| Laudrup to QPR on 21:22 - Feb 24 with 2497 views | Shaky |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:13 - Feb 24 by Darran |
It's no more absurd than any sacking unless you want it to be if course. |
Wrong, Darran.
It is absurd because the club is trying to weasel out of paying up Laudrup's compensation package.
And this hot on the heels of certain individuals presently unknown having conducted a campaign of leaks and smears against Laudrup in the press, and the appointment of backroom staff by decree clearly intended to force Laudrup into a resignation.
It is simply not how you comport yourself, old boy. Yet you and most others willingly if not gleefully go along with this unquestioningly for the good of the club.
I don't wish to afford my numerous critics the opportunity to invoke Goodwin's Law here, but to me the whole thing smacks of a sort of totalitarian mindset. |  |
|  |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:23 - Feb 24 with 2496 views | Shaky |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:14 - Feb 24 by waynekerr55 |
One of the hardest things to prove in court (as you are well aware Mr Shake!) |
In fact you are wrong; the burden of proof is on the person defending the action. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:29 - Feb 24 with 2469 views | waynekerr55 |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:23 - Feb 24 by Shaky |
In fact you are wrong; the burden of proof is on the person defending the action. |
Are you sure on that one Mr Shake? I'm pretty sure that the legal eagles I know have told me that (I know I came across a bit c*nty there but no offence was meant). At least that's what my understanding was anyway... [Post edited 24 Feb 2014 21:32]
|  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:31 - Feb 24 with 2464 views | tomdickharry |
| Laudrup to QPR on 20:23 - Feb 24 by Darran |
Shaky is wrong though there's nothing new there. |
No he isn't. |  | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:32 - Feb 24 with 2457 views | Shaky |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:29 - Feb 24 by waynekerr55 |
Are you sure on that one Mr Shake? I'm pretty sure that the legal eagles I know have told me that (I know I came across a bit c*nty there but no offence was meant). At least that's what my understanding was anyway... [Post edited 24 Feb 2014 21:32]
|
Yes I am certain.
*******************************
Burden of proof on the defendant
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory. These things are generally relatively easy to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the statement was false. Instead, proving the truth of the statement is an affirmative defence available to the defendant.
Because proving the truth or falsity of the statement is often extremely difficult (and the defendant does not generally have the ability to force the claimant to disclose materials that might help prove it) it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
******************************* | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:32 - Feb 24 with 2458 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:22 - Feb 24 by Shaky |
Wrong, Darran.
It is absurd because the club is trying to weasel out of paying up Laudrup's compensation package.
And this hot on the heels of certain individuals presently unknown having conducted a campaign of leaks and smears against Laudrup in the press, and the appointment of backroom staff by decree clearly intended to force Laudrup into a resignation.
It is simply not how you comport yourself, old boy. Yet you and most others willingly if not gleefully go along with this unquestioningly for the good of the club.
I don't wish to afford my numerous critics the opportunity to invoke Goodwin's Law here, but to me the whole thing smacks of a sort of totalitarian mindset. |
Yeah it's never happened before like. |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:35 - Feb 24 with 2435 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:29 - Feb 24 by waynekerr55 |
Are you sure on that one Mr Shake? I'm pretty sure that the legal eagles I know have told me that (I know I came across a bit c*nty there but no offence was meant). At least that's what my understanding was anyway... [Post edited 24 Feb 2014 21:32]
|
He's right about defamation/libel as I understand it. For example, if I posted on here that you were a drug taking necrophiliac and you sued me for libel it would be for me to prove that you are a coke snorting corpse shagger. Otherwise it would be for you to prove that you aren't and it's not really possible to do that. |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:35 - Feb 24 with 2432 views | waynekerr55 |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:32 - Feb 24 by Shaky |
Yes I am certain.
*******************************
Burden of proof on the defendant
In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory. These things are generally relatively easy to prove. The claimant is not required to prove that the statement was false. Instead, proving the truth of the statement is an affirmative defence available to the defendant.
Because proving the truth or falsity of the statement is often extremely difficult (and the defendant does not generally have the ability to force the claimant to disclose materials that might help prove it) it is frequently said that the "burden of proof" in English defamation law falls upon the defendant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
******************************* |
[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2011)
This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information. (April 2013)
On a serious note, there will no doubt be various witness statements from players to confirm the slap dash attitude in training
Not to mention dopey bollocks Garcia's apparent negligence/incompetence with the injury tsunami
However what I will say is that the club do have form for sacking people on a whim (Dave Moss) and had to shell out before so it wouldn't surprise me if what you say is true. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:37 - Feb 24 with 2427 views | waynekerr55 |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:35 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
He's right about defamation/libel as I understand it. For example, if I posted on here that you were a drug taking necrophiliac and you sued me for libel it would be for me to prove that you are a coke snorting corpse shagger. Otherwise it would be for you to prove that you aren't and it's not really possible to do that. |
Of course but where are the hard concrete defamatory statements from the club. This could also be circumvented by "it is the clubs opinion that" which is not directly quoting as a fact.
