I'm looking forward to see how Stevo responds to this

Would I suggest that? Imply otherwise and I will have to contact my lawyer...

[size=59=cyanMoney-grabbing downright theft and mugging with menaces is another story, mind...
[/size
And anyway, its "fee" not "free" in your last sentence?

Keighley mode <In that case Bradford Council will just bail the Bulls out again.>

it looks like the australian hobby of deathriding clubs has reached our glittering shore. Great. Stevo is being a wannabe.

Unfortunately there is liitle possibily of legal action against the Sky SlapHead for his reporting of the Bulls finances.
He said that he had heard rumours from a non-specified source (cant prove he didnt.. even if it came from 2 numpties in a pub).
The hearing of such was actual (he would say) and his reporting of such was factual, and not indended to be malicious. (He would say)

Inside information is important to a regular column journalist though Stevo seems now excluded by most clubs and players if his articles are to analysed leading to outrageous speculation in lazily padding them out.
Intelligent comment and reasoned dissemination of RL issues are also now lacking. He's degenerated into mostly shambling person grandoisement and inuendo.

I have heard strong rumours, and I am factually reporting this and the nature of the rumours, that Stevo ate his hamster and dresses up as a girl at weekends when he is not hanging around in public parks in the small hours abusing the azaleas.

Well of course I haven't (although I SO wish it was all true...

). But if gossip on the terraces was along those lines, would it be OK for me to publish that for wide distribution?

Stevo plays to his public image of being a t-wat.

About time Stevo retired. And his commentary on Sky is embarrassing as well.

Quite happy for him to be a twät on his own time; but when his public twättery treads close to potentially very damaging libel that could cause real harm (imminent signing x reads it and has second thoughts; prospective sponsor y ditto; supplier z ditto and decides to demand cash up front) then there has to be a case to answer.

Regretfully no case to answer. Journalist licence to reporting heard rumours. Not malicious reporting.
Unless of course the rumour attribution (either in a specific accusation or towards a specific club) was unduly regular and continuous, this might then be consrtued as malicious.

Legally, no - provided, of course, he could demonstrate on balance of probabilities that he had indeed heard such widespread rumours. I doubt message-board tittle-tattle would cary much weight?

But morally - very much so. He must have known full well that such reporting could be damaging and potentially very harmful. Any responsible hack would have contacted the club, explained what had been heard, explained that he intended to report on it, and invited comment. And, if he then still felt it worthy of reporting, include the club's comments. And if he chose NOT to include those comments, face serious public censure or worse for biased or malicious reporting.

But of course he is not responsible, so we saw what happened.

His failure to include the club's side, and therefore to present any attempt at a balanced report, means he sailed pretty close to the edge IMO.

And if the argument is that he was not acting as a reporter but was presenting his opinions, then he's sailing even closer to that fine line for defamation IMO.

He did make a similar comment in his Sky Blog last week:

[url=http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,12531_5229075,00.htmlWe all know about the financial strife they are in so it is not as if he can buy his way out of trouble[/url

... a comment which doesn't name a source and is repeated in bold on the same page as a 'quote of the week'.

So in this case he states that 'We all know' i.e. he is attributing the knowledge to himself (amongst others). He is the using this so called knowledge in his job to spread this knowledge. If it is false then he is maliciously spreading the rumours. Even Journalists must get some kind of confirmation before spreading such.

Now that IS almost certainly libelous. His only get-out is that he does not say what he means by "financial strife". Maybe he was not "cohersed" enough?

Anyway, he also said:



Called that one well?

But that statement bears no relation to the actual law!

Malice is not a requirement!

Stevo has clearly defamed the club (unless we are in "financial strife"icon_wink.gif.

So far as I can see his only possible defence would be one of qualified privilege, which protects some "public interest" stories, providing they "adhere to the standards of responsible journalism".

If the allegation is just plain wrong - as Hood clearly stated it is - then Stevo/RLLE would be in trouble as imho it would need a pretty solid and reliable source to justify saying a professional club is "in financial strife" much more so saying this is supposedly well known.

