Topic: Blackpool Owners Suing Fan Forum and a 67 years old fan

[TheRevanchist]

This might be my first thread in RAWK. I hope that there isn't nothing wrong with the topic of this thread. Anyway, found this worth talking about:

Frank Knight is a 67 year old Blackpool fan who has been sued for £20,000 by club chairman Karl Oyston for comments made online questioning the way his club is being ran.

Frank has followed Blackpool over 40 years and has apologised for for his passionate online rant, witnessed by all 34 of his online friends on Facebook, and fully retracted his statements.

Despite this the Oyston family, worth over £100m, will be claiming £20,000 from Mr. Knight. A lot of money for anyone, especially a 67 year old, retired OAP.

It would be great if football fans world wide could help the common fan pay off his debt to the Oyston's for being guilty of caring passionately about his football club and having serious concerns on how it's run. Thank you for your time

So, this comes only a day or so after the same person sued an online forum for the same reasons.

http://www.gofundme.com/s5bbb8r

Thoughts on this?

NB: If there is something wrong, I could delete the thread (or a mod can do so).

[Blinis]

There is very little information, we don't know what has been written, so we can't measure the extent of the prejudice - if a court of law thought that it was enough to give a £20k fine, it must be serious.

I tend to think that suing a fan who has apologised is too much, but I can understand how owners of football clubs get tired of being dragged into the mud every time something bad happens (or doesn't, because when nothing seems to be happening you'll find people arguing whether the club PR is good or not).

By the way, is it legal in the UK to collect money from other to pay a fine? I ask that because in France, where I am from, it is not: it is considered as if you were asking somebody else go to jail for you.

[TheRevanchist]

There is very little information, we don't know what has been written, so we can't measure the extent of the prejudice - if a court of law thought that it was enough to give a £20k fine, it must be serious. I tend to think that suing a fan who has apologised is too much, but I can understand how owners of football clubs get tired of being dragged into the mud every time something happens (or doesn't, because when nothing seems to be happening you'll find people arguing whether the club PR is good or not).

By the way, is it legal in the UK to collect money from other to pay a fine? I ask that because in France, where I am from, it is not: it is considered as if you were asking somebody else go to jail for you.

Yep, that's what looked weird to me. Same about suing the football forum. No idea how there might be something into it, considering that every day in pretty much every football forum we see people who make 'not nice' comments about other people.

[Miltonred]

Without knowing what was said, its hard to be definitive. However a court of law has seen what was said and found in favour of Oyston, and another fan who had also withdrawn comments about the Oystons said this:
 On 30 January another fan, Stephen Sharpe, apologised to the Oystons over his online comments, withdrawing his posts after accepting they were "false, defamatory and, in some cases, threatening".

One can only imagine something similar applies to the statements in question.

While Oyston is clearly wealthy enough that the award is virtually meaningless to him, I still believe that he should be able to call upon the protection of the law when a person makes comment that go beyond a mere opinion on his ownership of the club. Being poor does not mean you can say whatever the fuck you like without impunity.

[MichaelA]

The Oyston family own Blackpool Football Club. Anyone living in the north of England is probably aware of the convicted rapist Owen Oyston, and maybe aware of his litigious son Karl, who has extracted an apology and £20k in damages from a pensioner who had abused them on Facebook. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his comments (which I am not privy too, and have been removed), this is an excessive reaction from a Club owner.

Having moderated the RAWK forums for over ten years, I've seen the way in which these comments can be damaging and hurtful to the intended recipient; and there have been many occasions when the moderating team have scrambled to remove something libellous, scandalous, salacious or illegal. Most times, comments have been made without thought or consideration for the consequences, and I've been astonished by how ignorant people can be about comments that they make online and how they can affect you in the real world. My first issue with this case is that it demonstrates the need for caution from people using social media like Facebook and forums. The case law currently available is making a mockery of the reality on the ground - there needs to be greater clarity around social media and the law, and the general public also need to accept responsibility for their actions.

Second issue, and slightly contradicting the above is that football is a grown up game, and running a football club (or even a football club fan site) requires a degree of pragmatism when it comes to receiving abuse about their behaviour or decisions. I know nothing about Frank Knight, and he may well be appalling, and he may have said something appalling, and he maybe even said something really really appalling that I would be massively offended by if I read it (he probably did). However, this is beyond the specific case of one man. It represents an abuse of power and privilege in modern football that I find irritating.

My sympathies do remain with genuine Blackpool fans who have to put up with such an unsympathetic regime at their Club. Maybe relegation could rid of them of the Oystons, but it's a hell of a price to pay...especially if Preston are promoted.

