SWFC Jokes - This is probably the best of the lot!

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/2375.html

 

Am I reading that correctly? They have sued the fans for just less than £10k?

Only Sheffield Wednesday. What a **** house bunch they really really are. I hope they get negative press worth every penny.

 

I know. What sort of chairman would attempt to sue his clubs supporters?

I'm glad we support a club that encourages free speach and realises that suing its own customers isn't the best way to do business.

 

£9,000...

...is the costs the court is allowing the defendant (the website owner) to claim back from the claimants (SWFC). He was wanting £22,000. The court only instructed the website owner to release the personal details of 4 of the posters, who SWFC could then sue for libel if they so wished.

 

Sheffield Wednesday = bunch of arseholes.

nt

 

I see. Can't believe they're doing that though. nt

 

After reading that, I'm keeping my opinions to myself.

 

Seems they must be serious ...

They've already spent £9k on the website owners costs, plus what they will have paid their own legal team for getting the Order to release the details.

They're then going (presumably) to pursue the four fans whose posts the Judge felt were possibly defamatory and in all liklihood those fans aren't going to have the money to pay any Judgment they'd get. I'm not even convinced that those four posts would be seen as defamatory in any event but that's another story.

What really surprises me is that these comments were probably seen by a couple of hundred people who visit that site and in all liklihood would have been forgotten days earlier. Now the comments are repeated in the Judgments, will probably get some press coverage at some point and do a lot more damage to the clubs reputation than they ever would on an internet forum.

I can see that they want to make a point and put a stop to these sorts of messages but if I was a Wednesday fan (God forbid) I'd take a dim view of the club litigating against fans for having a moan on a message board.

If the web-site operators costs were £22k I'd love to know what the nine Claimants costs amount to - might be a new midfielder there!

 

There's some really great stuff in there

I think if it was this board after a big win we could raise the sic count significantly.

Anyway, I particularly liked this bit:

"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."

Try to imagine the solicitor writing this stuff without hearing a Ker-Ching noise. It can't be done.

 

What if all the fans statements were true

Perhaps they could prove it. £9000 would be a drop in the ocean. If the fans had good legal representation, they could reclaim that amout with a nought on.

 

RE: What if all the fans statements were true

Does anyone know if SWFC did pursue it against the 4 fans whose details were forced to be disclosed by the website owner?

Interesting to note that Brian Laws withdrew his name from the case as a Claimant. Clearly he recognised that their board were behaving like idiots (hope they dont sue me over that!)