, I doubt he will be awarded costs - so probably an own goal draw !
[cite]Posted By: Chris_from_Sidcup[/cite]Thanks for that mate. What in your unbiased opinion do you think will happen based on what you've seen/heard?
Too close to call. I don't believe that Jordan proved that he only let Dowie out of his contract to go up north. However, Dowie has lied and some of his evidence is weak to say the least, therefore the judge may decide that he is unreliable. As the judgement is based on probability, the judge could then side with CPFC, which would leave the compensation element. Again, although CPFC have shown that the £1M clause was in the original contract, have they proved that it was binding ? or in fact if anyone would pay it ? even more debatable, so are CPFC really out of pocket ? (I sound like Dowie asking myself the question ! ) The major plus for Dowie's case, is that Jordan didn't put the release clause into the compromise agreement and this could be his undoing. My unbiased view is that no one wins this. I can't see Jordan getting his £1M, but as Dowie has proved such an unreliable witness, I doubt he will be awarded costs - so probably an own goal draw !
From what I've read, I think your assessment is pretty good. If you are right, then looking at it from a Jordan/Palace perspective he will have easily come out on top.
1. He will have successfully damaged Dowies credibility by branding him a liar.
2. He will successully have contributed to Charltons disasterous season by hijacking Dowies appointment and then loading huge pressure and distraction on him and the board. God knows there is enough pressure anyway.
3. He succesfully got out of paying Dowie off for what may turn out to be his own legal costs.
4. He's already got an arrogant, self-opinionated and abrasive image which will be enhanced by his macho stance at this trial.
5. He will say that his case was one of principle against the unprincipled football culture which thinks you can ride rough-shod over contracts.
6. He will have made it virtually impossible for any future Palace manager to leave in this way.
7. His media work will expand.
This is obviously if he doesn't lose. A draw would be enough. If he wins then his crowing will be unbearable.
Just one further thought. If he loses, what's the chance that he will appeal? He's got the wealth to be able to sustain this.
Finally one question for No 1, is it over now bar the judgement or are they in court again today?
[quote] Posted By: Bingaddick Finally one question for No 1, is it over now bar the judgement or are they in court again today?[/quote]
All over - just waiting on the verdict which will be late June / early July depending on the Judge's other commitments. Apparently CAFC have said they will sue Jordan should he lose, for defamation !
Posted By: Bingaddick Finally one question for No 1, is it over now bar the judgement or are they in court again today?
All over - just waiting on the verdict which will be late June / early July depending on the Judge's other commitments.
Apparently CAFC have said they will sue Jordan should he lose, for defamation !
doesn't that mean that if sj loses it will be in his interests to appeal...that in turn will drag the case out into the next season and give both palace and coventry's management a major distraction to worry about...
All over - just waiting on the verdict which will be late June / early July depending on the Judge's other commitments. Apparently CAFC have said they will sue Jordan should he lose, for defamation ![/quote]
I really, really hope not. Let's just put this whole sorry episode behind us.
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]All over - just waiting on the verdict which will be late June / early July depending on the Judge's other commitments.
Apparently CAFC have said they will sue Jordan should he lose, for defamation !
I really, really hope not. Let's just put this whole sorry episode behind us.[/quote]
I agree Ormiston, interesting though it has occasionally been, dragging this out and the distraction it will continue to cause to the likes of RM when he needs to be steering the ship back to the premiership is not going to be helpful.
Comments
Palace were relegated in May 2005 by a 2-2 draw at Charlton.
Murray said Jordan had arrived late and had not informed him he would not be attending the chairmen's pre-match lunch.
Murray said: 'The match had kicked off and I was in my seat in the directors' box when five or six men wearing dark glasses came down in a line past me. I recognised Simon by his hair but wasn't able to talk to him.
'At half-time in the boardroom, Simon and his entourage stood in front of the television looking at the scores from the other matches. I went over towards them but Simon gave me a look that said: "I'm busy".
'Simon could have said: "Sorry I was late, Richard" and shaken my hand, but he didn't.
