• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Snatchday 1: Nottingham Forest Vs the PGMOL

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
Oh of course. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds at the end of the day. Neville has already shown that his principles go out the door the second anyone waves cash in front of his face so his stance on this is to be expected.

Just frustrating that the real crux of the issue is drowned out by self righteous blather.
We see it all the time when certain events happen, people decry the response and and ignore the root cause which caused the response
 

JohnnyCarey

Viv Anderson
We're not claiming corruption against Atwell but against PGMOL.

We don't need to demonstrate anything extra in that regard: we asked for a change of VAR official for impartiality reasons, we weren't granted it and we've been on the receiving end of 3 game changing decisions.
I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about us suing PGMOL but about Atwell personally suing us. Like it or not, our tweet implied that he made those decisions because he is a Luton fan, which is to say he made them corruptly in order to have an effect on the PL table. London is crawling with libel lawyers who make a fortune out of taking these cases and I'd be really surprised if he's not deluged with offers to take his case. That case would not be about whether PGMOL is corrupt; it would be about whether Atwell himself as an individual is corrupt.
Frankly, if I were a libel lawyer, I'd be salivating at the prospect of suing NFFC on his behalf because we've made an allegation we cannot possibly prove. They have us over a barrel and all because of an ill-considered tweet.
 

vertigored

First Team Squad
I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about us suing PGMOL but about Atwell personally suing us. Like it or not, our tweet implied that he made those decisions because he is a Luton fan, which is to say he made them corruptly in order to have an effect on the PL table. London is crawling with libel lawyers who make a fortune out of taking these cases and I'd be really surprised if he's not deluged with offers to take his case. That case would not be about whether PGMOL is corrupt; it would be about whether Atwell himself as an individual is corrupt.
Frankly, if I were a libel lawyer, I'd be salivating at the prospect of suing NFFC on his behalf because we've made an allegation we cannot possibly prove. They have us over a barrel and all because of an ill-considered tweet.
Problem is, for him to prove he wasn’t corrupt he is actually going to have to come up with a reason for not giving at least 1 penalty
 

JohnnyCarey

Viv Anderson
I guess if you look at the wording, we didn’t actually accuse Attwell of corruption, and wording means a lot in libel cases.

Forest said they raised concerns about him being a Luton fan before the game, which if it happened, it will be an undisputed fact.

They also said that they had three very poor mistakes made against then, again 2/3 mistakes is an undisputed fact.
So, on any rational basis, you're entirely correct. But alas that's not how the libel laws work. The basic test is what a "reasonable person" might be led to think on the basis of what you've written. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that a ruling would be that a reasonable person would think we were implying that Attwell denied us 3 penalties because he's a Luton fan. They could actually cite quite a few posts on here to that effect. And if that is what NFFC implied, the club has to prove it. I'm not saying for a moment that this is right or just -- but it's the way England's crazy libel laws work.
 

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
Problem is, for him to prove he wasn’t corrupt he is actually going to have to come up with a reason for not giving at least 1 penalty
That's not how the law works. If he brings action then it's up to us to prove he is, not for him to prove he isn't.
 

JohnnyCarey

Viv Anderson
Problem is, for him to prove he wasn’t corrupt he is actually going to have to come up with a reason for not giving at least 1 penalty
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. In a libel trial, he doesn't have to prove anything. To repeat: he does not have to show he wasn't corrupt; we, as the accusers have to prove that he was. As I've said, the entire onus of proof is on the accuser -- which is NFFC. He could, if he chose, say nothing at all. We have to prove that he didn't give the penalties because he was trying to rig the PL in Luton's favour. Otherwise, he wins seriously big damages.
 

Bohinens_chip

A. Trialist
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. In a libel trial, he doesn't have to prove anything. To repeat: he does not have to show he wasn't corrupt; we, as the accusers have to prove that he was. As I've said, the entire onus of proof is on the accuser -- which is NFFC. He could, if he chose, say nothing at all. We have to prove that he didn't give the penalties because he was trying to rig the PL in Luton's favour. Otherwise, he wins seriously big damages.
Stick it on the tab?
 

Alan Akbah

Geoff Thomas
I think people might be laughing at us...

