Woodgate and Bowyer

I don't think England need him to be honest especially with his temperament. I do have it from good local sources that it was Woodgate all along who was going to get sent down out of all this, he was, allegedly "a right thug" at school. But only affray, what's that simple fighting as opposed to administering a serious beating?

As predicted. Obviously we don't know all the evidence, but it sounds like they've got off very lightly, espec. Woodgate. I mean how is jumping on someone's chest with both feet not GBH, if not ABH?? Affray is complete bollocks!

As I remember from when I got beaten up affray is a charge you can nail somebody with when you know they were involved but you cant prove they landed any specific blow.

Right, back to work.

Affray's the catch-all offence. In legalease, it's putting the putative bystander in fear for their personal safety. Note that there doesn't have to be a bystander - the test is, if someone had been passing by at that particular moment, would X's actions, whether verbal or physical, have led them to fear for their personal safety?

Prison sentences of two to three years for affray are not uncommon, where the injuries sustained are sufficiently grievous.

So the bystander would be affrayed? (sorry)

I think you'd be held in contempt of court for that one, Jonnie. ;-)

If Bowyer recaptures anything like the form he showed last season, I think he'll be off to Japan. I think he'll find it hard to break into a midfield featuring left-sided-bloke-X plus Beckham-Scholes-Gerrard (although none of those three have exactly been setting the Premiership alight this past month or two) but think he's next in the queue.

My guess is he's probably not a very nice young man, but when he hits his form he's a fabulous footballer. It's horrible when people you don't approve of play well for teams you like, isn't it?

Shock only 100 hours of commyunity service for Woodgate ! free to walk from Hull Crown Court, his pal got 6 years for GBH !, and another pal the same 100 hours as Woodgate.

When I did jury service, the accused was charged with Assault occasioning ABH, and the victim wasn't nearly as badly injured as the plaintiff in this case. So it must have been a lack of proof at who struck the blows.

Fucking immature idiots, the lot of them. Woodgate should be sacked.

Sp (community service)

Should Leeds sack Woodgate? On the grounds of bringing the club into disrepute? Should any footballer who commits a crime be sacked? Only violent crimes? Even a crime for which the state deems 100 hours community service a just punishment? What about more serious non- violent crimes? If he should be sacked, should he be allowed to play football elsewhere? In which case, what effect does sacking him have... gaining him a big fat signing on fee and most likely a wage rise.

I don't know the answers to any of these questions, by the way. Agree with Mark in other respects.

I thought O'leary and Ridsdale said that if any of them were found guilty then they would be finished at Leeds, and quite right too. Ridsdale always comes across as a decent bloke, let's hope he sticks to his word and kicks Woodgate out. Mind you, what's his community service going to be? Training kids, that's what, he should be made to slop out the bedpans in a geriatric ward.

Are you in favour of footballers being kicked out of football clubs for other forms of antisocial behaviour then Chris? Blatant displays of homophobia or racism, for example?

Like I say, I'm not sure where I stand on these issues and this seems a sensible place to think about them aloud.

"When I did jury service, the accused was charged with Assault occasioning ABH, and the victim wasn't nearly as badly injured as the plaintiff in this case. So it must have been a lack of proof at who struck the blows."

Please note that affray is a public order offence, NOT an offence against the person. This accounts for the disparity in sentencing. An affray and an assault are two completely different things.

Didn't Cantona get roughly the same sentence for his chop socky antics?

Tim, I'd like to see O'Leary and Ridsdale put their money where their mouthes are and actually do it. How far should managers/Chairmen back up their players? It is going to be interesting to see what happens, and yes the last comment was said on the fly rather than thinking about it, good call.

I think Ridsdale and O'Leary are in a difficult position: I don't know exactly what either of them said back then, but their players were being accused of racist GBH. Even the prosecution were at pains to disqualify a link to racism in this case, and Woodgate ended up being convicted of affray (as Trevor points out, that's a public order offence). Is that where Ridsdale's mouth was?

I can't get over the issue that if Woodgate is sacked by Leeds, he will simply sign on at another club for a fat, fat signing on fee. Some punishment.

How much is it worth to LUFC to distance themselves from the incident? This may be unfair to Woodgate, but I think it would be worth their while just to say "as a club we're above this" and get rid. I think I agree, it's probably the right thing to do. Hm.

