Saints settle out of court with Franny

[Batman]

My personal opinion is that how the club treats local businesses, club legends and fans is just as important as success on the pitch. It is possible to have both as well. I appreciate though that for some this will not be the case and they do not give a toss how the club behaves as long as we win.

 

do you boycot the club in any way?

[Turkish]

And where does this stuff rank in importance -compared to the things you're more critical of?

 

If you care about how the club is perceived and its reputation these things are important. If you want a club that tramples over everyone then they don't matter.

[shurlock]

And I doubt you'll find anyone who'll disagree with that. Which makes it all the more baffling when you know that as soon something like this happens again with the club not exactly appearing to be a shining light of integrity that any comments reflecting on it will again be treated with the "anti-Cortese agenda" horsesh*t from the regular brigade.

 

Which makes it baffling that, empirically, the number of critical posts and the tone of those posts far exceed the number of complimentary posts. And by a long margin.

Baffling really when in the abstract the views expressed above should lead one to moderate or temper one's position.

There are plenty of posters on here who hold similar views to those expressed above while they are also very critical of club's handling of various issues. However, they do not end up holding positions that Turkish regularly adopts.

[shurlock]

My personal opinion is that how the club treats local businesses, club legends and fans is just as important as success on the pitch. It is possible to have both as well. I appreciate though that for some this will not be the case and they do not give a toss how the club behaves as long as we win.

 

Which is fair enough and I agree that some, though not all behavior off the pitch is very important, and not because in some convoluted, cynical way its going to hurt the bottom line.

[egg]

What i dont want to see if my club treating local business and people with distain and in court and the media for these reasons.

 

 

If there was evidence that we had done so I would agree with you. The problem is, and the sole reason for me getting uppity about it, is that nobody has a clue that we have actually treated Franny badly. Indeed, the only "facts" on this thread suggest that Franny was being a little over zealous in his claim and that the club stood it's ground before settling the case.

 

There's nothing factual in the public domain which suggests that the club behaved badly in this case, and thus nothing to support what you say.

[The Kraken]

Which makes it baffling that, empirically, the number of critical posts and the tone of those posts far exceed the number of complimentary posts. And by a long margin.

Baffling really when in the abstract the views expressed above should lead one to moderate or temper one's position.

There are plenty of posters on here who hold similar views to those expressed above while they are also very critical of club's handling of various issues. However, they do not end up holding positions that Turkish regularly adopts.

 

The focal point of comment on this site is about the team. And, being responsible for that team, being on the transfer committee, and praise of our on-field achievements is spread around the club to whoever is involved in its creation. Cortese sits at the head of that tree and has overwhelmingly got more things right than wrong, you'd be a lunatic to suggest otherwise. That's all a given. Other parts of the job aren't reflected by the team, but by what we read in the papers about the club and other genuine ITK info and rumour. Some of it has been good and rightly praised by many; some hasn't and has been rightly criticised.

 

I don't know what "position" you refer to of Turkish; but he's right that there's definitely an undercurrent from many posters on here who don't want to discuss some of the bad things along with the good, which is often what causes genuine comment to descend into bickering.

[Batman]

The focal point of comment on this site is about the team. And, being responsible for that team, being on the transfer committee, and praise of our on-field achievements is spread around the club to whoever is involved in its creation. Cortese sits at the head of that tree and has overwhelmingly got more things right than wrong, you'd be a lunatic to suggest otherwise. That's all a given. Other parts of the job aren't reflected by the team, but by what we read in the papers about the club and other genuine ITK info and rumour. Some of it has been good and rightly praised by many; some hasn't and has been rightly criticised.

 

I don't know what "position" you refer to of Turkish; but he's right that there's definitely an undercurrent from many posters on here who don't want to discuss some of the bad things along with the good, which is often what causes genuine comment to descend into bickering.

 

there are plenty of people (which is evident) that just dont care enough about such issues

[The Kraken]

If there was evidence that we had done so I would agree with you. The problem is, and the sole reason for me getting uppity about it, is that nobody has a clue that we have actually treated Franny badly. Indeed, the only "facts" on this thread suggest that Franny was being a little over zealous in his claim and that the club stood it's ground before settling the case.

