https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liverpool-paid-manchester-city-1m-spy-settlement-mxkns7mb6
Most of the Article is behind a paywall but funny regardless.
Spygate
- Thread starter Ijg
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/liverpool-paid-manchester-city-1m-spy-settlement-mxkns7mb6
Most of the Article is behind a paywall but funny regardless.
So basically they used their old Man City login details to get into the system?
Sounds like it. There's a chance one of them could have done it to get their own scouting reports back, without considering the legal ramifications (his work product being legally theirs etc), that'd be my excuse in that situation anyway!
Man City should pay us a million for saving them from buying that lot.
That's what I said during the whole me2 thing
Truthfully I'm happy to see us bending rules to get an edge. For far too long we've been naive as an organization and it's gotten us nowhere.
History remembers the winners.
History remembers the winners.
Six years is the statutory limitation for suing someone under tort law, which is how I would go about it.
So basically the club was pissed about the whole thing, compounded by the utter shit we signed, has held a grudge all these years, and couldn't resist the chance it now has to stick it's middle up at the cunts with impunity.
This doesn't make any sense at all
We waited six years so that city can no longer issue fresh proceedings against us. Then we admitted everything to the press to embarrass them for being incompetent and petty.
I suspect, as usual, that your initial logic is sound, but the theory you developed from it is completely wrong.
It would make perfect sense that the contract signed would say both clubs couldn't make it public until after a period of time, that period of time coinciding with the tort law period would also make perfect sense.
It wouldn't, however, make sense for us to go to the press with it, for so many reasons, not least of which is the clubs image & how it relates to sponsorship, which we want as spotless as possible.
As such it suggests that City have waited until after the period is over & have leaked it the moment they could in order to sully the club's name.
It would make perfect sense that the contract signed would say both clubs couldn't make it public until after a period of time, that period of time coinciding with the tort law period would also make perfect sense.
It wouldn't, however, make sense for us to go to the press with it, for so many reasons, not least of which is the clubs image & how it relates to sponsorship, which we want as spotless as possible.
As such it suggests that City have waited until after the period is over & have leaked it the moment they could in order to sully the club's name.
They won't issue proceedings because we paid them £1million not to. We also paid them to keep the matter confidential.
This leak is damaging and embarrassing to us. Why on earth would we leak it.
You're trying too hard here. A confidentially clause in a settlement is almost always indefinite. It would make no sense otherwise.
The limitation period for tort is completely irrelevant.
And why would anyone want to tell the world you paid £1m because you got caught peeping at Lazar Markovic's scouting report?
So the world would know who's scouts are totally blind, and who's are resourceful.
The settlement will have been related to IP law, concerned only with the damage caused and not to punish the act which led to it. That is how they would have issued proceedings. They probably settled because the actual "value" of the IP damages is pocket change. But when you admit hacking into their servers to steal it, that is a separate cause of action, where you can directly punish your ex-scout or his employer for doing something wrong. The limitation on that is six years and the settlement won't cover it.
The settlement will have been related to IP law, concerned only with the damage caused and not to punish the act which led to it. That is how they would have issued proceedings. They probably settled because the actual "value" of the IP damages is pocket change. But when you admit hacking into their servers to steal it, that is a separate cause of action, where you can directly punish your ex-scout or his employer for doing something wrong. The limitation on that is six years and the settlement won't cover it.
Surely the settlement would’ve included a non-disclosure agreement.
If the timing is right and the players we did sign are linked to this 'hack', it sounds like the Arabs have been indulging in some top-level Black Ops disinformation
1. Why wouldn't the settlement have covered all claims by City against the scouts and Liverpool, like any decent agreement? Did they get their legal advice off a football forum?
2. Hacking into servers is a crime under the Computer Misuse Act. There is no limitation.
The NDA would cover the terms of the settlement, to ensure nobody discovers who paid who, and infers some guilt or negative opinion on that. So you can't go around telling people the other party paid you £1m after you sued them. It's not like corporate rape cases where they totally gag you from even speaking about the facts ever again.
The settlement will also say it is in full and final settlement of the case and all related matters, which means neither party can sue the other again. It's closed, forever. But this can be gotten around if new facts emerge which create a new cause of action (like tort), or you sue the individual employees who are not party to the settlement. Or you just ignore it and convince the judge to allow the new claim, or any one of a hundred things. The only way to guarantee you are in the clear is when the limitation period is up. Which is six years. Which makes me think we leaked this. Otherwise there is no reason for City to wait that long, because nobody is suing them for anything.
Last edited:
1. It would have covered all the claims they made, and any other claims based upon those facts. The facts would not have referred to how we obtained the IP because they can't prove that, unless they themselves hack into our computers, and see which of our employees was logged in to the computer that accessed their server.
2. Then city will report that to the police. The police will question our scout. He'll say no comment. Then the case will be dropped.
- Status
