Turkish Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 The company I work for had a girl who refused to do any work. We warned her, and dismissed her by the book. She sued on grounds on racial prejudice, which frankly was never the case. The company settled out of court, as the c. £30k settlement was far cheaper than the legal cost of fighting the case. Just thought id point out that out of court doesn't always mean that the party settling is guilty. Did your company decide to do this a couple of days before the hearing was due, not just on this legal case but on other occasions as well? This after publicly denying any wrong doing and claiming that they would 'defend themselves vigorously' against the allegations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Did your company decide to do this a couple of days before the hearing was due, not just on this legal case but on other occasions as well? This after publicly denying any wrong doing and claiming that they would 'defend themselves vigorously' against the allegations? Nope, but then the former employee accepted their first out of court settlement offer. Turkish, you know the point I'm getting at; we don't know what has happened here. I'm not blaming Frannie or the club. I just don't get why some people always jump on the club whenever they can, for literally any reason (and rarely with anything more than hearsay to back them up). All we know here is that club and ex-player had a dispute. Ex-player decided that the (latest?) settlement he was offered was less risky, or more money, than he could have hoped to have received by going to court. The club might well have just saved themselves a large legal bill. Why assume the worst? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Turkish, I thought you hated people talking about the chairman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggface Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Because all the trolls would then have nothing to write about and would have to get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Nope, but then the former employee accepted their first out of court settlement offer. Turkish, you know the point I'm getting at; we don't know what has happened here. I'm not blaming Frannie or the club. I just don't get why some people always jump on the club whenever they can, for literally any reason (and rarely with anything more than hearsay to back them up). All we know here is that club and ex-player had a dispute. Ex-player decided that the (latest?) settlement he was offered was less risky, or more money, than he could have hoped to have received by going to court. The club might well have just saved themselves a large legal bill. Why assume the worst? If it was just a one off then you'd give them the benefit of the doubt, it isn't though is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 joe has that bird been replaced yet? I would be willing to come to ur place do no work get sacked + paid off. In fact it might be easier if they just give me the £30k up front? send me pm pls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 joe has that bird been replaced yet? I would be willing to come to ur place do no work get sacked + paid off. In fact it might be easier if they just give me the £30k up front? send me pm pls Can bears sue for racial discrimination? I've been trying, but it's not easy to get sacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joensuu Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Because all the trolls would then have nothing to write about and would have to get a life. Correct answer. [i'm sure Turkish loves Cortese really; it's just his internet 'persona' spinning out of conTrol] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Turkish, I thought you hated people talking about the chairman? did he say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 did he say that? Turkish loves pointing to the halcyon days of the 80's where no one ever spoke about the Chairman or even knew who he was. It seems Turkish loves talking about this Nicholas Cagilari fella more than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Turkish loves pointing to the halcyon days of the 80's where no one ever spoke about the Chairman or even knew who he was. It seems Turkish loves talking about this Nicholas Cagilari fella more than most. Yes I did prefer it before celebrity chairman when it was all about the team, but If you can't beat them join them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Did the club ever actually comment on this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Did the club ever actually comment on this case? http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/10209908.Saints_cancel_Le_Tissier_meeting/ They were going to 'defend themselves rigorously' according to this statement. Thy didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/10209908.Saints_cancel_Le_Tissier_meeting/ They were going to 'defend themselves rigorously' according to this statement. Thy didn't. probably because benali did want to go through with he insane demands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintmatt Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Matt Le Tissier (@mattletiss7) tweeted at 9:04 PM on Wed, May 08, 2013: “@sfcyorkie: @mattletiss7 well you called that one right #goodjudgeofcharacter Benali 1 Cortese (SFC) 0” Not a difficult call to be fair ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirleysfc Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 If it was just a one off then you'd give them the benefit of the doubt, it isn't though is it. The way the club have handled this (settling at the last minute) is hardly uncommon, not just for SFC but in the real world as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 The way the club have handled this (settling at the last minute) is hardly uncommon, not just for SFC but in the real world as well. It may well be uncommon, and call me old fashioned if you will, but I'd rather the club didn't act in a way