Anyway, I've bunged a tenner in the pot to pay the fine, and so have several hundred others.

Mind how you go, Karl might be watching. 

[robgomm]

I hope this gets past the RAWK lawyers:

Karl Oyston is a twat.

[Caligula?]

Unless he made some sort of threat, displayed racist/xenophobic/sexist/whatever beahvior and or slandered Oyston, on what grounds can he be sued? Is there no such thing as freedom of speech in the UK protected under law?

Genuine question as I'm not from there, I lived in the United States for many years and this probably would never get past a judge in court, let alone warrent such a fine.

[phil_1010]

Worth noting that this was an out of court settlement; no judge has listened to the evidence.

[CHOPPER]

Mick A's putting this site at risk. Shame on you.

Someone give Pansy a nudge...........

[Banquo's Ghost]

Unless he made some sort of threat, displayed racist/xenophobic/sexist/whatever beahvior and or slandered Oyston, on what grounds can he be sued? Is there no such thing as freedom of speech in the UK protected under law?

Genuine question as I'm not from there, I lived in the United States for many years and this probably would never get past a judge in court, let alone warrent such a fine.

We have nothing resembling the First Amendment in the UK. Noting that our constitution is not written, but based on precedent and the concept of common law, freedom of expression has long been considered a common law right. With the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights via the Human Rights Act, there is now a statutory basis for freedom of expression, but it's horribly convoluted by the existence of long precedence peculiar to the UK.

For centuries, we got along with common law forming the idea of British tolerance. However, the rich and powerful have always been able to access (and influence the law) more easily than the ordinary subject - which is why the UK courts are the venue of choice for libel actions brought by the rich. In the modern world of communications, the system that worked (by and large) through common consent (which is really all the common law is) has veered very substantially towards the powerful.

Article 10 of the ECHR doesn't particularly help either. Of course, the US Supreme Court has often wrestled with the opposite issue - hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric are protected rights - but where does one's right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre begin and end? In the modern world of anonymous posting, Twitter and other internet forums, questions of limit and jurisdiction are deeply concerning, let alone state invasion of privacy.

In this case, there is no access to what was written by the defendant (and couldn't be, if the court has declared it defamatory, as repeating it would compound the defamation) so we are reduced to speculating and trusting the court's decision.

[Millie]

We have nothing resembling the First Amendment in the UK. Noting that our constitution is not written, but based on precedent and the concept of common law, freedom of expression has long been considered a common law right. With the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights via the Human Rights Act, there is now a statutory basis for freedom of expression, but it's horribly convoluted by the existence of long precedence peculiar to the UK.

For centuries, we got along with common law forming the idea of British tolerance. However, the rich and powerful have always been able to access (and influence the law) more easily than the ordinary subject - which is why the UK courts are the venue of choice for libel actions brought by the rich. In the modern world of communications, the system that worked (by and large) through common consent (which is really all the common law is) has veered very substantially towards the powerful.

Article 10 of the ECHR doesn't particularly help either. Of course, the US Supreme Court has often wrestled with the opposite issue - hate speech and inflammatory rhetoric are protected rights - but where does one's right to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre begin and end? In the modern world of anonymous posting, Twitter and other internet forums, questions of limit and jurisdiction are deeply concerning, let alone state invasion of privacy.

In this case, there is no access to what was written by the defendant (and couldn't be, if the court has declared it defamatory, as repeating it would compound the defamation) so we are reduced to speculating and trusting the court's decision.

This case did not get to Court - it was an "out of court" settlement.   

[Red Beret]

Worth noting that this was an out of court settlement; no judge has listened to the evidence.

Unless he made some sort of threat, displayed racist/xenophobic/sexist/whatever beahvior and or slandered Oyston, on what grounds can he be sued? Is there no such thing as freedom of speech in the UK protected under law?

Genuine question as I'm not from there, I lived in the United States for many years and this probably would never get past a judge in court, let alone warrent such a fine.

Is it possible then, that if the case had actually been heard it would have been thrown out?  If so, would a possible conclusion be that the owners, knowing this, were still able panic an old geezer into a settlement that may not have been necessary?

[Alan_X]

Is it possible then, that if the case had actually been heard it would have been thrown out?  If so, would a possible conclusion be that the owners, knowing this, were still able panic an old geezer into a settlement that may not have been necessary?

Possible but it's pure speculation without knowing the details. It's also possible to conclude that the case was so cut and dried that it was considered a waste of time to proceed. As RAWK has no money we'd rather not be a test case.

