Leeds to sue? - Killa, Hulse & Bennett

[Charles]

I agree but some would say if we had right on our side why did we settle?

 

[Linz]

This is the area the FA and PL are looking into and if they come back and find that West Ham had done nothing wrong then how do we then stand?

We stand to be quids in and West Ham have egg on their faces

The burden of proof in civil law is also not as strict as proving beyond reasonable doubt... it only has to be more than likely that they should cough up.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Surely it has not been proved that West ham lied about Tevez in the second instant. This was a Tribunal in which West Ham could not appeal.
If this had gone to a court of law West ham may well have won the day. This is the area the FA and PL are looking into and if they come back and find that West Ham had done nothing wrong then how do we then stand?

Contrary to popular belief you can't (re)argue the facts of a case in an appeal. It's not a "second day in court" (figuratively speaking of course)! You can only appeal on a matter of law or legal interpretation (i.e. NOT fact). Admittedly the lines are somewhat blurred (for example; you can argue that the presumption of a fact was unreasonable), but still, generally you are looking for judicial/procedural error.

It may well be that West Ham would have won in court. The law reports are full of judgments which are just bizarre, strange, incomprehensible and sometimes just plain weird. My gut instinct is that an appeal court would have followed the tribunal decision but, like I say, it's anyone's guess.

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Barnsley [...] all we seem to post is how we can sue you lot for millions if we go down

Unlikely to happen matey.

The point of law in Blades v Wham was contractual. Effectively Wham had a contract with us (*) to abide by the rules of the league which they breached by fielding a player who was ineligible. We sued for loss based on breach of contract.

Hume v Morgan would be a tortious negligence claim. Totally different area of law with different rules/precedents/statutes/tests/etc. Just because we won a case against West Ham doesn't make a single difference to whether Hume would have a cause of action against Morgan.

There is actually a footballing precedence in this area of law: (Gordon) Watson v (Kevin) Gray (vicariously Huddersfield Town). That really was a horror tackle, you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who could defend that (indeed I think Jimmy Hill was called as a witness and said as much). Morgan's elbow is much more open to debate (i.e. court action much less likely to succeed).

Should Hume ever take action and win (very unlikely imho) it would be interesting because the other side would argue contributory negligence based on the fact Barnsley didn't seek immediate medical attention for him. In effect Barnsley FC would be negligent too!

I'm not an expert in this area of law but my (somewhat) educated guess (let me apologise in advance to any PI lawyers if I'm talking out of my arse) would be that an action wouldn't be worth the risk. Breach of duty would be hard to prove, injury negligence claim returns are somewhat limited by precedent, (Hume's) economic loss would be difficult to prove and there could be contributory negligence and Volenti non fit injuria defences.

-------------------

* and every other club in the league - this is the point other Ham fans (and Pork-pie Samuels) seem to have a problem grasping, whoever went down would have brought the same action!

 

[Deleted member 1486]

Just realised I never offered an opinion on the OP.

It's in the same area of law (contractual) as us v sham but I think he (bates) is licking windows again. I'm obviously not privy to the contractual dealings but it's almost certain to be something along the lines of "if X player plays Y amount of games for Sheffield United in the Premier League during season Z we (Leeds) will be due £x,xxx,xxx,xxx".

Bah, no point even trying guess what the deals said. Could be anything. My first guess is that this is going nowhere. Bates is fishing.

 

[metalblade]

When Ken Bates was a youngster he was called Master Bates, funny how names stick with some people.

 

[Blunkett]

Unlikely to happen matey.

The point of law in Blades v Wham was contractual. Effectively Wham had a contract with us (*) to abide by the rules of the league which they breached by fielding a player who was ineligible. We sued for loss based on breach of contract.

I completely agree that nothing should happen in the Hume-Morgan case imo.

However, I would have thought that Wham had a contract with the Premier League, as did Sheff Utd. I don't believe that clubs in the P.L have contracts with each other? Therefore, Wham are only guilty of breaching their contract with the P.L?

 

[shorehamview]

Is it true that in Ken Bates' freezer he has window-flavoured ice lollies?

 

[Pastyblade]

However, West Ham have already being punished for playing Tevez illegally.

They were fined 5.5million by the Premier League. Whether this was a large enough punishment (it probably wasn't) is not now the issue. The offence was comitted and West Ham paid for it. I can't see how West Ham can be tried twice for the same crime (is this not a case of The Double Jeopardy Law, where no one can be tried twice for the same crime).

Cheers.

Good post Blunkett and welcome.

This issue comes up a lot so I'll try to explain it again (not a dig at you, more a case of the fact that before you started posting here I've had to do this soooooo many times).

The fine and the compensation are two different things. The compensation isn't a punishment. Its a reparation to put SU back into the financial position they would have been in had the crime not been committed.

Easiest way to try to explain it is from an example outside of football.

If someone steels your car and smashes it up, the law punishes them for stealing the car (fine, prison etc). However, does that mean that they should then get away without paying for the damage they did to your car? I think you'll find in most cases the judge will award the victim compensation as well. Where he doesn't the victim can then sue seperately for the cost of having their car repaired.

Another good example if someone robs a bank, should they not have to give the money they stole back because they got imprisoned for the robbery?

Its exactly the same here. The fine was for the crime, ie breaking the rules. The compensation was for the damage done to Sheffield United as a result of breaking the rules. It wasn't a second punishment but a repair of the damage done to the club by the crime.

 

[Keith Curle's tenant]

Didn't really see this one coming, but I suppose it makes sense. Especially when you look at this picture:

View attachment 1881

Is it just me or is he looking a bit like nosferatu there?