that necessitated multiple out of court settlements and/or legal actions against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/10209908.Saints_cancel_Le_Tissier_meeting/ They were going to 'defend themselves rigorously' according to this statement. Thy didn't. Why go to court the only winners would be the lawyers? I can only see sense in taking it to court on a point of principle or as a test case. Wasn't NC a banker? He's not going to shell out needlessly on legal fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Why go to court the only winners would be the lawyers? I can only see sense in taking it to court on a point of principle or as a test case. Wasn't NC a banker? He's not going to shell out needlessly on legal fees. Do you really imagine we didn't utilise any lawyers in the run-up to this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirleysfc Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 It may well be uncommon, and call me old fashioned if you will, but I'd rather the club didn't act in a way that necessitated multiple out of court settlements and/or legal actions against it. What were the multiple settlements for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Why go to court the only winners would be the lawyers? I can only see sense in taking it to court on a point of principle or as a test case. Wasn't NC a banker? He's not going to shell out needlessly on legal fees. Point of principle you say? Well read the statement again, the club say they will defend themselves rigorously in the best interests of the club and it reputation. They've decided now not to defend themselves, you have to wonder why this is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 What were the multiple settlements for? Off the top of my head; corporate lounge refurb, training ground (maybe? can't recall exactly), this. Those were the ones that I can recall were published anyway. And the Adkins case still ongoing, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 "'Mr Le Tissier also refers to his friend Francis Benali having the best interests of the club at heart, while neglecting to mention that the same person is currently suing Southampton Football Club in relation to a lease dispute and lost ambassadorial fees. ''It is a legal action the club will be defending rigorously in the best interests of the club and its reputation." Or just shovelling out some cash to Benali, presumably somehow also in the best interests of the club and its reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Off the top of my head; corporate lounge refurb, training ground (maybe? can't recall exactly), this. Those were the ones that I can recall were published anyway. And the Adkins case still ongoing, of course. They also did something similar with refusing to attend Illingsworth's right to buy a ticket / fan policy on the website to give evidence, so as well as throwing around last minute cash settlements out of court, they also decided to completely ignore the existence and outcome of a tribunal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 They also did something similar with refusing to attend Illingsworth's right to buy a ticket / fan policy on the website to give evidence, so as well as throwing around last minute cash settlements out of court, they also decided to completely ignore the existence and outcome of a tribunal. Ah yes, Illingsworthgate. Whatever people think of Nick (and the opinions are wide and often harsh) he got banned from owning a season ticket because of comments written on a website which were non-libellous and based in opinion only. So much for free speech (but then the embarrassing climbdown with The Sun didn't show too much good form in that area either). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marsdinho Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Point of principle you say? Well read the statement again, the club say they will defend themselves rigorously in the best interests of the club and it reputation. They've decided now not to defend themselves, you have to wonder why this is. because its in the best interest of the club and its reputation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 we get into scrapes like this cos cortese is one of them unreasonable dudes that always think they're in the right even when they ain't. I know the type (there's a few on here yo!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 we get into scrapes like this cos cortese is one of them unreasonable dudes that always think they're in the right even when they ain't. I know the type (there's a few on here yo!). Sounds like he'd get on well with MLG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 because its in the best interest of the club and its reputation? Yep, Not defending ourselves after saying we would and settling out of court, again, is doing it wonders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Do you think we can sue Turks or MLG (don't mind which one) and get an out of court settlement bear? If so, I'm in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stug76 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Yep, Not defending ourselves after saying we would and settling out of court, again, is doing it wonders. Yeah, better to go to Court and have someone slag off the club in public. Thats better for the reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 because its in the best interest of the club and its reputation? For that to be true, you'd have to accept that going to court would NOT be in the best interest of the club and its reputation, which suggests that the club either didn't think it would win (best interests), or that there was something they didn't want publicly disclosed that would be to the detriment to its reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Point of principle you say? Well read the statement again, the club say they will defend themselves rigorously in the best interests of the club and it reputation. They've decided now not to defend themselves, you have