Dr. Evangelos Marinakis and Pie Cannons (sponsored by Carlos)

[Rubics]

I remember seeing one of those mobile billboards described there. Drove past me near the Theatre Royal, and thought it rather strange at the time.

They were driving around the roads near the ground at one game. Went past us on Radcliffe Road and we all thought wtf is that!

The media generally tread carefully around him now, you see this on sky with pundits going quiet, talksport tip toe around him and one of the paper reporting this, the piece is very short with comments turned off.

Guess they don’t want the Gary Neville treatment.

 

[GregorRobertson]

They were driving around the roads near the ground at one game. Went past us on Radcliffe Road and we all thought wtf is that!

The media generally tread carefully around him now, you see this on sky with pundits going quiet, talksport tip toe around him and one of the paper reporting this, the piece is very short with comments turned off.

Guess they don’t want the Gary Neville treatment.

At the same time you can bet if they actually had anything concrete on him other than the unproven and unsubstantiated stuff originating from Greece they'd be all over it like a rash.

 

[Apollo11]

Premierleague season starting with a bang, got a feeling it's going to be a good one.

 

[Statto]

I’d probably feel that I was a multi millionaire football club owner, with a somewhat dicey, past, who shouldn’t be overly bothered by what some thick dickhead Palace fans put on a banner.

I’d probably also realise that it would be highly unlikely I’d win anything in court, and even if I did it wouldn’t materially change my life financially, and probably wasn’t worth the bother.

It’s meh to me. Just seems a pointless waste of time and energy and if he was honestly bothered about what was on that banner he’s only ringing more attention to it

You have no idea what the circumstances are though.

If it was just a silly banner and nothing happened from it then yes, there wouldn't be any point in taking court action other than to make a point, as it wouldn't win anything.

However, he owns a shipping company, 2 football clubs and no doubt has other interests which may be materially affected by false allegations, if he has suffered a loss as a result of the banner then he should absolutely be able to claim for this - and we don't know whether he has or not. The fact he is taking court action implies that this is indeed the situation.

 

[Chairman Mo]

You have no idea what the circumstances are though.

If it was just a silly banner and nothing happened from it then yes, there wouldn't be any point in taking court action other than to make a point, as it wouldn't win anything.

However, he owns a shipping company, 2 3 football clubs and no doubt has other interests which may be materially affected by false allegations, if he has suffered a loss as a result of the banner then he should absolutely be able to claim for this - and we don't know whether he has or not. The fact he is taking court action implies that this is indeed the situation.

 

[valspoodle]

I would say he's just pissed off with all the stuff that people post on the social media boards and this flag was just the last straw.

As I said before, he's rich enough to try this on just to tickle the toes of those who annoy him most.

 

[Rzar]

I’d probably feel that I was a multi millionaire football club owner, with a somewhat dicey, past, who shouldn’t be overly bothered by what some thick dickhead Palace fans put on a banner.

I’d probably also realise that it would be highly unlikely I’d win anything in court, and even if I did it wouldn’t materially change my life financially, and probably wasn’t worth the bother.

It’s meh to me. Just seems a pointless waste of time and energy and if he was honestly bothered about what was on that banner he’s only ringing more attention to it

If you were accused of being a pedo, dragged through courts, recieved reputational damage regardless of the outcome, you open a pub then the other local pub in the village put up a banner saying "StanleyVictorCollywobbles is NOT a pedo!" whilst decepting you putting a kid in a van.

Would you consider yourself thin skinned to sue them? Or would you just be drawing attention to it by wanting to clear your name? May as well not have defemation laws, as it just draws attention to what people say.

 

[GregorRobertson]

The broader attitude from the public and media does seem to be "what's he complaining about? It's mostly true isn't it?". When it isn't. So I guess that's the point.

 

[Notcher]

The broader attitude from the public and media does seem to be "what's he complaining about? It's mostly true isn't it?". When it isn't. So I guess that's the point.

Probably said without a hint of irony.

 

[valspoodle]

The broader attitude from the public and media does seem to be "what's he complaining about? It's mostly true isn't it?". When it isn't. So I guess that's the point.

Exactly my thoughts. He's had enough of the "in my opinion" etc stuff and this is the perfect target.

Edit: that's interesting. I had something like allege in the brackets.

 

[Ewan Husami]

Exactly my thoughts. He's had enough of the "in my opinion" etc stuff and this is the perfect target.

Edit: that's interesting. I had in my opinion in the brackets.

That happened to me, the A word is filtered for some reason

 

[Statto]

Exactly my thoughts. He's had enough of the "in my opinion" etc stuff and this is the perfect target.

Edit: that's interesting. I had in my opinion in the brackets.

It can still be your opinion and be wrong or defamatory, although a statement of opinion can be a valid defence (Defamation Act '13 s 3).

