Jump to content

IS this Ashton's finest piece yet?


angelman
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm amazed the club have not taken some form of action against the Mail, such are the defamatory stories being published day in day out. You would think there would be some form of protection against what is essentially corporate harassment!

 

None of the Mail's stories are defamatory. Are they likely to cause Southampton serious financial loss? No. And even if they could, the facts would be true or fair comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the Mail's stories are defamatory. Are they likely to cause Southampton serious financial loss? No. And even if they could, the facts would be true or fair comment.

 

I would have to say there is some doubt over your ascertains that there would be no financial loss...depends who's interpretation of serious you wish to use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say there is some doubt over your ascertains that there would be no financial loss...depends who's interpretation of serious you wish to use?

 

Yes, and I very much doubt that the publication of a few articles in the Daily Mail would constitute as "serious financial harm" (as described in the Defamation Act 2013). To be honest, the implementation of this new test was designed to limit the amount of defamation claims from for-profit companies.

 

And even if it did cause serious financial harm, the Mail would just be able to point out that they have published no falsehoods in order to dispel Southampton's claim. Any opinion surrounding those facts could probably be deemed as fair comment.

 

It's an unfortunate situation to be in as a for-profit company, but then wouldn't it be worse if you were a consumer who could easily have their finances decimated under large quantities of crushing litigation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot libel an organisation, although an individual within that organisation could sue if the defammatory statement can be construed as being against him.

 

Ashton mentions Les Reed, but it's unlikely any law suit for libel would succeed. A defammatory statement is one that lowers the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public, or disparages him in his office or profession.

 

Ashton would have no trouble defending any action as his piece is based on fact -Reed did issue the statement, and since then Poch and Lambert have gone.

 

It's still conjecture as to whether Lallana and Shaw will go, but the piece - while spiteful - is safe legally. It would have been run past The Mail's lawyers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what the problem is? Granted, I don't read the Mail (print or online) as a rule so I'm not familiar with the hack, but there didn't seem to be anything particularly wrong with that article. Certainly not anything "defamatory" or anything that may get any knickers twisted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed the club have not taken some form of action against the Mail, such are the defamatory stories being published day in day out. You would think there would be some form of protection against what is essentially corporate harassment!

 

I would have thought the clubs lawyers have "more pressing matters" to deal with, like the first team, than raising law suits against newspapers?

 

 

PS: try and learn what "defamatory" means.

Edited by CB Fry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side. Surprisingly, Ashton could have included the interview with Mr Krueger which repeated the same promises as Mr Reed had said one month earlier - and yet within hours one of our international strikers was sold on the cheap.

 

His article could have been even more damning - we got off lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's not the content, but the tedious nature of the headlines (as I said in the OP, I don't read Ashton). It wouldn't happen if NC was here, Saints in meltdown, blah blah blah. I might be reading too much into it, but Ashton comes across as having an agenda. Any journalist that does have an agenda to me is not worthy of his profession. By all means have strong opinions, but there is usually an Editorial section or some such for those.

 

Actually it is probably down to the fact that this is yet another negative Saints article, of which having endured them for months and months, I have got tired of. I know Guan says to ignore Mail/Mirror etc, but......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look on the bright side. Surprisingly, Ashton could have included the interview with Mr Krueger which repeated the same promises as Mr Reed had said one month earlier - and yet within hours one of our international strikers was sold on the cheap.

 

His article could have been even more damning - we got off lightly.

 

He wouldn't have done that, for the simple reason that Ralph's statement would have to be reported it as positive reflection on the new corridors of power at St Mary's. Strong leadership, leaders who are not scared to make unpopular decisions if it's in the best interests of the saints rather than protect their own reputations. Leaders who are more concerned with the club than their own image. Reporting positive news is not Ashton's agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it's not the content, but the tedious nature of the headlines (as I said in the OP, I don't read Ashton). It wouldn't happen if NC was here, Saints in meltdown, blah blah blah. I might be reading too much into it, but Ashton comes across as having an agenda. Any journalist that does have an agenda to me is not worthy of his profession. By all means have strong opinions, but there is usually an Editorial section or some such for those.

 

Actually it is probably down to the fact that this is yet another negative Saints article, of which having endured them for months and months, I have got tired of. I know Guan says to ignore Mail/Mirror etc, but......

 

Really, months and months?