My instant recollection was that Ridsdale said that they would never play for Leeds again if they were found guilty. Of course he didn't say of what, I mean, where did Affray come from, I thought it was only GBH they were being done for? Does affray come in if they can't be done for more serious charges?

And you're otm about the signing on fee if they do realise him, he can't really lose can he?

Cantona did get exactly the same punishment iirc and was given a large pat on the back for training kids. The thing is, to give a footballer football training as a punishment is hardly going to change his character and make him a model citizen is it? or is it?

It's a shame that I'm about to leave work for the day, I may nick flatmate's computer later to catch up, this is interesting.

Can't do the code but check out http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,618869,00.html

not nice boys at all

"Cantona did get exactly the same punishment iirc and was given a large pat on the back for training kids."

I was hoping that no-one would draw Cantona comparisons. In my book, they are two entirely seperate scenarios.

Don't forget that in Cantona's case, his so-called "victim" was hardly blameless himself, and was charged with a number of public order offences to reflect his inciteful and downright repugnant behaviour leading up to Cantona's retaliation.

Cantona's reaction was justified but on the other hand could not be condoned, so all in all it was a fair cop. And if some underprivileged kids got taught football by a living legend in the process, then more power to the judiciary.

Regardless of the signing-on fee situation, I think Leeds are pretty much obliged to sack him, not least because that's what they said they'd do. As an alternative, then, perhaps Leeds could sell him, albeit for a nominal fee, so that they have some control in the amount of signing on fee he would command? Is this possible?

I wish this was David Batty we're talking about. What a cunt.

Trevor, as you said upthread, Woodgate was convicted of being frightening in the street, while Cantona was convicted of a minor assault. They are different scenarios (for sure) but the law clearly doesn't see one as much more serious than the other. It seems to me that comparing them is quite an interesting thing to do.

Should Cantona have been sacked?

Fair point, but it was still supposed to be a punishment wasn't it? I mean, Cantona chopsockied a very odious person but he still shouldn't have done it in broad floodlight in front of a hella lot of witnesses. The more I think about this whole thing the more confused I seem to be getting.

Mark, the signing-on fee is between the buying club and the player (or his agent), the selling club has no veto. Of course, the selling club has the right not to sell to any particular buyer.

Did Leeds say they's sack anyone who was *in any way involved* in this? I'm not saying they shouldn't dispose of JW, just that I'm not convinced they're morally obliged to.

I love David Batty, by the way.

I was trying to refer more to the attitude of the club concerned when trying to compare the dirty Leeds boys with Cantona. But in both cases there was a reaction to verbal abuse wasn't there?

I'm going to have to find Ridsdale's exact words here aren't I, that will be my task for this evening. More to follow.......

If fear comes into it, I bet Sarfez Najib (am I close?) was a fuck of a lot more scared than the Crystal Palace ape - he may have got a kick, but he knew he wasn't going to be murdered by a gang of pissed- up, vicious thugs. Cantona's offence was, to me, more forgiveable, if more serious (relative to what was proved, in any case). Street violence is a foul thing, and it probably wouldn't be a bad thing if this case were to have been used as an example to any young men who get bladdered and aggressive on a Saturday night - Woodgate sent down for 6 months would have been a lot more of a deterrent than community service.

I don't think Risdale is morally obliged to sack Woodgate. I think the initial statement was more an immediate reaction to the club not being seen as supporting people who commit racist attacks and undoing work to tie Leeds United into the local community etc. And I don't doubt they wwould have been sacked if either had been found guilty of the more serious charges.

Woodgate is obviously a thug but I agree there's no purpose in sacking him, saying that though I wouldn't be surprised if he was. When was the last time he played? Hasn't he gone to pot, not literally, since all this?

I love Batty too.

Fear comes into it in the Woodgate case, Mark, because that's what JW was convicted of (thanks Trevor btw for the definition above, it's made talking about this much easier). It doesn't especially arise in the case of Cantona because he was convicted of kicking someone, not of scaring them.

If it had been a racially motivated attack and was found to have been so then he would have to be sacked and, furthermore, would not have been able to play professional football in Britain again (would any club dare such a press backlash?). As it is, and whilst not trying in any way to defend such thuggishness, the verdict evidently does not see it as that serious an offence. Leeds will not sack him, read my , er, fingers.

