Sheffield Wednesday vs the Fans
Sheffield Wednesday, and some of it's directors are suing the owner of a internet chat board to find out the names and identities of people who have caused them harm, by making false allegations. Full deposition here : http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2375.html
Naturally, I am not a lawyer, and it appears to be a judgement for something called 'Norwich Pharmacal Relief'. Might be a claim for costs. Not really sure. The idea of a club and directors getting upset about this is laughable. Fans are vitriolic about their board of directors, will mouth off about all sorts in a offensive manner, and may not be the brightest sparks. It comes with the game.
What did amuse me is in the list of the allegations against the posters on the internet board was this:
6. Mr Aidan Eardley, who represented the Claimants, took me through the postings which concern his clients. They are as follows:
(xiv) The final posting which concerns the Claimants was by a user called "cbr bob". His contributions followed a posting by the user known as Gamrie Owl, which referred to a trip abroad made by "the Chuckle Brothers" to watch players with a view to making a signing. I gather that the "Chuckle Brothers" was a reference, which would have been understood by users of the website, to the eighth Claimant, and to Mr Laws, the manager of the club, who was originally (but is no longer) the ninth Claimant. In response to that posting, "cbrbob" replied "they blew all the money on hookers". Another user then interjected "it's not a hooker we need, it's a striker", to which "cbrbob" responded "they wouldn't know the difference".
RICHARD PARKES QC : The Claimants are not, it appears, concerned about the suggestion that they spent the club's money on prostitutes, which I presume they accept might have been unlikely to be taken seriously, but with the suggestion that the eighth Claimant would not have known the difference between a hooker in rugby and a striker in football, which would have been understood to mean that the eighth Claimant, though he was the chief executive of the football club, would not have been capable of spotting a competent player.
Naturally, I am not a lawyer, and it appears to be a judgement for something called 'Norwich Pharmacal Relief'. Might be a claim for costs. Not really sure. The idea of a club and directors getting upset about this is laughable. Fans are vitriolic about their board of directors, will mouth off about all sorts in a offensive manner, and may not be the brightest sparks. It comes with the game.
What did amuse me is in the list of the allegations against the posters on the internet board was this:
6. Mr Aidan Eardley, who represented the Claimants, took me through the postings which concern his clients. They are as follows:
(xiv) The final posting which concerns the Claimants was by a user called "cbr bob". His contributions followed a posting by the user known as Gamrie Owl, which referred to a trip abroad made by "the Chuckle Brothers" to watch players with a view to making a signing. I gather that the "Chuckle Brothers" was a reference, which would have been understood by users of the website, to the eighth Claimant, and to Mr Laws, the manager of the club, who was originally (but is no longer) the ninth Claimant. In response to that posting, "cbrbob" replied "they blew all the money on hookers". Another user then interjected "it's not a hooker we need, it's a striker", to which "cbrbob" responded "they wouldn't know the difference".
RICHARD PARKES QC : The Claimants are not, it appears, concerned about the suggestion that they spent the club's money on prostitutes, which I presume they accept might have been unlikely to be taken seriously, but with the suggestion that the eighth Claimant would not have known the difference between a hooker in rugby and a striker in football, which would have been understood to mean that the eighth Claimant, though he was the chief executive of the football club, would not have been capable of spotting a competent player.