 

I'd have thought that over the last 12-18 months Saints have had some of the most positive PR of pretty much any club in the country ... reams and reams of positive stories and quotes and articles ... loads of positive TV coverage etc etc. Guess that was alright by you though? No awkward questions were ever asked of who was paying for it, how much it was costing, how sustainable it would be when big clubs come calling etc etc.

 

Now the boot is on the other foot and the wheels appear to have come off you cry 'foul'. What are the papers supposed to do? Super-success-story-Southampton hit a bit of financial/managerial/want-away players-type turbulence, it would be astonishing if the papers didn't want to write about it wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot libel an organisation, although an individual within that organisation could sue if the defammatory statement can be construed as being against him.

 

Ashton mentions Les Reed, but it's unlikely any law suit for libel would succeed. A defammatory statement is one that lowers the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of the public, or disparages him in his office or profession.

 

Ashton would have no trouble defending any action as his piece is based on fact -Reed did issue the statement, and since then Poch and Lambert have gone.

 

It's still conjecture as to whether Lallana and Shaw will go, but the piece - while spiteful - is safe legally. It would have been run past The Mail's lawyers.

 

 

I think you might be working with an older defamation law. Have a look at the Defamation Act 2013: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted

 

You'll find in s.1(1) that "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant." You'll also find in the subsequent subsection that yes, a for-profit body can sue for defamation, but only if they can prove that the defamatory statements caused serious financial harm.

 

It's a slight change, but a good one as it makes it pretty difficult for companies to sue. There's not a chance that this or any other article by the Mail (as far as I can tell) is defamatory.

 

EDIT: Just highlighted the introduction of the serious harm tests which weren't evident in previous defamation laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daily Mail cub reporter: Take Pochettino’s surprise visit to the Parc des Princes for the Champions League quarter-final first leg between Paris Saint-Germain and Chelsea, as an example. Pochettino would be hard pushed to pass off a trip to Paris to watch two of Europe's superpowers as a scouting mission.

 

What is the inference here? That the players in that match were beyond our pocket? That we couldn't afford to buy any player that played in that match? How does this bloke know that Pochettino wasn't there to scout a player? It is like several other points he raises, like the dismissal of Dodd and Williams. He doesn't know the background, so jumps to conclusions based on rumours and guesswork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strap line at the top says Ash Wednesday................ So a week before the World Cup and in warm up week all he can muster up is a piece about Saints that just about every Tom Richard and Harriet knew about, maybe aside from the blagging tickets to PSG.

he must be laughing everytime he gets a payslip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton seems to be making a big thing about Reeds statement, but at the time it was made there is nothing to suggest that it was not entirely accurate. Obviously things have changed since then, but you cannot blame Reed for that. The bottom line is that Lallana and Shaw will probably leave - for deals that will be very good for us. Lovren probably will not go. Cork and Fonte will get new deals. We will move on with a decent manager, a decent transfer budget, and no reasons not to be optimistic about another strong season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton seems to be making a big thing about Reeds statement, but at the time it was made there is nothing to suggest that it was not entirely accurate. Obviously things have changed since then, but you cannot blame Reed for that. The bottom line is that Lallana and Shaw will probably leave - for deals that will be very good for us. Lovren probably will not go. Cork and Fonte will get new deals. We will move on with a decent manager, a decent transfer budget, and no reasons not to be optimistic about another strong season.

 

Ashton's clearly forgot that Reed only came out to refute his(?) articles saying we were already negotiating fire sales of all our key players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say I am mightily unimpressed by Reed's performance lately - not least getting rid of Dodd.

 

I am slightly concerned about Reed having too much control over things. Under Cortese you knew he was only one bad decision away from being fired whereas you get the impression Kruger, being new to football, is relying on him too much.

 

Could be wrong but that's just the impression Kruger gave me in his interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am slightly concerned about Reed having too much control over things. Under Cortese you knew he was only one bad decision away from being fired whereas you get the impression Kruger, being new to football, is relying on him too much.

 

Could be wrong but that's just the impression Kruger gave me in his interview.

 

Absolutely, and even though Ashton's article is poorly conceived at least some of the flak is now being directed in Reed's direction. Seems to be a bit of an unpopular view on the mongboard though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good grief.....just read that piece and what a truly awful piece it is too. Under Cortese we were going to be pushing for a Top 4 finish soon: really, with what? KL would have had to pump in probably 100 million quid to get close to having a chance. On crowds of 32K? Just not sustainable or realistic.

 

Still, where is Franks Cousin to provide bile at members of the Board under the pretense of stimulating a discussion. perhaps him and Ashton are one and the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})