Judgment on SOS handed down today, I think. Will try and get some info.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Answers

SOS sunk. The appeal by 5 fans has been turned down. 11am news on Radio 4.

Now let's move on from this unfortunate episode.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Agreed but that includes the club: they can't afford a PR disaster like this again. What's happened to Rogan Taylor by the way?

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

This verdict was on the cards when the judge a few weeks ago suggested that the club pay the appellants' legal fees. He knew then that SOS had lost or why suggest it.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

But everyone knew the appeal would fail didn't they? It was only the newspapers "fanning the flames" and building up the plaintiffs' belief of self importance that prolonged the case.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Yes - Jonno's right. Let's put it all behind us. It would be nice if we could also "manufacture" some positive PR over the next month or so - as well as success on the playing field.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

If the fans have to pay the club's legal costs they're in deep deep doo-doo. #200k apparently. That's be a nice bit of PR for the club, wouldn't it? Put their fans out of their seats, and then out of their houses.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

They shouldn't have taken the club to court if they weren't prepared to lose....I'm certain they would've taken the club to the cleaners if they'd won!!!

I certainly wouldn't approve of the club offering to drop their legal costs as that would just be passing on the cost to the rest of us indirectly!!

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

The SOS insurance policy against the loss covers all but #80,000 of the #200,000 costs involved, that leaves the five of them with a broken down bill of about #16,000 each.

They also took Murdochs thirty pieces of silver, which if memory serves was about #50,000, so that reduces their liability to #30,000 (or #6,000 each) now given that they have had an appeal fund running where you could send money and also the buckets outside the grounds on matchday (and not just SJP) surely most of that is covered....or have I misunderstood the situation.

As has been said......lets put it all behind us and move on.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Wasn't the Murdoch&Mackem money all used on the initial court case?

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

If they don't like the heat, they shouldn't have stayed in the kitchen.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

the victory of actuality over morality.

report from Sporting Life FANS FACE BANKRUPTCY AFTER LOSING CASE By Stephen Howard, PA News

Six Newcastle United football fans who took the club to court when their personal seats were moved to make way for corporate entertainment now face bankruptcy after losing their case.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, agreed a judgment at the Court of Appeal that the club did have the legal right to move the fans "however sympathetic one may feel" towards them.

Because the six who brought the test case on behalf of 250 others who objected to being moved had their appeal dismissed, they now face paying the legal costs of the whole action.

They had taken out insurance against failure, but still face a shortfall of #80,000 on the estimated #163;200,000 costs the club's lawyers are demanding.

Richard Cramer, of solicitors Messrs McCormicks, representing the fans, said after the hearing: "We shall not be claiming any of our legal costs. It is now up to Newcastle United as to whether they wish to make these fans bankrupt and put them at risk of losing their homes.

"This would fly in the face of earlier promises from the club which said the last thing they wanted to do was to take the houses from these individuals."

He added: "The indications now are that they want to claim to the bitter end."

Jane Duffy, a 44-year-old educational adviser who led the action against the club, said outside court: "When this dispute began we were told by the club that #100,000 would pay the costs of both sides in the action.

"We raised the money from fans throughout the country to take out insurance to cover #118,000 in legal costs but now Newcastle want #198,000. We still have #80,000 hanging over our heads.

"I can't believe that the club can justify these costs. It seems to me that the club wants blood and that makes me very, very bitter and angry."

She said she would now hold further meetings with the Save Our Seats campaign - which was launched after they were asked to give up personal seats for which they had paid #500 on the promise that they could stay in the Milburn stand at the St James' Park stadium for 10 years.

"We have got to find that money from somewhere and if the worst comes to the worst we shall organise sponsored walks from Land's End to John o'Groats and visit every league club in the country to do it.

"We have had enormous support from football fans all over the country and raised #65,000 but most of that went on the insurance premiums.

"What this case has done has given out a message to fans not to take on their clubs because Newcastle have as good as proved that if you do, the club will beat you into submission.

"I have been a lifelong supporter of Newcastle and remain a fan of the team but I don't think I shall be going back to St James' Park. There are always away games to watch."

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Does the final paragraph:

"I have been a lifelong supporter of Newcastle and remain a fan of the team but I don't think I shall be going back to St James' Park. There are always away games to watch."

suggest an element of nose amputation?