Mike summed it up perfectly well up the page. Will send a tenner.

[hixxstar]

£20,000 raised in 3 days.. 
Fan power.. 

http://www.gofundme.com/s5bbb8r

[DangerScouse]

Brilliant stuff.

[Fordy]

Excellent.

That club is in a mess and their fans need to address the situation.

[mazlo123]

So everyone is blindly supporting this fan without any idea of what he actually said?

[TheRevanchist]

Fantastic!

[MichaelA]

So everyone is blindly supporting this fan without any idea of what he actually said?

I've explained why I donated a couple of quid further back in the thread. I don't think it's an appropriate way for owners to behave, and I don't think that the law around social media and libel is sufficiently clear to land someone, irrespective of their stupidity, with a twenty grand fine.

[B0151?]

So everyone is blindly supporting this fan without any idea of what he actually said?

Everything I've seen has suggested it was a rant about how the club was run

The man couldn't afford to risk fighting it out in court. His comments may have been spot on, you don't know with the bullying tactics of the Oyston's. Quite right he's got support.

Imagine if H&G had took one of ours to court. Imagine if FSG started taking some of their critics to court.

We don't know what was said but it's fairly easy to disagree with the way they've handled a Facebook rant from a 67 year old pensioner with 34 friends.

[Arcadian]

Unfortunately we have no idea what was said beyond that it was an auld fella ranting at the Oystons.

While I'm not condoning the severity of the fine, and it seems particularly harsh given that he has apparently withdrawn his statement, the level of support does amaze me without evidence of what he wrote.

I guess it's a damming indictment indeed when someone can raise that kind of cash in three days irrespective of what they said about you. You'd think the Oystons would get the hint.

[Solomon Grundy]

Blackpool fans despise the Oystens, so it no surprise they managed to raise 20k for the fan even if he has been in the wrong.

[El Denzel Pepito]

Brilliant PR, aye? If JWH did that to anyone on RAWK, for instance, there'd be hell.

[capt k]

Brilliant PR, aye? If JWH did that to anyone on RAWK, for instance, there'd be hell.

Al's relyin on that

[Zeb]

Convicted rapist and registered sex offender Mr.Oyston, and his son, are notoriously litigious. So possibly best just to take this as an interesting development rather than say anything which would put RAWK at risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-34268761

The president of Blackpool Football Club has begun legal action against its owners amid concerns about the alleged transfer of millions of pounds away from the club's accounts.
Businessman Valeri Belokon, who owns a 20% share in the club, claims Karl and Owen Oyston have improperly transferred cash sums to their own companies.

He has issued a claim for "unfair prejudice" at London's High Court.

A spokesman for Blackpool Football Club said there would be "no comment".

Mr Belokon claims millions of pounds were transferred to the Oystons' companies "via unsecured interest-free loans and directors' remuneration payments".

The Latvian businessman launched the action via his company VB Football Assetts on Tuesday.

He has also issued proceedings against the Oystons' company Segesta Ltd, concerning an investment it made in July 2008.

Mr Belokon bought shares in the club in 2006 and was heavily involved in their rise which culminated in promotion to the Premier League in 2010.
But the Tangerines have since suffered two relegations and currently languish second from bottom in English football's third tier.

Blackpool supporters have been involved in demonstrations, match boycotts and social media campaigns in protest at the way the Oyston family runs the club.
Steve Rowland, chairman of Blackpool Supporters' Trust, said it had been in touch with Mr Belokon and were expecting him to take legal action.
Mr Rowland said he understands Mr Belokon has loaned millions to the club.

"He is of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the Oystons have made millions and their businesses have profited, and that that money hasn't all gone into the footballing side of the business," he said.

"I suspect he's reached the stage where he would like to have more of a say in the boardroom, and if that's not possible I think he would like to take his money and go."

[Hij]

Convicted rapist and registered sex offender Mr.Oyston, and his son, are notoriously litigious.

The horrible crime he did withstanding, that's a brilliant sentence.

[Buggy Eyes Alfredo]

He does not speak often publicly but Karl Oyston gave a short interview on Radio Lancashire.

"At the moment there is no appetite to sell, there is no appetite to leave."

"There is a massive appetite to deal with the problems we've got on and off the pitch."

"The 'on the pitch' ones are hopefully well on the way to repair and stability. The off-field problems, in some cases, may be repairable. In some cases, they may not."

"I think I've made some pretty poor decisions and bad mistakes, not only related to the football but off the field, but it's well documented that I paid the price."

"I was more than happy to apologise for my responses to a supporter via text."

