Kia, Sheff Utd, Duxbury, McCabe and arbitration

[ChicagoHammer]

We had to pay them or the accountants wouldn't sign off on us as a going concern. We got backed into a corner and Sheff. Utd. extorted money from us. Money we wouldn't have handed over if this ruling had come out earlier.

[Mad Professor]

[quote="cockneySparrow") The press owe us big time. Obviously it probably wont do us any good to start charging in with defamation litigation but now our PR team should start to call in the favours the gutter press owe us. [/quote]

Cue Martin Samuels perhaps. But I do think that deciding to pay them the money has done us no favours by being widely taken as an admission of guilt! We got off this time by the Scottish judicial decision of 'not proven'. It might be wise to pay up and rattle no more cages imo.

[Morocco Mole]

Cancel the direct debit. Simples.

[dplus91]

Cancel the direct debit. Simples.

I'd be stunned if our settlement agreement with Sheffield Utd didn't incorporate an ability for them to sue us if we don't pay up. They wouldn't need to sue on the issue again, merely on us defaulting on the agreement.

What's done is done.

[Glory Hunter]

**** it, tell 'em to go whistle. If they want the money they have to sue us again - at least let make it cost them as much as possible to wring every penny from us.

[bubbles1966]

No doubt Holt and the Daily Mail will have WEST HAM ARE INNOCENT headlines and articles tomorrow

[Puff Daddy]

See this thread is approaching its 2nd anniversary too

[Morocco Mole]

I'd be stunned if our settlement agreement with Sh*ffield Utd didn't incorporate an ability for them to sue us if we don't pay up. They wouldn't need to sue on the issue again, merely on us defaulting on the agreement.

What's done is done.

So, we counter-sue...

For a legal bod, Duckers seems curiously averse to the court-room. £25 million buys an awful lot of days in the high court. Would you rather your hard earned ST money was spent fighting for the good name of the club or handed over to McCabe with nothing but a whimper on the strength of some old ***** deposition....?

[Suffolkhammer]

This news must surely warrant a full apology from that steaming heap of puss in Wigan who so confidently predicted that this enquiry would see the real truth emerge at last. Well it has, and all his twisted comments and innuendo in support of his northern bumchums have been proved to be nothing more than biased crap. Surely there must be a case for the PL to ban this skeletal hasbeen from participation in the league for attempting to bring another team into disrepute.

[sussexhammer74]

Will the club make an official announcement regarding the latest ruling?

Be interesting to hear if they have anything to say? Also those northern vultures have been very quiet as well.

With regard to the accounts, could our accountants not have waited until this announcement before signing off our accounts?

[Up the Junction]

We chose to pay them.

One the Griffiths ruling was made we had no choice but to pay them.

We chose to settle out of court.

On the bright side ... here's the latest from our friends in the north ...

Season ticket refunds?

I hear rumours people are asking/getting these on the basis of the Kyles going.

I am assuming this is rubbish as I can't see the club even entertaining it - anyone heard different?

After 30 years of sometimes ridiculously loyal support and personal sacrifices, I won't be renewing next season if we sell both Kyles.

I'm not sue why but these possible sales hurt me more than any of the other massive let downs over the years, maybe cos I really belived we had changed and having chatted with McCabe a few times I believed in him.

Anyway,if refunds are going round I'll take one.

What comes around ...

[Dyer's Leg]

Once the Griffiths ruling was made we had no choice but to pay them.

We chose to settle out of court.

Can't that new ruling be over turned in the light of this new evidence, or lack of it in this case?

[Memorial Ground]

We did choose to pay them, and that is the sickener.

We chose to pay them because our owner was one of the biggest sufferers in the world by the credit crunch (hate that phrase) and we couldn't get our accounts signed off. Not really a choice, but I suppose in the eyes of the law it was.

All round stinks, and I doubt there's anything we can do.

[Scaloni Is The Messiah]

One the Griffiths ruling was made we had no choice but to pay them.

Are you talking legally or in terms of what was sensible? I agree we had no option, but the post I was replying to was asking why we have to pay after winning four and losing one. I was pointing out that as far as I was aware, legally speaking, we didn't 'have' to pay, but chose to pay.

[prophet:marginal]

How's that then?

i just think once we settled that was the end of it, i think the FA saw it as that as well, i said it at the time that once we settled the fa hearing would just fade away

Not having a pop, but I disagree with that.

If that's was their reasoning, they'd not have confirmed they'd independently considered the evidence available to them.

They did consider it and found there was no case. That is in spite of our decision to agree the terms of compo, not because of it.

[Up the Junction]

Are you talking legally or in terms of what was sensible?

Both, if we're assuming what SD told us is gospel.

Legally we would have been forced to pay a sum set by Griffiths' panel had we not settled OOC following the initial finding (you will recall SUFC wanted £50m+), sensible in terms that had we not done so we may well have gone to the wall (because we didn't have two beans to rub together at that particular time ... the way it was done leaves us barely affected by it whilst SUFC reap no tangible benefit and still have to sell their best players).

[joyful2]

It's very good news for us. Removes the last possible impediment to a new owner taking over.

But I agree with those who think it was a formality once we settled out of court. The FA and PL want the thing to go away just as much as we do...

[I am Legend]

well thats the end of that chapter hopefully

now lets spend the next few years making the headlines for the right reasons, premier league, great football, europe, possibly a trophy

[Billbanksy]

I wonder if we will stop paying Sheffield United now and ask for our money back that we already paid?

Scott Duxbury is a lawyer and settled because he had to. He said so in his KUMB interview and also said that "All the lawyers told us that we couldn't possibly lose Sheffield. Their claim was flawed on many levels."

and "Then, there was the absurd judgment of Lord Griffiths; I think my views on him have been well documented. Then the owner goes bankrupt and the financial situation of the club means although we're self-sufficient, it became clear to me we simply couldn't risk an absurd decision by Lord Griffiths that says the full £40million what Sheffield United are claiming is payable, and it's payable within seven days - which would be the award. So at that point I made a decision that you've got to actually put personal feelings to one side and realise that we should negotiate a settlement - no matter how unpalatable."

So Scott Duxbury as a lawyer, should have negotiated a deal whereby any subsequent judgements negate the agreed settlement, even if by default...

[WHID to deserve this?]

How long do you think it will take the Blades to come out with a statement saying they are pleased that there was indeed 'Fairness in Football' afterall?

I hope this now draws a line under the entire matter.

I am sure Sheff Utd will not cash the cheques in the interest of the aforementioned 'Fairness in Football' - as someone has already mentioned, I think this makes it 4 - 1 overall in the Court Cup Final to West Ham. Funnily enough, this was almost the exact scoreline to the Blades in the PL when Mr Tevez played at Bramall Lane.