 

There's nothing factual in the public domain which suggests that the club behaved badly in this case, and thus nothing to support what you say.

 

Why are you getting so uppity about it though? What difference to some comments on here really make to SFC? Some people have their views on it, and some are quite entrenched with them. Some like you have an opposite view. just accept that some people view this quite badly, some don't.

[egg]

Why are you getting so uppity about it though? What difference to some comments on here really make to SFC? Some people have their views on it, and some are quite entrenched with them. Some like you have an opposite view. just accept that some people view this quite badly, some don't.

 

I couldn't care less whether we are at fault or Franny is. I have no opinion on it because I don't know the facts.

 

I get uppity because alleged fans assume that because we settle a claim that we are a terrible club who treat people badly.

 

I just don't get why people jump to such stupid conclusions without any knowledge of the facts.

[The Kraken]

I couldn't care less whether we are at fault or Franny is. I have no opinion on it because I don't know the facts.

 

I get uppity because alleged fans assume that because we settle a claim that we are a terrible club who treat people badly.

 

I just don't get why people jump to such stupid conclusions without any knowledge of the facts.

 

But does it really matter so much that other people hold a different opinion to you? Just accept that others have a different opinion that you might not agree with. I don't agree with your side of it, but I respect that its your choice to ignore all other similar recent confrontation the club has had (legal and otherwise) and judge this solely on the few things you know to be 100% true. On the flip side, others choose to highlight a bit of a worrying pattern.

 

Its a mongboard. Of course people are going to talk about rumour and conjecture in the absence of the full story. It would be a thoroughly dull and dismal board if it only dealt in facts. "Who do you think we'll sign this summer?" "Well I wouldn't like jump to any conclusions without any knowledge of the facts so I won't comment". that would just be a bit weird.

[Bearsy]

why r you getting so wound up bout egg having a different opinion to you krakens? Can't you just accept his opinions bout other peoples opinions is different to ur opinions bout other peoples opinions?

[egg]

But does it really matter so much that other people hold a different opinion to you? Just accept that others have a different opinion that you might not agree with. I don't agree with your side of it, but I respect that its your choice to ignore all other similar recent confrontation the club has had (legal and otherwise) and judge this solely on the few things you know to be 100% true. On the flip side, others choose to highlight a bit of a worrying pattern.

 

Its a mongboard. Of course people are going to talk about rumour and conjecture in the absence of the full story. It would be a thoroughly dull and dismal board if it only dealt in facts. "Who do you think we'll sign this summer?" "Well I wouldn't like jump to any conclusions without any knowledge of the facts so I won't comment". that would just be a bit weird.

But I don't have an opinion, that's the point!

 

It's the fans criticising the club without knowing what, if anything, they've done wrong. It's nuts.

[The Kraken]

why r you getting so wound up bout egg having a different opinion to you krakens? Can't you just accept his opinions bout other peoples opinions is different to ur opinions bout other peoples opinions?

I do Bear, I do. I embrace a wide spectrum of opinion (apart from Alpine and Dalek's, of course).

[Bearsy]

i know you do kraks, i was just trollin!

 

my opinion is 93% of all house rentals end up with some sort of dispute with landlord trying to charge for semen stained carpets or whatever. Notwithstanding it is also my opinions that cortese is massive helmet, but more important is v.good football chairmans!

[Turkish]

If there was evidence that we had done so I would agree with you. The problem is, and the sole reason for me getting uppity about it, is that nobody has a clue that we have actually treated Franny badly. Indeed, the only "facts" on this thread suggest that Franny was being a little over zealous in his claim and that the club stood it's ground before settling the case.

 

There's nothing factual in the public domain which suggests that the club behaved badly in this case, and thus nothing to support what you say.

 

Really? Even the stanchest defender of Cortese on this one accepts that Benali was entitled to something, be it £3 or £300,000 it seems that it seems that it the amounts which are in dispute. If Benali was owed, even a pound, does that not suggest something was wrong? As for the other case I linked, well the judge ordered the club to pay up and slammed them for waiting until the day before to reveal they wouldn't be attending court. I take it you don't consider this wrong doing either?

