Nike in Irish Soccer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebeard

Waterford's new kit is Errea after a couple of years with Diadora. Prior to Diadora we were with Nike for a year or two. According to one of the lads close to the club, the guys from Nike acted like pr!cks when the contract was to be renegotiated and gave the impression that they really couldn't give two hoots. Nice.

---

I'd appreciate it if ye'd be careful what ye say in this thread please lads. I just had someone claiming to be from Nike Ireland or a company related to Nike Ireland on the phone about this comment, asking for it to be deleted.

I didn't see the full context at the time, but he quoted the highlighted portion above and my response was that while it's not a very nice thing to say, I don't think it's defamatory or libellous, just someone's opinion.

Having reviewed it in context I'm still of that view, and I won't be deleting it, however I will be giving Bluebeard an infraction for avoiding the language filter, and I'd ask both Bluebeard and the rest of ye to keep this conversation professional and polite please.

Perhaps this will be a lesson to those of you that think you can get away with saying what you like on t'interweb. It's not that simple I'm afraid, there's always someone out there hunting for an opportunity to be offended.

And I have better things to do with my time than deal with them on the phone.

adam

the mons had nike a couple of seasons ago and it was the best seller they ever had

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passerrby

the mons had nike a couple of seasons ago and it was the best seller they ever had

---

Who's kissing the spy from Nike's ass :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I didn't see the full context at the time, but he quoted the highlighted portion above and my response was that while it's not a very nice thing to say, I don't think it's defamatory or libellous, just someone's opinion.

Perhaps this will be a lesson to those of you that think you can get away with saying what you like on t'interweb. It's not that simple I'm afraid, there's always someone out there hunting for an opportunity to be offended.

---

Have there been any legal rulings that determine who, if anybody, is responsible for comments on a website such as this? Is it still a legal gray area?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeixlipRed

Who's kissing the spy from Nike's ass :p

---

how do you know im not the spy from nike .check out the ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Have there been any legal rulings that determine who, if anybody, is responsible for comments on a website such as this? Is it still a legal gray area?

---

Not a grey ( :mad: ) area in this case, as it's clearly opinion.

[EDIT]
Now, having looked it up, the author of a statement deemed to be of a defamatory nature is primarily responsible in law, but the operator of a website that hosts submissions from others assumes the role of publisher in the eyes of the law and so shares responsibility. The operator of a message board is specifically mentioned as also being held responsible for the site's content.
It's an EU directive of 2003 that presumably updated the law for the information age, the previous Defamation Act dated to 1961.
And not only that, it is heavily tilted towards the subject of any typeage, as actual defamation does not have to be proved, only that the statements are 'of a type' which tend to defame.
[/EDIT]

I'm wondering, using only my opinion mind, if that phone caller is connected in any way to a poster on this thread? And not the one just above this one. :)

Foot.ie is very specifically not a published website. There is no editor on Foot.ie, and moderators are not editors since posts are clearly not pre-approved. As noted in our site disclaimer, which all members must agree to upon registration, comments are the responsibility of the poster.

I always thought it was grossly unfair to hold a site responsible for whatever a few mongs wanted to type on it, but that's what the synopsis of the defamation directive says.
But, if that disclaimer holds up in a law court then that's the site off any hook.

It may not, but that's been my opinion since the start and that's been the policy from the start, so there's not a lot I can do beyond that. Of course in this case, as you've already pointed out, it's moot. Just another case of diddums not liking people not liking them. It's pathetic. As I mentioned on the phone, I've been called a lot worse on here, and it's my site.

adam

nike just took over the mega stores in old trafford on a 10 year lease worth 130 million to man u, so i couldnt see them to bothered with our little league.