Ken Anderson - Old Owner (Definitely. For Ever ..... )

[officer_dibble]

Presumably at such point the overdue accounts will be released?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

FWIW I think Ken’s going full bore Owen and Karl Oyston now...people need to be minded what they post.

Everybody at all times need to be minded what they post.
Doesn't mean you can't say what you think. You just need to be aware that sometimes what you think might not be legal......

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just this one. And I forget this password half the time.

You're obviously not Sluffy then.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

FWIW I think Ken’s going full bore Owen and Karl Oyston now...people need to be minded what they post.

Everybody at all times need to be minded what they post.
Doesn't mean you can't say what you think. You just need to be aware that sometimes what you think might not be legal......

Pretty much this. BBC presenter Rory Cellan-Jones once noted that he wouldn't tweet anything he wouldn't say on air; it's a reasonable thing to have in mind.

Libel is defined as damaging a person's reputation and is usually judged as to whether the alleged libel would reduce the complainant in the eyes of an "average" or typical person. It would be difficult, for example, to libel Myra Hindley. But the duty of proof falls on the defendant not the plaintiff, and there have been things said on here which I wouldn't type.

Also worth noting that TW (or WW, etc), as the forum, would be potentially imperilled by libel. Certainly, if any complaints are made, the thing to do is to take down any questionable material within a decent timeframe - 24hrs, by rule of thumb - to show willing... unless you're happy going to court against a millionaire who, as I say, doesn't have to prove anything.

[Worthy4England]

Libel is defined as damaging a person's reputation and is usually judged as to whether the alleged libel would reduce the complainant in the eyes of an "average" or typical person. It would be difficult, for example, to libel Myra Hindley. But the duty of proof falls on the defendant not the plaintiff, and there have been things said on here which I wouldn't type.

Also worth noting that TW (or WW, etc), as the forum, would be potentially imperilled by libel. Certainly, if any complaints are made, the thing to do is to take down any questionable material within a decent timeframe - 24hrs, by rule of thumb - to show willing... unless you're happy going to court against a millionaire who, as I say, doesn't have to prove anything.

I think you have up to 5 days to decide whether you stick or twist on removal (rather than just 24 hours), due to the transitory nature of the participants.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Libel is defined as damaging a person's reputation and is usually judged as to whether the alleged libel would reduce the complainant in the eyes of an "average" or typical person. It would be difficult, for example, to libel Myra Hindley. But the duty of proof falls on the defendant not the plaintiff, and there have been things said on here which I wouldn't type.

Also worth noting that TW (or WW, etc), as the forum, would be potentially imperilled by libel. Certainly, if any complaints are made, the thing to do is to take down any questionable material within a decent timeframe - 24hrs, by rule of thumb - to show willing... unless you're happy going to court against a millionaire who, as I say, doesn't have to prove anything.

I think you have up to 5 days to decide whether you stick or twist on removal (rather than just 24 hours), due to the transitory nature of the participants.

Fair enough. I wouldn't hang about, though. Libel is often on the judge's caprice, so I'd play nice.

[Jakerbeef]

Just this one. And I forget this password half the time.

You're obviously not Sluffy then.

I might not be referring to Sluffy here, but there are some proper specimens on that site. A lot of wood for the trees going on.

[nelson66]

I'd still nut him if I ever came across him

[TANGODANCER]

Just this one. And I forget this password half the time.

You're obviously not Sluffy then.

Sluffy? Now there's a name from the depths. Is he still.....being Sluffy?

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Interesting

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/nation ... -blackpool

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Just this one. And I forget this password half the time.

You're obviously not Sluffy then.

Sluffy? Now there's a name from the depths. Is he still.....being Sluffy?

As I was traveling back through the interminable Howard posts on that other place, he regularly popped up. He seemed to be a Ken fan. One of a kind. So, I suppose, yup. Personally speaking I never did get why so many had it in for him... (No. I'm not related ).

[Prufrock]

Given she's dead, I can confirm it would be very difficult indeed to libel Myra Hindley !