to wonder why this is. Well, unlike a few here I wouldn't claim to know what's happened here, although you might just be trolling. However, to say that the club has rolled over at the last moment is a big assumption. it's also an assumption to decide that they have failed to defend themselves. Looking at the original article, I can't see anywhere that the club say there is no case against them, they actually say they will be defending against the claim. There may be an acknowledgement that something is owed, but they would be defending against a wrongful claim from benali. For example, if the club believed that the correct payment should be £30k and Benali was demanding £1.5m. All we know is that they settled out of court. If that settlement was for £100k, I would say that a compromise has been reached that is closer to the club's valuation and is possibly cheaper than paying £30k plus the expense of a court case. In that case it would seem that the club were prepared to defend itself so rigourously that Benali decided to take what he could get. Of course it may be that the club believed they should pay nothing, then paid exactly what benali asked for, but from the information given, I don't see how you can make the statements you are making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 They didn't defend themselves, they settled out of court, so either they rolled over or knew they wouldn't win. What do you think it is? They will have defended the proceedings for a trial date to have been set. Thereafter the case, ie both parties settled. You presume that the club folded. They may have done. Equally, Franny and Karen may have settled on terms offered by the club from day one. Truth is, none of us know. Just because a case settles it doesn't mean the claimant caved in. Often a claimant comes to his senses and settles by withdrawing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 The fact is that as with the last case, the club drew it out for as long as possible and then settled at the last minute. If the Adkins case has not already been settled then I suspect we may see a similar outcome there too. sh1t you are a goddamn genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 They didn't defend themselves, they settled out of court, so either they rolled over or knew they wouldn't win. What do you think it is? Another genius who has seen not one, but TWO. I say it again TWO possibilities. (Stands back in awe and wonder) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Well, unlike a few here I wouldn't claim to know what's happened here, although you might just be trolling. However, to say that the club has rolled over at the last moment is a big assumption. it's also an assumption to decide that they have failed to defend themselves. Looking at the original article, I can't see anywhere that the club say there is no case against them, they actually say they will be defending against the claim. There may be an acknowledgement that something is owed, but they would be defending against a wrongful claim from benali. For example, if the club believed that the correct payment should be £30k and Benali was demanding £1.5m. All we know is that they settled out of court. If that settlement was for £100k, I would say that a compromise has been reached that is closer to the club's valuation and is possibly cheaper than paying £30k plus the expense of a court case. In that case it would seem that the club were prepared to defend itself so rigourously that Benali decided to take what he could get. Of course it may be that the club believed they should pay nothing, then paid exactly what benali asked for, but from the information given, I don't see how you can make the statements you are making. We do have the figures Benali was after, I remember discussing them in detail the last time this came around, and if someone else can be bothered to find them... it still won't have any bearing on Turkish's point, which is that the club repeatedly has engaged in litigation and then settled out of court... for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Yeah, better to go to Court and have someone slag off the club in public. Thats better for the reputation. the whole ugly episode was in the public domain already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 sh1t you are a goddamn genius Having spoken to franny and knowing what sort of person he is I have come to the conclusion that the club (cortese) have been unreasonable over this. Can you say the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Cunning Stunts Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Having spoken to franny and knowing what sort of person he is I have come to the conclusion that the club (cortese) have been unreasonable over this. Can you say the same? Yes, I know Franny and speak to him regularly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Having spoken to franny and knowing what sort of person he is I have come to the conclusion that the club (cortese) have been unreasonable over this. Can you say the same? Do you know actual facts or are you combining what Franny had told you with your assumptions/prejudices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 We do have the figures Benali was after, I remember discussing them in detail the last time this came around, and if someone else can be bothered to find them... it still won't have any bearing on Turkish's point, which is that the club repeatedly has engaged in litigation and then settled out of court... for some reason. Yes, but maybe because they got the deal that was in their favour. Why are so many people assuming that the club is settling in a way that isn't in their favour? they might be doing a very good job of playing hardball and forcing people to give up their court cases and doing deals that the club favours. I have no idea, but I don't understand why Turkish and some others feel they do have all the facts. I can't see where they are available and without them, we just don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Well, unlike