'At the end of the match when his team had been relegated, I said: "Hard luck, Simon". There was no response.
'So I said: "Enjoy the Championship, tosser" in reference to a newspaper article Simon had written.
'He said: "What did you effing call me?" 'I replied: "An effing tosser".
Simon's brother Dominic came up to me. He said: "What did you effing call my brother?" 'I said: "An effing tosser".
'He then threatened me physically.
I regret using the word "tosser" and I regret swearing.' Jordan is suing former Palace manager Iain Dowie for fraudulent misrepresentation.
He told a top judge that he was prepared for Mr Jordan to be "upset" after the club failed to win promotion to the Premiership in May 2006 and, from past experience, he also said he knew that the club chairman "would be aggressive and outspoken".
But Mr Dowie added: "However,I was not prepared for the way that Simon spoke to me on the telephone and the very abusive,ultra-aggressive, demeaning and angry nature of the call.
"Simon shouted and swore at me constantly," he told Mr Justice Tugendhat.
"I was used to Simon being aggressive and swearing,but this was by far the worst I had ever experienced either by Simon or generally in my time in football. This put me on the back foot and I was taken aback."
Mr Dowie is being sued by Palace for a £1million for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic.
Mr Dowie, 42, had a clause in his contract to the effect that, if he left to join another club, Palace would be due a six-figure compensation payout.
Mr Jordan says that, as a gesture of good will, he agreed to waive that clause when Mr Dowie left because he had stated he wanted to move nearer to his wife and family in Bolton.
Within days, Mr Dowie - who denies any wrong-doing - had joined Charlton, but left after just 12 matches in charge.He is now manager of Coventry City.
In his written evidence before the court, Mr Dowie said: "I believe that I have acted properly and honestly at all times." And he insisted that there was nothing in the "compromise agreement" under which he left Palace to prevent him taking a job with Charlton.
Mr Dowie said the "new regime" he had introduced after taking charge at Palace had reversed the decline in player performances and team morale, culminating in the club's promotion to the Premiership for the 2004/2005 season.
Palace had very nearly escaped relegation back to the Championship despite what Mr Dowie claimed was Mr Jordan's failure to abide by his "repeated promises" that large sums would be made available to buy new players.
Palace were only relegated on the last day of the season - after losing to Charlton - and, in the 2005-06 season the club almost made it back into the Premiership after qualifying for the play-off semi-finals, before finally losing out to Watford on May 9 2006.
Soon after that defeat, Mr Dowie had his heated telephone conversation with Mr Jordan.
"During this conversation, Simon criticised me, the team and generally what had been achieved at the club since I had arrived,"he told the court.
He said Mr Jordan had described the team as "a complete failure", but Mr Dowie countered that he had "hugely benefitted" the club financially since his arrival, including an extra £25 million in TV revenues and about £7 million in "parachute" payments from the Premiership.
He said he had improved player performance, making them more valuable,and gave the example of Andy Johnson, who developed into an England international under his management and was eventually sold by Palace at a "signifi-cant profit" for £8.6 million.
Turning to the crux of the case,Mr Dowie said the "compromise agreement" under which he left the club meant he gave up his claim to "a potentially large sum of money" by foregoing bonuses on player transfer profits and any claim for compensation over the ending of his contract.
He said he considered the deal "the best out-come for both myself and Crystal Palace".
And he insisted that it had never been "discussed or agreed" that he would be "moving back up north" or that there would be any limitation on him working for any other club in the future, including Charlton.
He told the court: "I would never have agreed to such a limitation if it had been suggested by Simon. It was my view that I had reached an agreement with Simon on behalf of Crystal Palace that we would release each other from our on-going contractual obligations and, subject to signing the formal compromise agreement, my employment as team manager of Crystal Palace was finished and all the terms had been agreed."
When Mr Jordan told the media that Mr Dowie was leaving because of the strain of working so far away from his family,Mr Dowie said he did not contradict his boss as he thought he was putting a "public gloss" on his departure "to appease the Crystal Palace fans".
