Joined: Apr 29 2004 Posts: 14082 Location: The Sunniest City in the World
Whilst I think it is much better to work with the local press than against them the fact is the accounts were for 2008 and the paper did write the article like they represented the clubs current financial situation. Given what HKR have said since it is obviously inaccurate and could be damaging to the company. If the HDM asked Rovers for an update before the story went to press and we refused to give them one it is our own fault, if they just ran the story based on 12 month old accounts they read then they should be held accountable for poor reporting.
WEST COAST PIRATES NRL expansion? Sometime soon, maybe......
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Hutchie wrote:Has Hudge been onto you already for Coddys details
If he's serious, tell him to try These Guys, although their final bill would probably exclipse the sum total of every Superleague club's deficit
Hutchie wrote:Has Hudge been onto you already for Coddys details
If he's serious, tell him to try These Guys, although their final bill would probably exclipse the sum total of every Superleague club's deficit
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
cod'ead wrote:It's simple. The first test in any defamation case is not what was said (or even whether it was truthfull), it is what damage the statement may have caused to the character of the aggrieved party.
If I was to say "Ian Huntley has never bought a TV Licence", he would be extremely unlikely to bring a successfull case for defamation. If however I said "Gordon Brown has never bought a TV Licence", then I'd be the one on shaky ground.
Whatever Hudgell may think, it's extremely unlikely that any court would find that HDM had contributed to any lessening of HKR's character, especially as the chairman has been in the press (and on web forums) and basically said the same things as HDM
Actually, I belive that libel/defamation can still be proven, however the value of any award from the court would be influenced by the perceived effect of the libel/defamation. I think there was a case in the 80's/early 90's where some bloke was awarded the cost of a bottle of expensive champagne he drank in some club when a newspaper posted a story about him because it was considered he didn't have much of a character in the first place.
If the HDM have incorrectly reported rovers' financial position and this has had an effect on their ability to raise finance or get credit then they will undoubtedly have a claim. Big IF though IMO
It was the threat of court action IRRC that got the Hull fan who made wrong statements about Rovers finances a few years ago, on a message board, grovelling an apolgy in the HDM about his comments, along with a picture of him and the "reasons" for his innacuracies probably saved him from court action.
JB Down Under wrote:Given what HKR have said since it is obviously inaccurate and could be damaging to the company.
Thats a key sentence, could be damaging to the company isnt good enough. Rovers would need to evidence that it has been factually damaging to the company. This is the basis on which loads of liable cases are dropped.
There was a case a few years ago as an example where Sheff Weds took legal action against a load of fans for things theyd written on a message board. The case eventually was dropped because Sheff Wed could not prove that the words written had detrimentally damaged their brand in anyway.
Big Spender wrote:It was the threat of court action IRRC that got the Hull fan who made wrong statements about Rovers finances a few years ago, on a message board, grovelling an apolgy in the HDM about his comments, along with a picture of him and the "reasons" for his innacuracies probably saved him from court action.
cod'ead wrote:To prove libel, it is imperative that there was originally a good character to defame.
Indeed, i'm not commenting either way but as youve also said later Rovers to some extend have already defamed their character by their chairman talking in the press about SL finances as a whole. The negative press about the chairmans driving offences could also damage the brand of Hull KR far greater than anything the HDM have reported about their finances could. Still seems odd they are threatening legal action here.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