Interpretation interpretation (as you both know)  | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:40 - Feb 24 with 2419 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:37 - Feb 24 by waynekerr55 |
Of course but where are the hard concrete defamatory statements from the club. This could also be circumvented by "it is the clubs opinion that" which is not directly quoting as a fact.
Interpretation interpretation (as you both know) |
Yeah I'm deliberately not commenting on Shaky's opinion on the club's legal position in the Laudrup situation because he knows as much as the rest of us do about the legalities of that particular issue i.e. nothing. Just talking about defamation/libel in general.
This post has been edited by an administrator | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 22:04 - Feb 24 with 2348 views | waynekerr55 |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:40 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
Yeah I'm deliberately not commenting on Shaky's opinion on the club's legal position in the Laudrup situation because he knows as much as the rest of us do about the legalities of that particular issue i.e. nothing. Just talking about defamation/libel in general.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Yeah, I suppose defamation is easy to prove where there is concrete evidence. However in this case there is little if any (not in public view anyway)
Besides, a nice counter claim below:
Still trust him now Michael.... | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 22:08 - Feb 24 with 2342 views | Pacemaker |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:35 - Feb 24 by exiledclaseboy |
He's right about defamation/libel as I understand it. For example, if I posted on here that you were a drug taking necrophiliac and you sued me for libel it would be for me to prove that you are a coke snorting corpse shagger. Otherwise it would be for you to prove that you aren't and it's not really possible to do that. |
That is correct, although Shaky has identified that ML looks to have a strong case for compensation for termination of contract although it may well be not as strong as first appears because nobody knows the truth apart from those on the inside.
I think Shaky has also failed to identify Huw's press release that some terrible falsehoods had been reported all of which were false and that Laudrup was a fine man. This in itself would probably be enough to undermine any defamation action.
http://mobile.swanseacity.net/news/article/huw-laudrup-statement-1342386.aspx?pd [Post edited 24 Feb 2014 22:21]
|  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 22:30 - Feb 24 with 2302 views | tomdickharry |
In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability. Criminal trials employ a higher standard of proof because criminal defendants often face the deprivation of life or liberty if convicted while civil defendants generally only face an order to pay money damages if the plaintiff prevails.
Lets all hope that the Swans have clear and convincing evidence to place before the court and that it is strong enough to allow them to sack a senior employee at what would appear from the Press Conference to be at a moments notice (relative to time).The senior employee in his PC did not,as advised by his brief's,state the specific reasons of the alleged Breach of Contract therefore we are somewhat in the dark when trying to load reasons on the club's side without a glimmer of supporting evidence.
We got out of jail with Sousa,I expect Moss cost us a bob or 2 so don't be surprised if the senior employee in question goes for the jugular. | | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 22:58 - Feb 24 with 2259 views | Liberty |
He's left the club, who the fcuk cares anymore.
 |  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:00 - Feb 24 with 2256 views | Phil_S |
| Laudrup to QPR on 20:21 - Feb 24 by Shaky |
Whether or not this goes to court has nothing whatsoever to to do with the matter.
Swansea have terminated Laudrup's contract on the - in my view - utterly spurious grounds that he is in breach.
The question of whether there is a breach is a matter of fact.
If it is proven that there is a breach of contract it is then a matter of law whether that breach is material to the contract, and constitutes sufficient grounds to terminate the whole thing.
Notwithstanding all of the that, the fact remains that the contract has been terminated unilaterally by Swansea, and whatever job Laudrup can secure can have no bearing whatsoever on any sums payable on termination under he employment contract with Swansea. |
How do you believe it to be spurious? Do you actually have any details of what happened? |  | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:39 - Feb 24 with 2036 views | 2face |
| Laudrup to QPR on 22:58 - Feb 24 by Liberty |
He's left the club, who the fcuk cares anymore.
|
Clearly a good choice to change manager. The form the team shows at the moment leaves no doubt about that. But it kinda bothers me the way it happened. Because by extension it means that last years trophy means f_ck all.
The fact that the club thinks the manager was lazy and hated by the players indirectly says that the trophy last year was worthless. The club is in a way smearing it's own legacy.
It was a great high last year. And I would prefer that it wouldn't be surrounded by this type of negativity. I was looking forward to the upcoming movie Jack to a King. The climax of that movie was supposed to be the cup final. But how are they gonna present that now? By not showing ML? ML is supposed to be this lazy incompetent knob that the club would rather forget. It's not really gonna work as a climax, is it?
I wish it had been handled with a bit more finesse. I'm not sure it's worth the £3m to paint ML as a contract breaching clown.