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Interesting

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/nation ... -blackpool

It always seemed a Nonsense to me to punish a club for having a shit owner.
It's like the government saying "if your high street shops are losing money, we'll take your shops away". Right, that'll help!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Given she's dead, I can confirm it would be very difficult indeed to libel Myra Hindley !

I could give it a fxcking good go. The spastic faced cxnt.

[officer_dibble]

Interesting

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/nation ... -blackpool

That is interesting, and certainly a positive for where we are potentially heading.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Given she's dead, I can confirm it would be very difficult indeed to libel Myra Hindley !

Ha! Well, quite. I was trying to think of an unquestionable baddie and reached back through time.

Interesting

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/nation ... -blackpool

It always seemed a Nonsense to me to punish a club for having a shit owner.
It's like the government saying "if your high street shops are losing money, we'll take your shops away". Right, that'll help!

I agree, but as is so often the case with the League, it's the law of unintended consequences.

About a decade ago there was a lot of complaints that clubs were briefly dipping into admin to junk their debts and start again at an unfair advantage; Leicester were a much-cited case. (I don't think they ever did pay up the final instalment for the stadium they on the title in.)

So the League decided admin brought an automatic points deduction (not always 12, IIRC, to start with) to take effect that season. So clubs started buggering about with that - I think Boston went into admin during a game they were about to get relegated in; Ken Bates' Leeds went into admin on the last weekend of the season. So then came the "fourth Thursday in March" rule. And here we are.

This EFL ruling for Blackpool is interestingly transigent, considering the Birmingham thing. I'm not saying right or wrong, but obviously they're examining on case merit rather than just generally Acting Hard.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Given she's dead, I can confirm it would be very difficult indeed to libel Myra Hindley !

Ha! Well, quite. I was trying to think of an unquestionable baddie and reached back through time.

Interesting

https://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/nation ... -blackpool

It always seemed a Nonsense to me to punish a club for having a shit owner.
It's like the government saying "if your high street shops are losing money, we'll take your shops away". Right, that'll help!

I agree, but as is so often the case with the League, it's the law of unintended consequences.

About a decade ago there was a lot of complaints that clubs were briefly dipping into admin to junk their debts and start again at an unfair advantage; Leicester were a much-cited case. (I don't think they ever did pay up the final instalment for the stadium they on the title in.)

So the League decided admin brought an automatic points deduction (not always 12, IIRC, to start with) to take effect that season. So clubs started buggering about with that - I think Boston went into admin during a game they were about to get relegated in; Ken Bates' Leeds went into admin on the last weekend of the season. So then came the "fourth Thursday in March" rule. And here we are.

This EFL ruling for Blackpool is interestingly transigent, considering the Birmingham thing. I'm not saying right or wrong, but obviously they're examining on case merit rather than just generally Acting Hard.

And I agree, that this is a good development. One that potentially gives us a bit of a lifeline. I understand why the punishment originated too. The problem was that it was so easy to get around through other loopholes that it left the truly incontinent to piss their pants whilst others swapped nappies at an ever increasing rate.

[Harry Genshaw]

This EFL ruling for Blackpool is interestingly transigent, considering the Birmingham thing. I'm not saying right or wrong, but obviously they're examining on case merit rather than just generally Acting Hard.

The key might be in the wording;

" so as not to have an advantage over well run clubs"

The EFL have finally realised that there are no well run clubs. Just clubs with differing size of debts

[Gary the Enfield]

WW seem to have now restricted the site to members only
I am a member and know my username but have forgotten my password and the email address i used to create the account.
The thread on there about KA's attempts to sell the club were sometimes entertaining and occasionally informative
As a chartered accountant for over 50 years I learned to read most with a pinch of salt
A bit cheeky but does anyone have a contact I could email to get my account restored
Thanks

I'm still registered. DM me your username and email and I'll ask on your behalf.

You have a message

[Harry Genshaw]

Parky saying the chief scout hasn't been paid for 3 (?) months and can no longer afford to put fuel in his car. The downward spiral continues