(2)The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.

(3)The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.

(4)The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—

(a)any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;

(b)anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.

I suppose that might be difficult if it's not clearly stated as opinion (which it wasn't really) and that an honest person could hold it (given that an honest person is not likely to hold the view that a football club owner does those things). Nothing factually has ever formally linked EM with any of those things. A court could realistically see that kind of thing either way depending on how it's argued, but I'm not sure it would really be a suitable defence to the banner.

 

[valspoodle]

That happened to me, the A word is filtered for some reason

You can see I persisted, just to see how far the algorithm or whatever would stretch.

 

[StanleyVictorCollywobbles]

You have no idea what the circumstances are though.

If it was just a silly banner and nothing happened from it then yes, there wouldn't be any point in taking court action other than to make a point, as it wouldn't win anything.

However, he owns a shipping company, 2 football clubs and no doubt has other interests which may be materially affected by false allegations, if he has suffered a loss as a result of the banner then he should absolutely be able to claim for this - and we don't know whether he has or not. The fact he is taking court action implies that this is indeed the situation.

And if that proves to be the case, fair enough. I very, very much doubt some fans holding up a banner has caused that, nor will he be able to prove it in court and certainly not receive any actual meaningful return.

 

[StanleyVictorCollywobbles]

If you were accused of being a pedo, dragged through courts, recieved reputational damage regardless of the outcome, you open a pub then the other local pub in the village put up a banner saying "StanleyVictorCollywobbles is NOT a pedo!" whilst decepting you putting a kid in a van.

Would you consider yourself thin skinned to sue them? Or would you just be drawing attention to it by wanting to clear your name? May as well not have defemation laws, as it just draws attention to what people say.

Whataboutery. That’s not what has happened here.

Again, I have no real bother with it, just feels pointless, thin skinned and with no real chance of a meaningful resolution. And it’s just more off field bollocks for the club.

 

[Statto]

And if that proves to be the case, fair enough. I very, very much doubt some fans holding up a banner has caused that, nor will he be able to prove it in court and certainly not receive any actual meaningful return.

He will need to demonstrate that he has suffered a loss to even get a court to listen to him (see earlier post).

I would be very surprised if EM didn't - given what has happened with false allegations in Greece in the past, and that he owns billion-pound companies, football clubs and other ventures - have a strong legal team on hand who would be much better at this than anyone on here. He has a KC as chairman, and when we had the points deduction hired Nick De Marco who is also a top KC especially on sporting matters to try and mitigate the impact. So i strongly doubt that they haven't gone through what is required to make a defamation claim, tried to make their case meet all of those requirements convincingly, and perhaps consider how the respondents may ultimately try and argue a defence.

It's a bit more than "some fans holding up a banner". First of all, it was a televised match which was already in the spotlight because of their MCO issues which led to them losing their EL place and it going to us. So it was already getting plenty of attention, and being televised around the UK and the world (as all PL matches are in the latter case and in the former everything not a Sat 3pm). So plenty of people would have seen that banner and the implied allegations it was making against EM. There was also plenty of media coverage of it afterwards, and no doubt discussion on forums, social media sites etc, which would heighten the interest in it further. Secondly, this stuff sticks. Even if it is not true if someone makes serious allegations against someone it is associated with them even if it's retracted or found to be untrue the reputational damage is often already done and not reversed. You'll see from time to time the media prints something which is later apologised for; often the article itself is a top news item on the site but the retraction doesn't usually get the same billing. A previous poster mentioned allegations of sexual offences and that's a good example - I'm sure some celebrities in the past have (totally unfoundedly) been accused of being paedophiles which has ultimately ended up unproven or untrue. But the association will still remain and could potentially be quite damaging.

I would agree with you if I thought he was being thin skinned, making a fuss over nothing or very little, or that it was unlikely to meet the bars for serious harm in the DA'13 or that they looked like they had an applicable defence. But this clearly isn't the situation, and actually, I don't think EM is that thin skinned, he seems to be quite ruthless and they don't often go together.

 

[GregorRobertson]

Do you know who is thin-skinned? Any Palace supporter that still holds a grudge against him for whatever it is he is supposed to have done over a year ago now.

 

[PeacefulEagle]

Do you know who is thin-skinned? Any Palace supporter that still holds a grudge against him for whatever it is he is supposed to have done over a year ago now.

As your resident "friendly" Palace fan on here - I think any Palace fan should have a grudge and any Forest fan should have one against Parish. It's what makes football so entertaining.

However I was at the game when the banner got unfurled and at the time I thought it crass, naff and unnecessary. We've got history of allowing media spin to blow good natured rivalries into full on violence, after the Cantona incident the United media went into overdrive to make out our fans are racist and incited Cantona to behave as he did. One fan was but this all resulted in one of our fans being murdered outside Villa Park in the build up to a cup semi final. The Clubs (both Palace and Forest) need to show some pragmatism in this and not stoke the flames.