Edited 9 May, 2013 by Turkish

[Turkish]

Which makes it baffling that, empirically, the number of critical posts and the tone of those posts far exceed the number of complimentary posts. And by a long margin.

Baffling really when in the abstract the views expressed above should lead one to moderate or temper one's position.

There are plenty of posters on here who hold similar views to those expressed above while they are also very critical of club's handling of various issues. However, they do not end up holding positions that Turkish regularly adopts.

 

I'm not sure what position I regularly adopt that you're referring to. Whenever I post anything positive it won't elicit a response from here and why would it? It'll just be one of many positive comments on a positive thread.

 

However when its criticism of the club or chairman then the 'anti saints agenda' brigade pipe up. Only this week you told me i was 'talking sh*t as usual' on a comment which most other people seemed to agree with, maybe its the position you adopt against me that clouds your judgement? The posts will provoke a debate and the usual trolling, anti club, anti Cortese comments are made, so naturally a supposed negative post will get more of a reaction from the forum and from me in response. Obviously the 'negative' posts will outweigh the positive ones by a large margin purely for this reason. What sort of a debate is a 'hats off to Cortese for sorting this out, great news' post going to create on a thread full of gushing praise?

 

A lot of people on here cannot bear to hear anything negative said about the club and if it does then they react angrily to it. I don't like seeing my club portrayed negatively in the press like it has been and involved in court cases. I really don't understand what is wrong with that position I regularly adopt, how is it a good thing? rather than blaming everyone else other than the club for it, the media, the courts, the big mouth ex players, the anti Saints agendas and only believing what i want to be true, ill look a bit closer to home and believe that maybe, just maybe, it isn't all everyone else's fault all the time.

Edited 9 May, 2013 by Turkish

[norwaysaint]

Why are you getting so uppity about it though? What difference to some comments on here really make to SFC? Some people have their views on it, and some are quite entrenched with them. Some like you have an opposite view. just accept that some people view this quite badly, some don't.

 

It's getting a little bit silly and tiresome that every time somebody's getting the better of you in a discussion, you feel the need to say that they are taking everything more seriously than you, or they're uppity or emotional. It's not the first time you've done it even on this thread, with no clear sign of anyone being anything of the sort. Either you're over-analysing what people post or it's silly trolling. As somebody who get over involved in just about every difference of opinion on this board, I don't think you're in a position to comment on how involved other people are. You have certainly never managed to let other people's differing opinions pass without some kind of sneering comment or prolonged argument.

 

Like most others, I accept that the club could be in the wrong here, nobody's denied that. it's certainly been silly that Turkish and a few others have gone on about people "defending the club". Most comments he's referring to have done nothing of the sort, they've merely stressed that the situation as we know it doesn't necessarily mean what he has unwaveringly stated that it does (the club caved in without defending itself). That may have happened, but there could be many other reasons already explained at length. Egg and others have not defended the club, they've reacted to the usual forum know-it-alls who, once again, have decided they know exactly what's happened and are unable to accept that the evidence leaves room for several possibilities. Try showing a little humility now and then.

 

I keep seeing comments about it being a pattern, well, I've also often read in the past about how the club refuses to back down and compromise, playing hardball in every deal, so while happily accepting the possibility that your scenario is right, I'll also entertain the possibility that in this case they may have played hardball with Benali and they may have got the result they wanted, that would also fit the pattern.

 

Here's an example of why I think it might not be so simple. When my house was being built for me, one of the contractors did a bad job with something, then charged me for it, he tried to take me to court when I refused to pay and i told him I'd happily defend myself in court. In the end we settled it out of court, I didn't pay him for that work and he came around and fixed what he'd messed up, i actually ended up with some extra work being done free of charge because he'd done work i hadn't asked him (I would've, but I couldn't afford it at the time)to and i refused to pay for it. I suppose the know-it-all brigade would say I caved and didn't defend myself? Only after this agreement did I pay him the money I did owe him for other jobs, when he sent me the correct bill.

