Printable View
Any matchday programme I have ever read has the little line "the opinions expressed here are not ...... " you know the rest folks.
Can anyone here explain how a club signing up to the fai participation agreement, in the new shiny league we all now live in, now mean that views deemed "negative" are suddenly not allowed in the clubs programme because of the said participation agreement...... fact or smoke and daggers ???? :rolleyes:
Could you clarify the question please?
It's not in the UCD programme.
Yes it is (or if it isn't, then schumi - put it back in!!). Always has been, even before the participation agreement. It's just a standard catch all.
Clubs used to put that in so they could not be sued for articles in the programme. The person who wrote the article would have been liable rather than the club. I presume clubs will still leave it in just in case something slips in.
isn't it smoke and mirrors? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by gotaroundbetter
Club are still responsible for the content of any articles even with the get out
It wasn't in the programme for the Derry game.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Nothing in Cork's programme either.
Dundalk and Drogheda programmes both have it on the first page.
Nah, its cloaks and mirrors ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by razor
It shouldn't allow the writers of the programme to get away with stuff though.
It doesn't. If I was to write an article for Blue Review baselessly accusing a named FAI official of paedophelia, I'd be rightly sued for libel. The question is whether UCD AFC could also be sued for libel, and the programme editor at that. That's what the standard disclaimer comes in. How much legal weight it carries, I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magicme
Where the participation agreement comes in is that the FAI certainly could fine UCD for such an article. The suggestion seems to be that the same agreement is being used to quash any negative opinion. I don't know if that's the case, but certainly that fear is there in clubs, and it would be consistent with fines I have seen managers getting for critical remarks. I certainly don't agree with that.
Just noticed, the FAI site has a disclaimer on their columnists page.
Surely what's good enough for them, is good enough for the clubs.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by atfconline
do you dare to doubt atfconline??
Those disclaimers don't negate any possible legal action, in theory the author, editor, club and even the person selling the programme could be sued for libel.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I thought as much. Do they have any purpose at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouthpiece
They take up a bit of space that would otherwise have to be filled by article writers. :) Apart from that, they may discourage people from suing even if they have no legal standing.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
I think you've hit the nail on the head there, it's down to ignorance of the law for the most part. That said libel law is the most difficult to work out at the best of times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
Cue the law students: "actually, I think you'll find that know-de-know-de-know-de-know-de-know..." :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Mouthpiece
I think the posters above have got it right, that disclaimer is a bit of jiggery-pokery printed more in hope than expectation. The real legalese is in the agreement.
Each club has entered into a confidential participation agreement with the FAI, but there is a sample agreement knocking about somewhere (on the FAI website presumably) which has clauses in it regarding the proscription of critical content in anything public the club issues, including websites and match programmes, that content being criticism of the FAI, match officials, personnel from other clubs etc..
Actually, I think you'l find....Quote:
Originally Posted by stann
But really, libel law in the UK and Ireland is a total nightmare, and is a terrible infringement on freedom of speech, as it is just way too stringent. Look through some recent issues of Private Eye to see what I mean. People are bringing cases against books published by American companies, for the American market in English courts, because the book happens to be available here through amazon.
Obviously there has to be limits on what can be said about another person, but it's gone a wee bit to far.
PS John Delaney ate my hamster.
Allegedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by pól-dcfc
See? it's easy to avoid being libellous.