Should your employer have the right to sack you if you commit a crime in your own time? It seems a simplistic question but it actually brings up some very deep rooted problems. Certainly if you commit the crime against your employer then that would be sufficient grounds, equally if that crime was committed against someone involved in your work. In other situations I am not so sure. Isn't that why we have courts and a judiciary in the first place, to seek justice and punish accordingly. WOuldn't the club firing him be tantamount to vigilantism (just picturing David O'Leary dressed as Batman and one of his "young kids" as Robin - there is a David Batty gag going amiss while my brane is being serious).

Is Jonathon Woodgate bringing the club into disrepute? I don't think so, he has brought himself into disrepute. I personally think firing him would be bringing the club into disrepute, in a petty way it backs up all people who perpetuate the myth that all criminals are evil and should not be employed, which is one of the largest aspects stopping successful rehabilitation of probationers, which then leads to reoffending.

Pete your point could mean people end up WFP (working from prison, duh) if they cannot be sacked for committing a crime.

If in the minds of the Leeds public (or whichever public the club wishes to consider "their public) failure to fire JW equates to LUFC = soft on racism then he should go. Fair or unfair, some things are more important.

And as Cabbage said above, a sacked JW is unlikely to emerge any more damaged than an unsacked JW. Pete's right about the principle of double jeopardy, but LUFC has a significant part to play in the wider objective of opposing racism in Leeds and elsewhere. Higher goals, and all that.

Sorry if my posts here have seemed contradictory, I really am only just thinking this through.

If Mr.Woodgate was a solicitor (fat chance), then most certainly he would be sacked for bringing the profession into disrepute.

I think the distinction is that footballers, unlike lawyers, are not perceived as, or expected to be, moral custodians.

The point being, the less people expect of you the more you can get away with.

Cool. Anyone fancy coming ram-raiding tonight?

Tim, I agree, they're different things. What I was saying is that I consider Woodgate's crime worse than Cantona's (which some may completely disagree with) and as such I think he deserves to be more harshly treated, both by the law and by his club. I know it's just a personal opinion, but I just thought it was worth saying.

As for Woodgate, if he had been convicted of racial assault, he'd have undoubtedly secured a transfer to Italy. Sigh.

I know I'm a professional cynic, but my first reaction was that they would both have received much greater sentences 15 years ago when football was regarded as a kind of shady low-life activity by the government and much of the media. Can't stand either, myself, but Bowyer is clearly the less reprehensible.

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,620641,00.html

A further twist.

not half! Woodgate accepts a fine equal to 8 weeks pay but Bowyer won't accept a four week one, despite admitting in court that he had breached the clubs rules and regulatrions with regards to conduct and alcohol. Hmmm, Billy big-boots isn't he?

So, who's going to buy him, and how much will he fetch?

Seth Johnson is looking a useful buy now isn't he?

wasn't the thinking behind his signing that he was to be a back-up if Bowyer got sent down? whichever way, yeah, very useful signing.

Here's that link (I hope) for the lazy. Thanks Jonnie.

I'm very pleased LUFC have done this. Thinking about this over the weekend, the important thing is that LUFC behaves as a force against racism (and other anti-social behaviours) as far as it can. The fight against racism in football is not about making it unacceptable or unfashionable to make racist comments in the ground (although goodness knows that's a welcome start). It's about using the position of the football club as a focal point of community to challenge racist attitudes and to be a beacon of anti-racism.

Lots of pompous nonsense in the papers this weekend about football and racism, and then a very, very fine piece in the Guardian yesterday by Gary Younge.

Next stop, fines for sexism or homophobia then, chaps, yes?

agreed, but do you see much sexism on the footy pitch?

No, but where have we mentioned *on* the footy pitch in this thread?

Bowyer is even thicker and more arrogant than you could possibly believe! Good for Leeds - I hope Bowyer is sidelined for long enough to scupper his World Cup chances. I'd rather not have him representing England.

Interesting piece at the bottom of the article which has drawn no comment. "The PFA's maximum fine limit is two weeks wages". Therefore by accepting the fine of eight weeks wages, Woodgate is breaking Union rules. Now I know a lot has been said about the PFA of late, but since this is for a breach of club rules this kind of thing could set an awful precedent. After club rules = any old bumf which the club bundles in with the initial contract, and subject to pretty much arbitrary controls.