He might I suppose try to get out of it by dissembling, that "financial strife" is not a term of art, and doesn't mean anything in particular, and that under Stevo's definiton of "strife", they are. Would still leave it a cheap shot, and still leaves him a total tossing post.

I await next Monday's issue with great interest.
"Bradford Bulls - An Apology"?, anyone?

Whatever legal recouse might be available to the Buls I agree with FA that Stevo
"Would still leave it a cheap shot, and still leaves him a total tossing post"

League Express should consider the contents of Stevo's submissions and assess whether they want to be associated with such non-informed. non-attributed and non-researched articles in their publication.

If they do then it questions all of their editorial policies and belittles many of the genuine journalists on their staff

As much as Stevo is a pr1ck & what he has said, in his position, is not excusable, for a number of posters on here to feign hysteria & claim you are not in financial strife is a bit rich (!). Perhaps he has read the thousands of posts on RAB blamimg your league position squarley on the financial situation at the club. Depends on your definition of strife I suppose.

if we're in 'strife' whilst operating at a profit for several years and with assets, how do you describe the situation that the majority of the other superleague clubs are in where they have no assets and post a loss every year only surviving due to handouts from their sugardaddies?. And this is public knowledege, the accounts for all clubs are available for a nominal fee from companies house so are easily checkable by any responsible journalist. The only 'strife' we find ourselves in is not money spare to spend on transfer fees which is a bit different to the impending insolvency stevo suggests.

The League Express once published a full page account from the bloke who Leon Pryce was in court for attacking the first time. It was during the trial and therefore legally prejudicial to the case. That’s when I stopped buying it.
They don't really care about their journalistic responsibilities.
Let’s face it, fewer and fewer people read it so soon enough it won't really matter what they print because nobody will be reading it!

I didn't say you are in strife, it was a number of posters on here that might lead a casual observer to believe you are, HTH. The parlous state of most pro RL teams in the country is largely irrelevant. Yes, a repsonsible journalist would check his/her facts before printing tosh. And you think it is only transfer fees at Bradford that have been cut back?

we're fully aware that we're not spending full cap but this is largely due to there not being any halves/ available who would be an improvement on what we have and theres no point signing other positions where we have plenty of cover just for the sake of spending full cap. I'd call that sensible rather than a problem. likewise we may have cut back on gameday entertainment but we still provide more than a lot of SL clubs.

The only posters on here that suggest we are in financial difficulties are visitors who do not wish us well. Many posters on here seem to think the club has plenty of money, which of course it does not and as the chairman acknowledged. Some of us try to point out the same financial realities as he did - no sugar daddy so money is tight - and express concern for the long-term future if crowds fall and the OSV does not go ahead. Nothing there from us to suggest the club is in "financial strife" or, as that tösser wrote means "financial difficulty" right now.

I'm not sure we are actually "fully aware" of any such thing, even if there may be indications that that might be the case.

I suspect TT was anyway referring more to areas such as off-field staff, marketing and pre-match entertainment where it is clear that severe cutbacks were made - almost certainly following the Gareth Davies business plan, and the disappointing fall-off in attendances plus of course the fiasco with Leeds.

The key point most observers miss though is that those cutbacks were necessary precisely to prevent the club getting into financial difficulties, since we can't go running to a Moran or a Davy or a Lenaghan or a McManus or a Wilkinson (or even a Caddick, at need) if we get caught a bit short.

I suspect somebody who does not wish us well has again been doing what we saw clear evidence of happening but could never prove, several years ago - planting malicious and unfounded rumours in the right ears.

If I had the time or the inclination I am sure I could find a number of posts from loyal supporters on here whose posts do suggest financial difficulties. Anyone wishing ill on another RL team I put with G W Bush.

As I said previously, it depends on your definition of strife. Stevo likes to make cheap, not thought through, controversial remarks, usually bollox, in his commentary. This is another of those.

Four pages so far on Stevo's comments! Grist to the Stevo mill.

I find it amusing that whenever commenting on these issues Hood, in theory an intelligent adult, uses phrases like 'sugar daddy'. He sounds more like some envious half wit in a playground.