I wouldn't say it is a clear threat. A clear threat would use WILL rather than IF but maybe it is a heads up with a bit of a a scare with the letterheaded paper?
In which case you could argue that a phone call from a director/official at the club saying we are taking action against the Guardian it would be sensible to take it down would have sufficed?
was the Trust the only website to publish the link on 02/12/13? I assume they got similar letters?
** didnt see your edit NW sorry
maybe you should see if there is a "we will" in the letter then?
Yup, i did edit my post with the revision as you suggest, so I'm not disagreeing with you!
Would have deleted it, but I assumed it'd have already been read by the time I got to the delete, so thought an edit was better. How wrong was I
The one that starts with "if our client does seem it necessary"
I do think it is a heads up with a bit of a scare tactic built in.
In the past if anything has upset on here, it is usually via phone call / email though.
I wouldn't say it is a clear threat. A clear threat would use WILL rather than IF but maybe it is a heads up with a bit of a a scare with the letterheaded paper?
I know this may be an unpopular thing to say but...
Isn't that letter effectively saying 'we don't want to sue you as collatoral damage, so here's a heads up'?
Actually scrub that, you'd just offer a nod and w ink rather than a formal letter, wouldn't you.
yes, so it does not use an if or will, it uses both. Which to me suggests a threat. Is a heads up with a bit of a scare tactic built in not a threat?
Just one question regarding all of this, who calls themselves Speechly Bircham??ointlaugh:
Is it reasonable for a group of football fans at the Trust to feel threatened by the tone of the letter? The implications if they didnt do as told and the Guardian were sued and lost could be substantial financial loss. If there was no threat based on potential financial loss and no merit in the possiblity of legal action then you could ignore the letter. But would any one here actually do that based on what is published?
n
Should call themselves 'Squeeky Bottom'!!! LOL! Love it!!!
I don't agree with it but it is only the same as something like a forum or blog etc isn't it when it comes to content?
I think as (finally) mentioned, even if you take it as a friendly warning for the benefit of the trust... it's pretty shoddy to send a letter rather than a friendly communication, especially as the head of the trust is on the SCG, so not like Fisher couldn't tip him off after the meeting, is it!
And I have to admit, having once had to deal with a pack of legal letters myself over the most trivial of disputes where the aggressors had no leg to stand on, the initial response is one of 'oh bugger'. If someone calls me a twat on here then, well... I probably have no leg to stand onIf they threaten to get legal backing up that I *am* a twat, then things become very different.
After you stop and think about it, you realise there's nothing there, but the formality of it all makes something serious where it doesn't have to be.
The trust DID republish it by sending it out in an email not just posting a link to it....It was copied and pasted from the Guardian and sent out to all trust members which is maybe their point? IF facts are untrue, the Trust have emailed out 2000 plus people with potentially libellous information which you can't really do as that is re-publishing the same information?
IF Sisu can prove that a lot of it is inaccurate then I am sure it would be changed?
How much input did the Trust have in the article? Could that be why SISU have an interest in the trust for this?
I don't agree with it but it is only the same as something like a forum or blog etc isn't it when it comes to content?
either it is a heavy handed way of giving "advice" or it is a threat (which ever way it you view it, that came from high powered expensive London lawyers acting for the club & owners)............. either way it doesnt come over as a shining example of fans relations does it.
Actually in defamation cases you do have to defend yourself against all publishers because not doing so weakens your defence.I don't see any way at all to read that letter other than a threat. There is no way to interpret it as advice thinking of them. Choosing to sue the SBT if they go after the guardian is a choice, it doesn't happen automatically and they are saying if you don't do what we ask and we sue the guardian we WILL sue you too and you will be jointly liable.
I would be interested to know which bit of the article they disagree with.
All looks pretty accurate to me.
Is it this part?
"Despite everything, in the summer ACL still offered Sisu dramatic rent reductions, but Sisu refused and instead decided to move Coventry City to Northampton."
Now if am wrong didn't the offer get made to the administrator Paull Appleton?
If SISU do sue the Guardian and their action fails, are they liable for damages automatically or would the Guardian have to sue for damage to their reputation?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?