Equally if Bowyer is not willing to pay the fine this may be because in his interpretation he did not break club rules - or because the club is breaking the PFA's rules. What recourse does he have to argue?

I just think there has been an awful lot of hypocracy bandied around over the weekend (the FA ban being one as well) which would be treated wholly differently if this was a discussion on workers rights, terms and conditions.

footballers aren't workers, pete, they're entertainers: it's like gary glitter being airbrushed out of spiceworld, sad for the moment-to-moment aesthetic conception of the piece but necessary for the overall trajectory

(gary younge's piece was OK: ie better than he sometimes is)

Gary Younge's piece was the first time I've ever seen the mainstream media recognise that the players - clubs - fans triangle is one in which *all three* sides can and should be active in using the position of a football club in the community as a force for good. Normally 'the fans' are seen as the problem, to be cajoled and bullied by the clubs, a route which will always prove to be ineffective. This problem is especially true in the sports pages, in which writers generally like to see sport as a closed world and fans as ignorant, irrelevant atmosphere-generation tools. (If anyone'sinterested, I have a lot to say about the PFA in this connection... oh, OK then).

I was also really pleased that GY did enough research to notice that the clearest and most effective voice against racism at LUFC were Leeds Fans United Against Racism and Fascism.

The players *are* workers, albeit ones to whom very odd custom and practice apply. The PFA is without a doubt the strongest trade union left in the UK (is it a closed shop, or does every player just join because they'd be mad not to?). Nevertheless, there's a wider principle / greater good at stake, and a few well-rewarded individuals foregoing their job satisfaction for a while is just not as important as LUFC being seen to stand clearly against racism, thuggery etc.

I meant to add that LFUARF were the clearest and strongest voice against racism *in the late 80s and early 90s*. Those were the years I lived in Leeds and so can speak with some confidence. Also, I understand the club have worked hard to improve their record on anti- racism since then.

Yeah i was being flip obv. In fact entertainers are workers too: but I was sort of mulling that point after and began to think, isn't action here — ie "in sport", meaning the full "triangle" you mention tim — (potentially) a BETTER arena for confronting racism than the lawcourts (where it often ends up being judgments of the insides of people's heads)?

It didn't occur to me to praise GY for acknowledging the fans actually, which is partly just my ignorance (last time i read sports pages ever = never, possibly; i used to read when saturday comes in the 80s sometimes); I didn't realise they were still left out of the discussion (it offends my standard performance aesthetic that they are, naturally, except to bolster my ancient indifference to sport when compared to pop). GY is from the "working class politics" wing of the left (ex-WRP, I'm fairly sure), so not uninformed eg abt XYZ-against-racism. He often speaks on platforms with the SWP mob in Hackney.

(I just think he's a bit low-octane as a stylist (= boring and plodding): ie i'm a snob heh. I went off to read the piece again but discovered I had used it to light my sitting- room fire as my heating has now packed up entirely...)

I'm certainly interested in what you have to say about the PFA Tim, its something I know little about and the recent shenanigans over funding have made them poke their head above the parapet where I imagine most of their work is in the lower leagues and with retiring players. I can certainly see how a closed shop atmosphere may occur within a club - you have a squad of at least fifteen living in each other pockets, classic case for each club to get one shop steward/bully to make everyone join.

Oddly though if the response is to fine them for breaking club rules with regards to drunkeness in public - then why were they not fined two years ago. There was never any dispute that they were out that night. Certainly I can see that the club has backed its players and feels betrayed that it was lied to.

Oh and you are spot on with the role of fans in a clubs life and how they have been constantly done down. That said - were the fans consulted in this final turn. Do they want to see Bowyer go. On the strength of this mornings reports - no.

Interesting point raised by Pete about Woodgate's fine being in breach of union rules.

I also note that by not allowing Bowyer to attend the disciplinary hearing, Leeds FC appear yet again to be in breach of the union's rules.

I appreciate the club's stance, but they're going about this the wrong way.

"I was also really pleased that GY did enough research to notice that the clearest and most effective voice against racism at LUFC were Leeds Fans United Against Racism and Fascism."

Another important point, and a definite cause for concern. I understand that Imran Khan (the solicitor, NOT the cricketer) is taking on the victim's private action against the players.