 

For the record, I think it was stupid of the club with respect to the other court case and i can't see any good reason for how they behaved, but they don't really seem similar issues to me. I have no particular love for Cortese, I don't think anyone has described him as like-able or charismatic, I don't even necessarily consider it a positive thing if the club did play hardball and get their own way. I just get tired of the posters who think they know everything. People like that are annoying in real life and annoying here.

 

I think i'll make that my last input on this thread before Kraken gets upset about my emotional involvement.

[The Kraken]

"Getting the better of you in a discussion". What does that even mean? How can someone get the better of an opinion that someone holds? Its like trying to say somebody is wrong for having a favourite food, or a favourite colour. What a funny thing to suggest. And what a strange desire you have if you go out to "get the better of someone in a discussion". Seems quite closed minded to me. To each their own I suppose.

[Batman]

It's getting a little bit silly and tiresome that every time somebody's getting the better of you in a discussion, you feel the need to say that they are taking everything more seriously than you, or they're uppity or emotional. It's not the first time you've done it even on this thread, with no clear sign of anyone being anything of the sort. Either you're over-analysing what people post or it's silly trolling. As somebody who get over involved in just about every difference of opinion on this board, I don't think you're in a position to comment on how involved other people are. You have certainly never managed to let other people's differing opinions pass without some kind of sneering comment or prolonged argument.

 

Like most others, I accept that the club could be in the wrong here, nobody's denied that. it's certainly been silly that Turkish and a few others have gone on about people "defending the club". Most comments he's referring to have done nothing of the sort, they've merely stressed that the situation as we know it doesn't necessarily mean what he has unwaveringly stated that it does (the club caved in without defending itself). That may have happened, but there could be many other reasons already explained at length. Egg and others have not defended the club, they've reacted to the usual forum know-it-alls who, once again, have decided they know exactly what's happened and are unable to accept that the evidence leaves room for several possibilities. Try showing a little humility now and then.

 

I keep seeing comments about it being a pattern, well, I've also often read in the past about how the club refuses to back down and compromise, playing hardball in every deal, so while happily accepting the possibility that your scenario is right, I'll also entertain the possibility that in this case they may have played hardball with Benali and they may have got the result they wanted, that would also fit the pattern.

 

Here's an example of why I think it might not be so simple. When my house was being built for me, one of the contractors did a bad job with something, then charged me for it, he tried to take me to court when I refused to pay and i told him I'd happily defend myself in court. In the end we settled it out of court, I didn't pay him for that work and he came around and fixed what he'd messed up, i actually ended up with some extra work being done free of charge because he'd done work i hadn't asked him (I would've, but I couldn't afford it at the time)to and i refused to pay for it. I suppose the know-it-all brigade would say I caved and didn't defend myself? Only after this agreement did I pay him the money I did owe him for other jobs, when he sent me the correct bill.

 

For the record, I think it was stupid of the club with respect to the other court case and i can't see any good reason for how they behaved, but they don't really seem similar issues to me. I have no particular love for Cortese, I don't think anyone has described him as like-able or charismatic, I don't even necessarily consider it a positive thing if the club did play hardball and get their own way. I just get tired of the posters who think they know everything. People like that are annoying in real life and annoying here.

 

I think i'll make that my last input on this thread before Kraken gets upset about my emotional involvement.

 

very well said

[egg]

It's getting a little bit silly and tiresome that every time somebody's getting the better of you in a discussion, you feel the need to say that they are taking everything more seriously than you, or they're uppity or emotional. It's not the first time you've done it even on this thread, with no clear sign of anyone being anything of the sort. Either you're over-analysing what people post or it's silly trolling. As somebody who get over involved in just about every difference of opinion on this board, I don't think you're in a position to comment on how involved other people are. You have certainly never managed to let other people's differing opinions pass without some kind of sneering comment or prolonged argument.