IMG-20240421-WA0009.jpg

IMG-20240421-WA0008.jpg
 
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. In a libel trial, he doesn't have to prove anything. To repeat: he does not have to show he wasn't corrupt; we, as the accusers have to prove that he was. As I've said, the entire onus of proof is on the accuser -- which is NFFC. He could, if he chose, say nothing at all. We have to prove that he didn't give the penalties because he was trying to rig the PL in Luton's favour. Otherwise, he wins seriously big damages.
But he is a bitch. We can call him that.

A biiiiiiig, freaky, bitch.

Like many here, myself included.
 

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
Luton can laugh all they want.

The PL want Forest gone because we pose a threat to the consistency of the league.

Once we're out of the way, they'll set their sights firmly back on ensuring the three smallest clubs go down next season.
 

vertigored

First Team Squad
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. In a libel trial, he doesn't have to prove anything. To repeat: he does not have to show he wasn't corrupt; we, as the accusers have to prove that he was. As I've said, the entire onus of proof is on the accuser -- which is NFFC. He could, if he chose, say nothing at all. We have to prove that he didn't give the penalties because he was trying to rig the PL in Luton's favour. Otherwise, he wins seriously big damages.
No but we haven’t accused him of being corrupt, merely pointed out to the pgmol that he could potentially have a subconscious bias, and who would have thought it but 3 “errors“ that are either down to incompetence, corruption or an unconscious bias that a lot of commentators who are unbiased have said that youngs has got away with all 3 and everton are very fortunate to have had the decisions go their way.
 

Schnack

A. Trialist
Interestingly Claatenburg has come out an wrote a piece in the Daily Mail basically slagging the officials off and saying why Forest have done what they have done. , I don't read the Daily Mail.
 

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
No but we haven’t accused him of being corrupt, merely pointed out to the pgmol that he could potentially have a subconscious bias, and who would have thought it but 3 “errors“ that are either down to incompetence, corruption or an unconscious bias that a lot of commentators who are unbiased have said that youngs has got away with all 3 and everton are very fortunate to have had the decisions go their way.
Inference is enough to bring a case for defamation
 

GOBIAS

Ian Bowyer
Luton would have preferred a draw mate. By mentioning that we look ridiculous and takes the focus away from the competence of the ref and VAR.
I dont see how Luton would want a draw. The favourable result is to keep the nearest team near. It isn’t really the point though. They could have put anyone in the studio for that game but they chose a Luton fan, even after it was pointed out.
 
I think you're missing my point. I'm not talking about us suing PGMOL but about Atwell personally suing us. Like it or not, our tweet implied that he made those decisions because he is a Luton fan, which is to say he made them corruptly in order to have an effect on the PL table. London is crawling with libel lawyers who make a fortune out of taking these cases and I'd be really surprised if he's not deluged with offers to take his case. That case would not be about whether PGMOL is corrupt; it would be about whether Atwell himself as an individual is corrupt.
Frankly, if I were a libel lawyer, I'd be salivating at the prospect of suing NFFC on his behalf because we've made an allegation we cannot possibly prove. They have us over a barrel and all because of an ill-considered tweet.
I was thinking along those lines too.
 

GOBIAS

Ian Bowyer
Makes absolutely no difference if we can't win a football match. Currently we are unable to.

Sent from my LE2113 using Tapatalk
I don’t get this point I see over and over. There are rules in a game and we have been constantly f**ked over at key times in game after game, especially since December.

If the game swings our way at these key times we’d have won more and then we maybe would have won some more football matches. The knock on is that we can then play with pressure off. Some people talk like these things make no difference. If it happens once or twice per season you just have to get on with it, when it is happening over and over and over it is a serious issue.
 
Last edited:

GOBIAS

Ian Bowyer
Problem is, for him to prove he wasn’t corrupt he is actually going to have to come up with a reason for not giving at least 1 penalty
And we could play his reel of constant idiotic decisions the **** has made for 15 years now.

He has t got pockets deep enough to sue us on that tweet.
 

MaxiRobriguez

Bob McKinlay
I dont see how Luton would want a draw. The favourable result is to keep the nearest team near. It isn’t really the point though. They could have put anyone in the studio for that game but they chose a Luton fan, even after it was pointed out.

Best result for Luton was what they got, an Everton win.

Everton were 2 points clear of them, 2 games in hand on them and still had Sheff utd to play. No way were Luton catching Everton even if Everton lost.

So any sort of points for Forest was a bad result for them.
 
Top Bottom