Mr Khan's credentials as a solicitor are undisputed, although it has been noted by many that he often chooses to focus on the racial element of a case, often resulting in the inevitable distortion of the actual facts.

The point being, this case will ultimately be very damaging to the strong reputation that Leeds have forged for uniting against racism. Just look what the Stephen Lawrence enquiry did to the general perception of the police force.

My gut feeling is that Leeds will be annihilated if they do not take immediate steps to dissociate themselves from these players. With a lawsuit imminent, I think this explains their somewhat kneejerk reaction towards Woodgate and Bowyer. They will need to be sacrificed in order to save the reputation of the club.

Not sure I agree with you about Khan's "distortions of the actual facts" Trevor... I'd be interested to see instances of people noting his 'distortions'. My feeling is his focus on racism is healthy and helpful, at least where I've seen it (I've mostly seen him in connection with the Lawrence case, haven't I?).

Shd note again that my observation about LFUARF was relevant more than 10 years ago. The new regime at LUFC is supposed to be much stronger on community issues than the old.

"Annihilated" how? I could see sponsors pulling out, but it's not clear that that has happened, or will. Can't see how else LUFC will have any harm done. Will anyone stop supporting them? Doubtful, and if so only a very few. It may harm long-term development but I can't see annihilation on the cards.

As I've said upthread, my concern is that the power of people's identification with their football club is harnessed as a force for good in the community. I'm remiunded of DO'L's comments after the events last year that "we know what really went on", and the club have to be seen to take it seriiously.

I could be wrong, but the tactic I anticipate from Mr Khan is that he will allege that Leeds United FC is an institutionally racist organisation. That for some time there has been a developing culture of heavy drinking and thuggish behaviour amongst certain players, which whilst not actively encouraged, has not been actively discouraged. As a consequence, it can be argued that the club failed to take reasonable steps to ensure proper standards of professionalism and discipline were adhered to.

Remember that racism hardly got mentioned at all during the course of the criminal trial. This leads me to question whether the incident was racially motivated. If it was, then I would have expected the prosecution to use this in evidence against the suspects, as an aggravating factor likely to increase the chances of securing a custodial sentence.

Yet newspaper reports suggest that racism will form the whole raison d'etre of the private action.

And don't forget that Mr Khan isn't just a solicitor, he is affiliated to several anti-racism groups and therefore fulfills a dual function of solicitor/campaigner. It's pretty much par for the course to suggest that this case won't just be about Woodgate and Bowyer. Wider inferences will be drawn during the course of the hearing, and I'll be very surprised if Leeds Utd. will be beyond reproach.

Either that or I'm a doom prophet talking out of my ass.

From the outset the prosecution did not argue that it was racially motivated (remember that it was the victim's group that first had a go at the Bowyer/Woodgate posse). This is why the first trial collapsed, because the article in the Mirror (?)during the initial trial implied that it was. Whether or not this is true was, in terms of the court case, irrelevant as it had been agreed for the purposes of the trial that it was not.

The family have fairly consistently said that they believe racism to be an element in this case. For whatever reason (and here I don't understand the workings of the law / CPS) the prosecution chose not only not to feature racism in their case but actively to distance the case from such allegations.

If Mr. Khan can prove that LUFC has displayed institutional racism then I hope he does and I hope (and trust) they will change. I haven't seen any details of the private case yet, and will be very interested when they are published.

Campaigning lawyers (on the right side) are a good thing, surely?

Yes exactly. That's why I raised my eyebrows when I read that the private action will focus exclusively on the race issue.

From experience, if there's even a suggestion that a case contains an element of racism, the prosecution are extremely unlikely to proceed on the basis that this element was not present.

Of course, I don't know what's going to happen in this new case, it's all just speculation.

And I'm all for campaigning lawyers, although a few have a tendency to lose their sense of objectivity and consequently their credibility is undermined. I think it's a terrible waste of potential.

I'm not convinced the private action will focus entirely on the racial aspect, though I would equally suprised if it didn't touch upon it. But I would be surprised if they try to suggest that LUFC is institutionally racist - they would either go for football as a whole or leave it off. After all the arguments about closed shops vis a vis unionism also would apply pretty well to racism (tight knit squad of young, lets say not altogether bright youngsters). