02 18
THE FAN HIS FOOTBALL CLUB TRIED TO KILL
It's been a long time since an update on this site. Simply because of how busy I have been, the fact the last parody film fell through on the day of the shoot and no time to get other things off the ground. It's been a busy time with Wednesdayite (as Sheffield Wednesday fans will no doubt know and have an opinion on, either way) and things appear to go from ridiculous to sublime daily in all things SWFC related. However, I felt compelled to write something, anything, on the whole SWFC Ltd/Kaven Walker Vs. Nigel Short debacle. I will warn straight away about a long story here - however, this is a ridiculous situation that has been going on for near two years and needs explaining in full.
For those who do not know Nigel Short, he is our very own Gary Barlow in the spoof Take That video made last year. However, Sheffield Wednesday fans will know him as the man who got us a giant flag a few years ago to pass over our heads on the Kop. He was also the man who came up with the 'Shareholders Association Initiative', which compiled a register of shareholders willing to sell for the right offer when the club stated that investors were being put off by not being able to get to a majority 51% shareholding. Nigel is a lifelong fan of Sheffield Wednesday, following in the footsteps of his father before him, who has dedicated a huge amount of his spare time to helping the club and it's community via various means.
In the very same press conference where the clubs' then chairman Dave Allen, with Chief Executive Kaven Walker sat by his side, made the claim about not reaching 51% of shares being a problem for investors, Mr. Allen infamously went on to label a section of the clubs own fans (customers) 'Scum' and 'Cretins' with one unfortunate lady publicly called a 'venomous bitch'. Ironic then that this same club - and Kaven Walker - were at the same time dragging lifelong fan Nigel Short through a legal battle for something he wrote about them on an internet messageboard around two years ago.
And what was the comment that Nigel Short made that offended the club and it's CEO so much? Nobody can remember. Was it any worse than what Mr. Allen said at his press conference about his own customers? Probably not.
For a defamation claim to be made, it has to be proven that what was said changed somebodies opinion of the person you're referring to, for the worse. How it can be claimed that what was written two years ago on a messageboard that nobody can remember damaged anyone is beyond me. However, before we get into tactics employed by Sheffield Wednesday, Kaven Walker and the solicitors in the case against Nigel Short that should not have been brought, let's quickly take a look at the 'Owlstalk' case. Sadly, Nigel Short isn't the only fan that the club have tried to surpress though the courts.
Last year, Sheffield Wednesday, along with it's CEO and all it's directors (it is worth noting that Brian Laws, the football club manager, was originally supposed to be a claimant but he refused to take part in the action and had his name withdrawn), took the largest fans' internet messageboard (www.owlstalk.co.uk) to the High Court. The case, which made headlines across the country and drew interest around the world, was an application to reveal the email addresses of what was trimmed down from over 30 users of the internet forum, with the intent to identify the individuals and sue them for 'damaging' comments. Once again, everyone had forgotten what the comments actually were. Ironically again, the case itself brought the comments back into the public domain, possibly further perpetuating the damage the club were claiming was caused. Following some deliberation, the High Court judge dismissed the claim for the vast majority of the users and their comments were deemed as simply 'saloon bar moanings'. Bringing these actions cost the club, some £25million+ in debt, thousands upon thousands of pounds - at a time when the struggling team could do with a real boost.
Back to Nigel Short's case and you would probably be staggered to know the whole thing could have been sorted following the very first solicitors letter to him - around two years ago. At that time costs were stated at £2,500 (for him to have only received one letter!) and Nigel was asked to agree to a statement to be published by the club. Desperate for the club not to enter into a PR nightmare, Nigel offered, without incurring further costs by employing a solicitor, to settle at this point. He asked for a statement of the costs to pay and for one word in the statement by the club to be altered (the word 'defamatory' to be changed to 'offensive'). This was rejected out-of-hand and so began the continuation of a nightmare for Nigel, his family and the club he loves.
At this point, Nigel was forced to employ a solicitor. Solicitors swopped communication, as they do, for some time until all went quiet. Cases like this have a deadline in which they can be brought and that deadline passed without further communication, therefore it was assumed that no further action was to be taken. Breathing a sigh of relief, the Short family got on with their lives. Nigel settled his solicitors fees, but he was happy things had finished. But they hadn't.
Some four months later, it was revealed that SWFC Ltd and Kaven Walker had indeed filed a case at the court - but without actually telling Nigel. Subsequently, the club waited the maximum time allowed before serving the claim. That claim was for unaffordable damages upto £50,000 + costs of around £7,500 (bear in mind that Nigel's own costs up to this time were less than £1,000). As it was that Nigel could not afford that amount, and the claimant's refusal to accept his reasonable offer at the start - before the ridiculous costs mounted, there was no choice but to attempt and defend the case. Fortunately his solicitor, and subsequently a barristor that had to be appointed, agreed to operate on a 'no-win-no-fee' basis.
At the clubs' Annual General Meeting in November 2007, a shareholder asked the room to raise their hands if they agreed with the legal actions the club were bringing. Not one hand in the room was raised. Not even on the top table.
The dark tactics used aganst Nigel Short did not stop at serving the claim at the very last minute, however - there are a couple more shocking stunts pulled during this case that - almost - defy belief. The first of these is that Nigel's employer was copied in on the allegations. Is it fair that this action could have lost Nigel his job - and subseqently the finances that the club are trying to claim from him?
The latest sorry affair has seen the club recently issue an open statement on their website saying that they will effectively drop the case if Nigel pays his own costs. On the face of it, this could be seen as a nice gesture, however the costs are substantial and would force Nigel into bancruptcy. Basically, it would appear the club are trying to publicly bully Nigel into making himself bankrupt in order to get the case dropped. On this basis, Nigel is forced to refuse and it looks like the issue will continue further - probably ending with a judgement in court one way or the other, unless the club see sense and drop the actions that should never have been brought and absorb all costs.
Anyone in Nigel's situation would feel stressed and that stress can have a major effect on your health. Indeed in the stressful two years that Nigel has endured he has been diagnosed with Cancer, which he continues to fight. Whilst Nigel would not wish for this fact to be played upon in this ongoing ridiculous saga, it is evident that he is having to fight two battles, now seemingly in the public eye.
Despite the shocking headline for this story (written merely to catch a readers interest), I am not making any assumptions as to what impact the football club and it's actions has had on Nigel's health. I will leave that up to the reader to make their own mind up. One thing I will say is that it really can't have helped, can it?
I wish Nigel all the best in both his battles. Once you're fully recovered and fit, we'll go for the sequel to the video mate.
Read Nigel's blog and his continuing story about his fight against Cancer here: http://nigelshort.blog.co.uk/
Feel free to send a link to this page (http://deejayone.co.uk/cms/news.php?item.24.2) to whoever you know, post it on your own website/blog or to tell this story to anyone who might be willing to listen. This whole story realy deserves airing and the 'finger on the pulse' local media in Sheffield seem adamant not to give it the airtime or column inches it deserves. I'll leave it up to individuals to wonder why the local media seem indifferent to this big news story. However, it has been suggested in certain circles that there is an element of our Football Club surpressing the media's views. Whilst not passing judgement about this, local media have shown some interesting signs in this regard - BBC Radio Sheffield's Seth Bennett airing his personal opinions on his BBC website blog (some saying this possibly vindicated their opinions that BBC Radio Sheffield's Football Heaven was being quite biased when it comes to reporting on matters surrounding Sheffield Wednesday) and also claiming 'there's no smoke without fire' (despite the fact that no one can remember what was said) on the live football phone-in. Another telling occurance with the local media was that local newspaper, The Star published a fair and balanced story about the SWFC/Kaven Walker Vs. Nigel Short debacle on their website for it only to mysteriously disappear a couple of hours later (update: 19/02/2008, in fairness to The Star, a trimmed-down version of the story has today been reinstated onto their website and the story has today been featured in the print newspaper) - it would be interesting to know why that article was (originally) pulled. I know a few certain reporters have been worried about people questioning their 'Journalistic Integrity' recently - I would suggest those reporters take a step back and question themselves WHY people are even thinking this. Maybe Seth Bennett should heed his own on-air words: "There's no smoke without fire"?