That's why I care anyway. | | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:42 - Feb 24 with 2030 views | alphonseM |
Not gonna happen [Post edited 24 Feb 2014 23:44]
|  | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:50 - Feb 24 with 2013 views | Darran |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:39 - Feb 24 by 2face |
Clearly a good choice to change manager. The form the team shows at the moment leaves no doubt about that. But it kinda bothers me the way it happened. Because by extension it means that last years trophy means f_ck all.
The fact that the club thinks the manager was lazy and hated by the players indirectly says that the trophy last year was worthless. The club is in a way smearing it's own legacy.
It was a great high last year. And I would prefer that it wouldn't be surrounded by this type of negativity. I was looking forward to the upcoming movie Jack to a King. The climax of that movie was supposed to be the cup final. But how are they gonna present that now? By not showing ML? ML is supposed to be this lazy incompetent knob that the club would rather forget. It's not really gonna work as a climax, is it?
I wish it had been handled with a bit more finesse. I'm not sure it's worth the £3m to paint ML as a contract breaching clown.
That's why I care anyway. |
It's good that it's got nothing to do with you being Danish anyway. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 00:06 - Feb 25 with 1997 views | 2face |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:50 - Feb 24 by Darran |
It's good that it's got nothing to do with you being Danish anyway. |
Message received. | | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 00:25 - Feb 25 with 1982 views | macman |
| Laudrup to QPR on 21:17 - Feb 24 by ScoobyWho |
Laudrup isnt in any frame for QPR or any other club in this country unless they are decidely bigger than the swans. And that wont happen. His ego wont allow it. Next time we see him will be abroad. |
I aggree on the whole with ML waiting for a bigger club with bigger budget , however I dont think he would have gone through the PC, if not also to "clear" his name. And as it says in the article amongst the professionals of the PL found the sacking surprinsing and harsh. He was called by big name (who apparently had his number :-) ), so I am sure he stills wants a PL manager seat. | | | |
| Laudrup to QPR on 06:58 - Feb 25 with 1884 views | Dr_Winston |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:00 - Feb 24 by Phil_S |
How do you believe it to be spurious? Do you actually have any details of what happened? |
Of course he doesn't.
He's absolutely awesome at Wikipedia though. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 07:41 - Feb 25 with 1838 views | Uxbridge |
Well, Google took a battering last night....
Pah Jobbie beat me to it. [Post edited 25 Feb 2014 7:42]
|  |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 08:33 - Feb 25 with 1783 views | Shaky |
| Laudrup to QPR on 23:00 - Feb 24 by Phil_S |
How do you believe it to be spurious? Do you actually have any details of what happened? |
>How do you believe it to be spurious?
Simple. The club is claiming Laudrup is in breach of contract.
But until such a time as this is backed up by any substantive information whatsoever, it will remain the sort of vacuous bullshit spouted off by the clueless in the hope of intimidating the even more clueless.
> Do you actually have any details of what happened?
No of course not, I must try to deduce events from publicly available information, such as it is.
However, I believe the far more interesting question is do you have any details?
Are you holding the management of the club accountable for their actions as custodian of the supporters' investment?
Or are you like Exiled merely assuming there must be some sort of reason for all this, even though you haven't a f*cking clue what that might be? | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 08:41 - Feb 25 with 1771 views | Shaky |
BTW, my good friend Google provides the following info:
"HUW Jenkins has revealed Swansea City's owners sacked Michael Laudrup because they felt the club's principles were "slowly being eroded"."
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Huw-Jenkins-Michael-Laudrup-sacking-Swan
Many things have been said and leaked in the press that are hard to pin on any individual.
However, is the direct written statement by Jenkins that Laudrup was eroding the principles of the club defamatory? I think that might be a question for the High Court to answer at some point, unless an even huger payout is in the offing. | |
| |
| Laudrup to QPR on 08:56 - Feb 25 with 1741 views | swanny |
| Laudrup to QPR on 08:41 - Feb 25 by Shaky |
BTW, my good friend Google provides the following info:
"HUW Jenkins has revealed Swansea City's owners sacked Michael Laudrup because they felt the club's principles were "slowly being eroded"."
http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/Huw-Jenkins-Michael-Laudrup-sacking-Swan
Many things have been said and leaked in the press that are hard to pin on any individual.
However, is the direct written statement by Jenkins that Laudrup was eroding the principles of the club defamatory? I think that might be a question for the High Court to answer at some point, unless an even huger payout is in the offing. |
I think anyone looking at the last few games under Laudrup and the body language of the players, would be hard pushed to deny that statement. |  |
| 'Sorry, your password must contain a capital letter, two numbers, a symbol, an inspiring message, a spell, a gang sign, a hieroglyph and the blood of a virgin" |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
