Newcastle United may have won their legal battle with six fans, but the club will return to court to fight over #80,000 costs. The six season tickets holders originally challenged a bid to move them from their seats at St James's Park to accommodate corporate clients but subsequently lost their case.

The campaigners were left facing a bill for #198,000, which is #80,000 in excess of the insurance cover they had arranged, after the Court of Appeal ruled against them last month.

It was originally believed that the Newcastle board would waive at least part of those costs after an ugly court, but now the club will leave the determination of the final demand up to the courts.

Satisfactory solution

A club statement said they had given "proper consideration to the matter of costs" in reaching their decision.

"The board readily accepts that this has been a difficult time and that the satisfactory resolution of the issue of costs is a sensitive matter," the statement continued.

"Consequently the board believes that the most appropriate way forward is to allow the matter to proceed to a costs hearing where the costs of the action payable by the claimants can be independently assessed by the court.

"Subsequent to this assessment the board of Newcastle United plc will then consider the determination of the court and consider what further actions, if any, should be taken."

Jane Duffy, who is leading the campaign said she was not surprised by the club's latest move and thought the final bill would amount to significantly less than #80,000.

"We lost the case so we expect to pay the costs of the victorious side, that's why we took out insurance," she said.

"From my point of view, let's get the taxation process out of the way and let's see who was more accurate in their assessment of the costs.

"We've always expressed concern because we believe that the size of their bill was deliberately designed to stop us going to appeal.

"To be honest it could have been written off and that would have been the end of it. But now it just drags on and on."

The club will present their costs bill before a tax judge at the hearing, with the campaigners having a chance to challenge it before a ruling is made on the final amount payable.

The conflict emerged when Newcastle announced plans to move 4,000 season ticket holders, some of whom had already purchased #500 bonds to make way for improved corporate facilities.

The club has embarked upon a #42million redevelopment of St James's Park which will increase its capacity to 52,000 for the new season.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Answers

Yawn......

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

You need to get your beauty sleep, Gav :-)

I reckon we're being a bit harsh on the SOS campaigners. The SOSers may have lost, but it was never a cut and dry case and certainly they had the moral right on their side (if not the legal). A bit more sympathy on here would be decorous, eh lads?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

They lost then appealed and that has stuck in a lot of crops. I always felt that *court* was the last resort and felt they were a little too eager to dive in. My sympathy lasted until they launched their appeal. It's hard to take sides against your club.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Agree with Tony. They also lost my symathy when they got into bed with the NOTW.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Got to agree. The equivalent of non-violent protest over being moved lasted for precisely one game. A single game without the black and white shirt, a single game with 10 minutes' silence, a single game of standing up (90 minutes for the bunch I was with because we were moved to make way for the new family enclosure).

That was fine by me. If they wanted me to sing, "Freddie Fletcher! Greedy Bastard!" every week and wave placards at them to shame them into doing something about it then fine. It just smacks of hypocrisy to accuse the club of becoming only interested in profit and losing touch with the fans and then sodding off to the Court with virtually no popular support for the action. Maybe they feel you have to fight fire with fire, but it seems more like they didn't have the strength of their convictions to trust the rest of the fans to keep backing them in other ways.

I pay plenty of cash into the club on the understanding it will be spent on players and facilities, not on fighting legal battles. The fact that these characters then had the effrontery to ask me for money to help support their attempt to win more of my money off the club beggared belief. Now they want sympathy. Bollocks.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Reckon you should get yersel off for a pint Softie lad, yer obviously teething or what ever.

;-)))

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Softy's right, hey lost money when they appealed against a decision that was based on solid legal grounds, they did so to keep the matter (& themselves) in the spotlight. Why they want to go to court again to lose more money on a principal of law that has been the part of British Law for donkeys is beyond me. Good money after bad.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000