"It's taken a long time, probably a lot longer than I would've thought, and some of the damage will never be fully repaired."

"I've got particularly hostile feelings towards one or two individuals that I think have gone way above and beyond anything that's reasonable, but I think it does no harm for any of us to sit down, go through that and where the other side is coming from."

[Zeb]

The court case I mentioned two years ago has been decided. David Conn is a good follow on Twitter if you're interested - sure he'll follow up in a more traditional form.

The actual judgement is found here: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/vbfa-v-blackpoolfc.pdf

Conn notes that the judge has no hesitation in calling what the Oystons were up to as " the illegitimate stripping of Blackpool FC..., in
conduct that was not in the best interests of the company."

The Oystons now have to buy out the Latvian's stake in the club (worth £31m) with the judge expressing great concern and giving thought on how best to do that without the club being beggared.

As ever with things Oyston, caution useful if you don't want to be sued by a sex offender or his son for tarnishing their reputations.

[Danny Boy]

I went to see my local non-league club (Boreham Wood) knock Blackpool out of the FA Cup on the weekend. Sad state of affairs that they only brought a couple of hundred fans down.

Got to see Jay Spearing in centre-mid though!

[Zeb]

It's a huge shame for their support that they've had to put up with so much after relegation from the Premier League. There may be some hope ahead for them all the same:

The Directors of Blackpool Football Club and Blackpool Football Club Properties are now in a position, following the conclusion of litigation, to market for sale Blackpool Football Club Limited and Blackpool Football Club Properties Limited.

Substantial, external, non-football revenue is a major component of the Properties business.

Expressions of interest should be made to an independent nominee, appointed by the Football Club, who can be contacted via email - independentnominee@blackpoolfc.co.uk 

Following the recent High Court judgment, legal counsel for the respondents have been instructed to apply for leave to appeal elements of the judgment with immediate effect.

In the interim period, as throughout the litigation process, the focus of the Football Club’s board remains on supporting the manager and continuing to negate the impact of off-field issues.

https://www.blackpoolfc.co.uk/news/2017/november/club-statement/

Good luck to their support in getting a decent owner to stabilise things and repair what's gone on there.

[Redsnappa]

 

Ref taken off doing Blackpool v Portsmouth because of his name and the recent Court Case against the Oystons ...

The Ref's name? Ben Toner 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/10/referee-ben-toner-dropped-backpool-oystons

[DHKopper]

Ref taken off doing Blackpool v Portsmouth because of his name and the recent Court Case against the Oystons ...

The Ref's name? Ben Toner 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/10/referee-ben-toner-dropped-backpool-oystons

You couldn't write it 

[FiSh77]

 

should get him to ref a game at goodison

[Nobby Reserve]

Unfortunately we have no idea what was said beyond that it was an auld fella ranting at the Oystons.

While I'm not condoning the severity of the fine, and it seems particularly harsh given that he has apparently withdrawn his statement, the level of support does amaze me without evidence of what he wrote.

I guess it's a damming indictment indeed when someone can raise that kind of cash in three days irrespective of what they said about you. You'd think the Oystons would get the hint.

Joey 'Cockwomble' Barton was sued by the Oystons for defamation after claiming on a radio show that they were 'asset-stripping' the club. He settled out of court with a 5-figure sum.

From what I read on other messageboards at the time, at least one of the people who received legal letters from the Oystons had made a similar allegation. Given the court ruling, I imagine there could be grounds to revisiting the settlements.

[Frank Becton]

Ref taken off doing Blackpool v Portsmouth because of his name and the recent Court Case against the Oystons ...

The Ref's name? Ben Toner 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/10/referee-ben-toner-dropped-backpool-oystons

Brilliant. 

[CornerFlag]

That took me longer to work out than it should have done but that's fucking hilarious!

[Red Bird]

Bloody hell, I'm getting old! That took far longer than it ought to have done but what a marvellous coincidence.

[TepidT2O]

Ref taken off doing Blackpool v Portsmouth because of his name and the recent Court Case against the Oystons ...

The Ref's name? Ben Toner 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/10/referee-ben-toner-dropped-backpool-oystons

It’s taken me days to see why he was removed..

Doh!

[Robinred]

It’s taken me days to see why he was removed..

Doh!

Brilliant though innit?

[Yiannis]

That took me longer to work out than it should have done but that's fucking hilarious!

Bloody hell, I'm getting old! That took far longer than it ought to have done but what a marvellous coincidence.

It’s taken me days to see why he was removed..

Doh!

Likewise. I kept thinking of printer toner and trying to find some relevance.