There's been potential for some long running banter to be had about Forest replacing us in the Europa League - particularly given we went on to win the Conference League anyway. You appointing Glasner adds to it, signing Diomande adds to it, maybe even our two clubs trying to negotiate a deal will but I don't think the message was appropriate on that banner and I would have liked Marinakis to ignore it and let the whole situation now be decided by who has more success on the pitch.

I'll be there when you're all next in town in October but I really hope we can have a laugh and enjoy the game and not have this be stoked into something more!

Good luck for the new season, I wont say you're my second team but I will definitely be checking scores for you this year!

 

[Homesick Alien]

I think he's absolutely right to sue for damages. He doesn't need them but that's not the point, you can't go doing with the South London Club did and not expect some reaction.

We've got Leeds up soon and if we put a big f*** off banner about Jimmy Saville up we'd rightly get the book chucked at us.

 

[Notcher]

It's also the thin end of the wedge to a degree. If you let this slide, then what else?

This was done at a Premier League game in front of the worlds cameras. He's had to deal with all kinds of mudslinging and shit in the courts. Things like things can be hugely damaging as it can change perceptions or lead to bias against him in the future.

Absolutely he should pursue this and I hope it sends a message out loud and clear.

 

[Any Time Now]

EM couldn't give a toss what a few palace fans put on a banner, this case has nothing to do with his feelings. Still doesn't mean he won't use this situation as another opportunity to put more pressure on their club though

 

[Strummer]

We've got history of allowing media spin to blow good natured rivalries into full on violence, after the Cantona incident the United media went into overdrive to make out our fans are racist and incited Cantona to behave as he did. One fan was but this all resulted in one of our fans being murdered outside Villa Park in the build up to a cup semi final.

But surely - if I recall correctly - the Palace fan in question claimed he shouted „Off you go, Cantona, it’s an early bath for you!“

Can’t see what’s wrong with that?!?

 

[Statto]

But surely - if I recall correctly - the Palace fan in question claimed he shouted „Off you go, Cantona, it’s an early bath for you!“

Can’t see what’s wrong with that?!?

Especially as he'd just been sent off

 

[StanleyVictorCollywobbles]

Do you know who is thin-skinned? Any Palace supporter that still holds a grudge against him for whatever it is he is supposed to have done over a year ago now.

Yep. They are. I agree.

When they go low, you go high.

 

[StanleyVictorCollywobbles]

He will need to demonstrate that he has suffered a loss to even get a court to listen to him (see earlier post).

I would be very surprised if EM didn't - given what has happened with false allegations in Greece in the past, and that he owns billion-pound companies, football clubs and other ventures - have a strong legal team on hand who would be much better at this than anyone on here. He has a KC as chairman, and when we had the points deduction hired Nick De Marco who is also a top KC especially on sporting matters to try and mitigate the impact. So i strongly doubt that they haven't gone through what is required to make a defamation claim, tried to make their case meet all of those requirements convincingly, and perhaps consider how the respondents may ultimately try and argue a defence.

It's a bit more than "some fans holding up a banner". First of all, it was a televised match which was already in the spotlight because of their MCO issues which led to them losing their EL place and it going to us. So it was already getting plenty of attention, and being televised around the UK and the world (as all PL matches are in the latter case and in the former everything not a Sat 3pm). So plenty of people would have seen that banner and the implied allegations it was making against EM. There was also plenty of media coverage of it afterwards, and no doubt discussion on forums, social media sites etc, which would heighten the interest in it further. Secondly, this stuff sticks. Even if it is not true if someone makes serious allegations against someone it is associated with them even if it's retracted or found to be untrue the reputational damage is often already done and not reversed. You'll see from time to time the media prints something which is later apologised for; often the article itself is a top news item on the site but the retraction doesn't usually get the same billing. A previous poster mentioned allegations of sexual offences and that's a good example - I'm sure some celebrities in the past have (totally unfoundedly) been accused of being paedophiles which has ultimately ended up unproven or untrue. But the association will still remain and could potentially be quite damaging.

I would agree with you if I thought he was being thin skinned, making a fuss over nothing or very little, or that it was unlikely to meet the bars for serious harm in the DA'13 or that they looked like they had an applicable defence. But this clearly isn't the situation, and actually, I don't think EM is that thin skinned, he seems to be quite ruthless and they don't often go together.

We can agree to disagree on the chances of him proving damages. Certainly to any degree that makes this worthwhile.

My bet is this is quietly dropped in a few months time and everyone gets on with life.

I’d also disagree with the idea of ruthless people being thick skinned generally. I would point to several of the most prominent ultra wealthy, a UK political party leader and a certain world leader who are extremely thin skinned as prime examples