And he told the court that at no point did Mr Jordan tell him that "I could not apply and, if successful, accept the position at Charlton Athletic".
Mr Dowie said he was contacted by Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, on May 17 2006, but he did not believe it was until May 22 - after he had signed the compromise agreement to leave Palace - that they had "contact regarding the Charlton Athletic job".
Mr Dowie told the court: "I believe that Simon has brought this claim because I left Crystal Palace, which is what he wanted, and then went to a local rival club which Simon particularly dislikes.I do not think he would have reacted in the same way if I had gone to another club elsewhere in the country."
I've just got back from spending the last hour and a half in the court.
A very interesting experience. The room's pretty small so all the protagonists are sitting pretty close to each other in about 4 rows of benches; I was sitting directly behind Dowie.
The whole session was the unctious Murray getting cross-examined by both lawyers. There were a few interesting points that came out that I'll try to recall later.
What I think was the most interesting thing heard came in an obviously rehearsed set-piece in which Dowie's lawyer asked him what effect this case had had on Charlton. Murray delivered a speech in which he initially accepted that he'd sworn at Jordan at the infamous final match of the season and deeply regretted it but refered to a comment made by Jordan (I don't know where from) that he would get his revenge when it would have the most effect.
He said that in his opinion, Dowie's ability to do his job at Charlton was negatively influenced from day-one by Jordan's actions in serving the writ and persuing the case throughout his tenure. That the press were always more interested in the case than engaging Dowie about his job as Charlton manager. That generally Dowie was unable to do as good a job as he'd have liked because of Jordan's actions.
We got a sob story about how, over the past few weeks he's been engaged in urgent meetings with bankers over funding and their reduced income and arranging the sale of players as a result of Charlton's relegation. He then clearly stated that if Dowie was completely exhonerated, that he would be persuing legal action against Simon Jordan !
The other most significant event came in what was a long and boring legal argument about whether Jordan was allowed to enter Dowie's computer records as evidence.
His lawyer said that their expert had examined Dowie's files and was sure that the "Advancing The Addicks" file had been created on the 19th and that it's last modification had been at about mid-day on the 22nd.
Unsurprisingly, Jordan's side want to enter this as official evidence when it wasn't initially. Dowie's side weren't too happy and there was a lot of legal guff about how it would delay the case as Dowie's side didn't have an equivalent expert immediately available plus a bit of other legal waffle. I think the judge is going to rule on it later. I had to go anyway but I got the impression that proceedings had been concluded for today.
The first thing that I heard them discussing was the interview procedure for the Charlton job although I think this has been covered before.
There was a short-list of five that had been interviewed. Billy Davies; their number 1 choice. Dowie, Peter Taylor, Sammy Lee and Glenn Hoddle. Davies was the first choice but either pulled out or they couldn't agree terms (I'm not sure which). Murray clearly stated that Taylor withdrew his availability before an appointment had been made.
This led to a bit of duelling with Jordan's lawyer, trying to get Murray to admit to having met Dowie much earrlier in the interview process and that the first contact had occured before leaving Palace. All Murray would admit to was that the first time he spoke to Dowie was on the day of, but after the press conference at Selhurst when his Palace resignation was announced. Obviously I'm biased, but he really didn't sound very convincing on that point.
He was forced to again admit that dates relating to his contact with Dowie in his statement were incorrect and made another gushing apology "Your Lordship !" that simply oozed insincerity.
There was some quite amusing piss-taking from SJ's lawyer about the short-list for the Charlton job and the apparent unwillingness of more than one of the interviewed applicants to follow through with their interest. It made me wonder why, if they'd been keen enough on Hoddle to interview him in the first place, that they didn't go after him again instead of Les Reed but that's another story.
Crystal Palace's marathon legal battle against former manager Iain Dowie will enter its final stages on Tuesday. (May 22)
Mr Dowie is being sued by Palace for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentation" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic.
The 42-year-old had a clause in his contract to the effect that if he left to join another club, Palace would be due #1million compensation.