a few here I wouldn't claim to know what's happened here, although you might just be trolling. However, to say that the club has rolled over at the last moment is a big assumption. it's also an assumption to decide that they have failed to defend themselves. Looking at the original article, I can't see anywhere that the club say there is no case against them, they actually say they will be defending against the claim. There may be an acknowledgement that something is owed, but they would be defending against a wrongful claim from benali. For example, if the club believed that the correct payment should be £30k and Benali was demanding £1.5m. All we know is that they settled out of court. If that settlement was for £100k, I would say that a compromise has been reached that is closer to the club's valuation and is possibly cheaper than paying £30k plus the expense of a court case. In that case it would seem that the club were prepared to defend itself so rigourously that Benali decided to take what he could get. Of course it may be that the club believed they should pay nothing, then paid exactly what benali asked for, but from the information given, I don't see how you can make the statements you are making. But this seems to be Saints MO for all legal action - wait to just before the court case and then try to settle - you can see a pattern here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggles31 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Yeah I know Franny too, apparently Cortese left skids in the loo, bread crumbs on the kitchen surface and drinks without coasters on his new pine dining table. Franny hadn't seen such devastation since his daughter hosted a sleep over. Outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Yes, but maybe because they got the deal that was in their favour. Why are so many people assuming that the club is settling in a way that isn't in their favour? they might be doing a very good job of playing hardball and forcing people to give up their court cases and doing deals that the club favours. I have no idea, but I don't understand why Turkish and some others feel they do have all the facts. I can't see where they are available and without them, we just don't know. In the club's favour? Part of this case was for damage caused by Cortese to Benali's house - how can paying any money out of SFC's coffers in such an instance be considered in the club's favour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Yes, but maybe because they got the deal that was in their favour. Why are so many people assuming that the club is settling in a way that isn't in their favour? they might be doing a very good job of playing hardball and forcing people to give up their court cases and doing deals that the club favours. I have no idea, but I don't understand why Turkish and some others feel they do have all the facts. I can't see where they are available and without them, we just don't know. Indeed, a man with a brain. Franny may have been taking the p1ss. He may not. I'm unaware of any facts of any dispute. However, Cortese is a businessman. Does anyone really think that we go around avoiding our obligations whilst wasting money on lawyers defending claims that we can't win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 But this seems to be Saints MO for all legal action - wait to just before the court case and then try to settle - you can see a pattern here. Indeed. It certainly doesn't look good from the outside. And only an imbecile would argue that settling out of court is a better option that not facing legal action in the first case. On multiple occasions. With the same outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Yes, but maybe because they got the deal that was in their favour. Why are so many people assuming that the club is settling in a way that isn't in their favour? they might be doing a very good job of playing hardball and forcing people to give up their court cases and doing deals that the club favours. I have no idea, but I don't understand why Turkish and some others feel they do have all the facts. I can't see where they are available and without them, we just don't know. No one's assuming the club haven't settled in a way that's suitable to them, I think the implication is that it generally is a morally poor way to do business as a matter of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 But this seems to be Saints MO for all legal action - wait to just before the court case and then try to settle - you can see a pattern here. See my next post. In the club's favour? Part of this case was for damage caused by Cortese to Benali's house - how can paying any money out of SFC's coffers in such an instance be considered in the club's favour? as I posted, the club may accept a payment is due, but seem to be disputing the claim. As I explained in my first post, if the settlement was far closer to the club's estimate, that would be what you would call "in the club's favour". Again, I have no idea what the actual situation is. What I am pointing out is that others are jumping in saying the club has caved, but that's not what we know from the information made public. If information is later released showing that Benali got what he wanted, fair enough, but otherwise, we can just as well assume that the club paid what they thought was due and no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 May, 2013 Share Posted 8 May, 2013 Indeed, a man with a brain. Franny may have been taking the p1ss. He may not. I'm unaware of any facts of any dispute. However, Cortese is a businessman. Does anyone really think that we go around avoiding our obligations whilst wasting money on lawyers defending claims that we can't win? I'm fairly sure it was the consensus previously that Benali was at least pushing his luck with the size of the claim. But I'd also say the bit in bold seems to be a fairly regular occurrence, whether it requires the lawyer involvement or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now