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Sorry to keep this thread going, but I'm getting more intrigued by the posting:

>>>>Jane Duffy, a 44-year-old educational adviser who led the action against the club, said outside court: "When this dispute began we were told by the club that #100,000 would pay the costs of both sides in the action<<<<<<<<.

To repeat that bit...."we were told by the club" - is this the same club that they were taking to court because "we were told by the club that the bonds would keep our seats for ten years?" - sorry Jane, something doesn't add up there........

Jane is described as an 'education adviser' I bet this lot has taught her a lesson!

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

Do we know how mucg their original court case cost and how much for the appeal? IMHO, if you're going to appeal against a verdict already given against you, you had better be prepared to accept any costs made against you. They could surely have cut their losses when the origianl case was found against them. Or is that too simplistic a view?

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

As one of the people affected by the change of seats I would just like to say that thank God this patronising bunch of people have lost their appeal and what a blessing to us all it will be if the likes of Duffy dont take up their seats next season. Now if we can get rid of that idiot from the No.9 fanzine. Kevin Miles the so called FSA rep. (Christ, football fans in England are in trouble if this man is the fans rep). And the spokesman for The Mag whose sweat I can feel coming out of the TV every time he is on we may just get some decent press. Oh dear, I have just seen the Daily Mail touting for Venables to be England's new manager, still could be worse, he could come to Newcastle. Martym

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2000

I just picked this up on footballunlimited.co.uk

I should have known it would all be Shearers fault!It's time for players to pick up the bill

Sunday July 2, 2000

By Kevin MItchell - Sports Journalist of the Year

You have to wonder what the directors of Newcastle United Football Club could do next to alienate themselves from their fans. Eat their children, perhaps? After Bordellogate and Shirtgate comes Seatgate. Lord Chief Justice Woolf's ruling in the club's favour last week will allow the club to move 4,000 supporters out of their regular seats to make way for corporate drinkers. What the judge's decision also did was lumber the six supporters who carried the cause to court with legal costs of #198,000. That, says Jane Duffy, one of the 'Save Our Seats' campaigners, could ruin them.

'When this dispute began, we were told by the club that #100,000 would pay the costs of both sides in the action. We raised #118,000 from fans across the country but now Newcastle want #198,000. We still have #80,000 hanging over our heads.

'I can't believe that the club can justify these costs. It seems to me that the club wants blood and that makes me very, very bitter and angry. We have got to find that money from somewhere and if the worst comes to the worst we shall organise sponsored walks from Land's End to John O'Groats and visit every league club in the country to do it.'

There is an alternative solution. Tap up the players. I'm sure Alan Shearer and his #25,000-a-week mates could find some spare change to help the very people whose support sustains their comfortable lifestyles. Indeed, Shearer, who has retired from international football to concentrate on making his beloved club great again, could probably pick up the tab with a fortnight's wages.

Is this unreasonable? The players would say they do not want to get involved, that it is a matter between the fans and the directors, and that the dispute has run its proper legal course. True. Every bit as true as the observation by Justice Woolf that he had no option but to rule against the supporters, 'however sympathetic one may feel towards them'.

But the law and justice are often miles apart. Will the players be moved to close that gap? The anecdotal evidence is not good.

Shearer lives on the Wynyard Hall estate owned by the former chairman, Sir John Hall, as does Kevin Keegan, the former manager. It is said that when he was going to training, the captain would go around to Keegan's place to get a lift to the ground so as to save on petrol money.

This might be totally unfair on Shearer and the other Newcastle players, of course. They might ring up Jane Duffy this morning and put a cheque in the post. Or the club might even write off the legal costs.

Somehow I think there's a better chance of Mike Tyson becoming a vegetarian.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

The "Sports Journalist of the Year" should check his facts - AS hasn't lived at Wynyard for at least two years. Of course, he now lives in relative comfort in Darras Hall.

Actually I'd forgotten, Journalists don't deal in facts do they? Silly me!

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

Or perhaps the Guardian could demonstrate the depth of their outrage by paying the bill themselves...maybe I'm being unfair to the Guardian but there's probably more chance of them producing a decent sports correspondent.

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

Actually I read today that the club wouldn't be seeking the full costs. Maybe MT is a vegan!

-- Anonymous, July 02, 2000

The club should make them pay the costs and donate it to a good cause... like a sweetener for someone to take Maric!

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000

I wonder what Ms Duffy is doing with her ticket, she's got a bond after all, free cup games, and she could probably use the cash.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2000