Palace chairman Simon Jordan says that, as a gesture of good will, he agreed to waive that clause when Mr Dowie left because he had stated he wanted to move nearer to his wife and family in Bolton.
Within days, Mr Dowie had joined Charlton, but left after just 12 matches in charge. He is now at Coventry City.
Today, after the final witness in the case had given evidence, Mr Justice Tugendhat adjourned proceedings until Tuesday (May 22).
On Monday afternoon, the judge will receive written final arguments from John Davies QC, for Crystal Palace, and Michael McParland, for Mr Dowie.
The lawyers will then return to court on Tuesday for further, oral, submissions to the judge.
He is expected to reserve his judgement in the case after he has heard closing arguments.
Earlier today, Charlton Athletic chairman Richard Murray took the stand and denied approaching Mr Dowie for an interview before he had left Palace on May 22, 2006.
However Mr Murray said he had phoned Mr Dowie before he left Palace and suggested meeting up after a press conference announcing he would be leaving Selhurst Park, although he insisted he had not made any mention of him becoming Charlton's manager.
Mr Dowie says he thought Mr Murray wanted to talk about Palace players who would be of interest to Charlton.
At the time, the Addicks were looking for a replacement for long term boss Alan Curbishley, but Mr Murray said that then Preston North End manager Billy Davies was in the frame.
"I did want to meet him," said Mr Murray, who admitted that his call could have been viewed as a "nod and wink" to Mr Dowie that he would be considered for Charlton.
However he added: "As I have said many times, he was not my first choice. Billy Davies was. But I was not going to say 'You are totally ruled out'".
John Davies QC put it to him that he had invited Mr Dowie to attend an interview before he left Palace on May 22.
But Mr Murray replied: "Absolutely not."
The barrister also suggested that Mr Murray had been an "eager beaver" in making a number of calls to Mr Dowie on the day of the press conference to confirm he was leaving Palace.
"You were very eager indeed," said Mr Davies.
Mr Murray replied that he had only wanted to get back to Mr Dowie as a matter of "courtesy".
In his written defence statement, Mr Dowie says the compromise agreement was a "clean break" under which Palace dispensed with his services and avoided having to pay him substantial contractual entitlements.
The case against him was "entirely without merit in fact or law and should never have been brought", he says.
Mr Dowie also claims he obtained "huge financial benefits for an impecunious club", when he took Palace up in May 2004, netting the club a windfall of #30million plus.
The case, in which Mr Jordan and Mr Dowie have already given evidence, continues on Tuesday.
Murray was certainly finished with so unless there's somebody else, that's probably it for the witnesses but there were no summing-up from either barrister or the judge (which presumably should happen)
As I said, the final exchanges was discussing whether Dowie's computer could belatedly be admitted onto the official list of evidence. The judge is also waiting on a DVD of one of the press conferences and some other transcripts.
There was also a cryptic reference to a "counter claim" which was the first I've heard of one; I'm not sure what the outcome of that was. I'm sure there's at least another day to go though; on Tuesday I think."
But if it refers to or implies a discussion which he has alreay had with RM, he could be in trouble. Bu then again not, if he is just one of the candidates. I think it'll be OK.
Interested in the idea of RM suing Jordan though. If this were the US, we as season ticket holders could probably join in, in a class action suit (well, I'd like to think so)
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_queens.htm
Mr Dowie is being sued by Palace for alleged "fraudulent misrepresentations" when he left the club last summer and joined bitter rivals Charlton Athletic.
The 42-year-old had a clause in his contract to the effect that if he left to join another club, Palace would be due £1million compensation.
Palace chairman Simon Jordan says he agreed to waive the clause when Mr Dowie left because he had stated he wanted to move nearer to his family in Bolton.
Within days Mr Dowie had joined Charlton. He left after just 12 games in charge and is now at Coventry City.
Today, as both sides began their final submissions, Mr Dowie's barrister, Michael McParland, dismissed claims that his client had discussed the Charlton job before he left Palace.