 

Like most others, I accept that the club could be in the wrong here, nobody's denied that. it's certainly been silly that Turkish and a few others have gone on about people "defending the club". Most comments he's referring to have done nothing of the sort, they've merely stressed that the situation as we know it doesn't necessarily mean what he has unwaveringly stated that it does (the club caved in without defending itself). That may have happened, but there could be many other reasons already explained at length. Egg and others have not defended the club, they've reacted to the usual forum know-it-alls who, once again, have decided they know exactly what's happened and are unable to accept that the evidence leaves room for several possibilities. Try showing a little humility now and then.

 

I keep seeing comments about it being a pattern, well, I've also often read in the past about how the club refuses to back down and compromise, playing hardball in every deal, so while happily accepting the possibility that your scenario is right, I'll also entertain the possibility that in this case they may have played hardball with Benali and they may have got the result they wanted, that would also fit the pattern.

 

Here's an example of why I think it might not be so simple. When my house was being built for me, one of the contractors did a bad job with something, then charged me for it, he tried to take me to court when I refused to pay and i told him I'd happily defend myself in court. In the end we settled it out of court, I didn't pay him for that work and he came around and fixed what he'd messed up, i actually ended up with some extra work being done free of charge because he'd done work i hadn't asked him (I would've, but I couldn't afford it at the time)to and i refused to pay for it. I suppose the know-it-all brigade would say I caved and didn't defend myself? Only after this agreement did I pay him the money I did owe him for other jobs, when he sent me the correct bill.

 

For the record, I think it was stupid of the club with respect to the other court case and i can't see any good reason for how they behaved, but they don't really seem similar issues to me. I have no particular love for Cortese, I don't think anyone has described him as like-able or charismatic, I don't even necessarily consider it a positive thing if the club did play hardball and get their own way. I just get tired of the posters who think they know everything. People like that are annoying in real life and annoying here.

 

I think i'll make that my last input on this thread before Kraken gets upset about my emotional involvement.

 

very well said

 

Agreed.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

It's getting a little bit silly and tiresome that every time somebody's getting the better of you in a discussion, you feel the need to say that they are taking everything more seriously than you, or they're uppity or emotional. It's not the first time you've done it even on this thread, with no clear sign of anyone being anything of the sort. Either you're over-analysing what people post or it's silly trolling. As somebody who get over involved in just about every difference of opinion on this board, I don't think you're in a position to comment on how involved other people are. You have certainly never managed to let other people's differing opinions pass without some kind of sneering comment or prolonged argument.

 

Like most others, I accept that the club could be in the wrong here, nobody's denied that. it's certainly been silly that Turkish and a few others have gone on about people "defending the club". Most comments he's referring to have done nothing of the sort, they've merely stressed that the situation as we know it doesn't necessarily mean what he has unwaveringly stated that it does (the club caved in without defending itself). That may have happened, but there could be many other reasons already explained at length. Egg and others have not defended the club, they've reacted to the usual forum know-it-alls who, once again, have decided they know exactly what's happened and are unable to accept that the evidence leaves room for several possibilities. Try showing a little humility now and then.

 

I keep seeing comments about it being a pattern, well, I've also often read in the past about how the club refuses to back down and compromise, playing hardball in every deal, so while happily accepting the possibility that your scenario is right, I'll also entertain the possibility that in this case they may have played hardball with Benali and they may have got the result they wanted, that would also fit the pattern.

 

Here's an example of why I think it might not be so simple. When my house was being built for me, one of the contractors did a bad job with something, then charged me for it, he tried to take me to court when I refused to pay and i told him I'd happily defend myself in court. In the end we settled it out of court, I didn't pay him for that work and he came around and fixed what he'd messed up, i actually ended up with some extra work being done free of charge because he'd done work i hadn't asked him (I would've, but I couldn't afford it at the time)to and i refused to pay for it. I suppose the know-it-all brigade would say I caved and didn't defend myself? Only after this agreement did I pay him the money I did owe him for other jobs, when he sent me the correct bill.

 

For the record, I think it was stupid of the club with respect to the other court case and i can't see any good reason for how they behaved, but they don't really seem similar issues to me. I have no particular love for Cortese, I don't think anyone has described him as like-able or charismatic, I don't even necessarily consider it a positive thing if the club did play hardball and get their own way. I just get tired of the posters who think they know everything. People like that are annoying in real life and annoying here.

 

I think i'll make that my last input on this thread before Kraken gets upset about my emotional involvement.

 

Norwaysaint wins the thread.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Really? Even the stanchest defender of Cortese on this one accepts that Benali was entitled to something, be it £3 or £300,000 it seems that it seems that it the amounts which are in dispute. If Benali was owed, even a pound, does that not suggest something was wrong? As for the other case I linked, well the judge ordered the club to pay up and slammed them for waiting until the day before to reveal they wouldn't be attending court. I take it you don't consider this wrong doing either?

 

Not necessarily, as I seem to remember hearing the amount also included outstanding rent for the last month. Potentially Benali sent the club a final bill which included his quote for 'damage' and the last months rent. The club were happy to pay the rent, but weren't happy to pay the quoted 'damage'.

 

This is only hypothetical though, like the rest of this thread as no-one knows.

[The9]

The club did defend its position, hence the case was listed for trial. The case then settled. The club/case would not need to proceed to trial if sensible terms are agreed as appears to have happened here.

 

In which case, why, when "the club" also used the existence of a legal case by Benali as a stick to beat he and Le Tissier with, did they agree to any kind of settlement ? By waiting for the legal action to be raised and then paying up they're basically accepting there was a need for the case to be brought, so their criticism of Le Tissier and Benali for having the temerity to challenge the club legally is groundless.

[The9]

Not necessarily, as I seem to remember hearing the amount also included outstanding rent for the last month. Potentially Benali sent the club a final bill which included his quote for 'damage' and the last months rent. The club were happy to pay the rent, but weren't happy to pay the quoted 'damage'.

 

This is only hypothetical though, like the rest of this thread as no-one knows.

 

Benali's claims in the original court case are lengthy and detailed, and the claims don't come across as a work of fiction (they also tie up with the number of Saints matches he could have been ambassador for but was refused entry) - however the total amount he was claiming didn't seem to accurately reflect these costs or the cost of reparations.

 

According to the original claim he was already getting shafted on the rent in the December (no written agreement), they met and had an agreement drawn up, with Cortese then shifting the full cost onto Saints (via the ambassador minimum payments) where he'd previously been paying part himself, and it was the summer before the house was vacated. There were additional instances of underpayment in that time.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

In which case, why, when "the club" also used the existence of a legal case by Benali as a stick to beat he and Le Tissier with, did they agree to any kind of settlement ? By waiting for the legal action to be raised and then paying up they're basically accepting there was a need for the case to be brought, so their criticism of Le Tissier and Benali for having the temerity to challenge the club legally is groundless.

 

But Saints may have wanted the case to be brought up so they could ensure that the correct amount for the work was paid, and not necessarily the amount the claimant wanted.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Benali's claims in the original court case are lengthy and detailed, and the claims don't come across as a work of fiction (they also tie up with the number of Saints matches he could have been ambassador for but was refused entry) - however the total amount he was claiming didn't seem to accurately reflect these costs or the cost of reparations.

 

According to the original claim he was already getting shafted on the rent in the December (no written agreement), they met and had an agreement drawn up, with Cortese then shifting the full cost onto Saints (via the ambassador minimum payments) where he'd previously been paying part himself, and it was the summer before the house was vacated. There were additional instances of underpayment in that time.

 

I just think people are jumping to conclusions in assuming that because the club settled out of court they're admitting guilt, whereas it could be Benali backing down as he thought he would lose the case.

[Saint Benali]

In case anyone missed it Benali's company was liquidated in March and he has debts he must now pay. He sold his house to help with this.

 

So think it is safe to say he would of been the more likely in wanting to reach an agreement due to his financial situation.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

In case anyone missed it Benali's company was liquidated in March and he has debts he must now pay. He sold his house to help with this.

 

So think it is safe to say he would of been the more likely in wanting to reach an agreement due to his financial situation.

 

Fair point.