The court heard Mr Dowie had spoken to Charlton chairman, Richard Murray, two days before leaving Palace, not about taking charge of the Addicks but about players.
Mr McParland said that was because Mr Murray already had another man lined up for the job - former Preston North End manager Billy Davies.
In the end, Mr Davies changed his mind, but Mr McParland said that would not have been known to Mr Murray at the time he spoke to Mr Dowie.
Mr McParland also said Mr Murray phoned Mr Dowie on May 22 last year - the day he left Palace - to find out the time of the press conference announcing his departure as he was keen to watch it on TV.
And the judge heard from Mr McParland that, just because Mr Dowie had started writing a document called "Advancing the Addicks" before he left Palace, it did not mean he had talked about getting a job at the club.
The case continues.
It is a document that he puts together to present to prospective employers - he had the same document when he applied for the jobs at Oldham Athletic and Crystal Palace apparently. He probably just changes the names etc. but uses it as a presentation on his vision of a team under his leadership. You have to make up your own mind as to why this was being prepared before he officially left Palace. I don't think the case hinges on this to be honest as he was aware as early as 16th May that CPFC and he were to go there separate ways. Most of what has been alleged happened between that date and his "official" leaving. The judge has to determine if the intent was to go for the Charlton job all along and if Dowie has misrepresented this by telling Jordan that he just wanted a job up north.
Judgement has been reserved until late June.
Too close to call. I don't believe that Jordan proved that he only let Dowie out of his contract to go up north. However, Dowie has lied and some of his evidence is weak to say the least, therefore the judge may decide that he is unreliable. As the judgement is based on probability, the judge could then side with CPFC, which would leave the compensation element. Again, although CPFC have shown that the £1M clause was in the original contract, have they proved that it was binding ? or in fact if anyone would pay it ? even more debatable, so are CPFC really out of pocket ? (I sound like Dowie asking myself the question ! ) The major plus for Dowie's case, is that Jordan didn't put the release clause into the compromise agreement and this could be his undoing. My unbiased view is that no one wins this. I can't see Jordan getting his £1M, but as Dowie has proved such an unreliable witness, I doubt he will be awarded costs - so probably an own goal draw !
From what I've read, I think your assessment is pretty good. If you are right, then looking at it from a Jordan/Palace perspective he will have easily come out on top.
1. He will have successfully damaged Dowies credibility by branding him a liar.
2. He will successully have contributed to Charltons disasterous season by hijacking Dowies appointment and then loading huge pressure and distraction on him and the board. God knows there is enough pressure anyway.
3. He succesfully got out of paying Dowie off for what may turn out to be his own legal costs.
4. He's already got an arrogant, self-opinionated and abrasive image which will be enhanced by his macho stance at this trial.
5. He will say that his case was one of principle against the unprincipled football culture which thinks you can ride rough-shod over contracts.
6. He will have made it virtually impossible for any future Palace manager to leave in this way.
7. His media work will expand.
This is obviously if he doesn't lose. A draw would be enough. If he wins then his crowing will be unbearable.
Just one further thought. If he loses, what's the chance that he will appeal? He's got the wealth to be able to sustain this.
Finally one question for No 1, is it over now bar the judgement or are they in court again today?
I still think that ultimately Simon Jordan loses though as whatever happens in the case he's still a prize tit.
All over - just waiting on the verdict which will be late June / early July depending on the Judge's other commitments.
Apparently CAFC have said they will sue Jordan should he lose, for defamation !
doesn't that mean that if sj loses it will be in his interests to appeal...that in turn will drag the case out into the next season and give both palace and coventry's management a major distraction to worry about...
Apparently CAFC have said they will sue Jordan should he lose, for defamation ![/quote]
I really, really hope not. Let's just put this whole sorry episode behind us.
I really, really hope not. Let's just put this whole sorry episode behind us.[/quote]
I agree Ormiston, interesting though it has occasionally been, dragging this out and the distraction it will continue to cause to the likes of RM when he needs to be steering the ship back to the premiership is not going to be helpful.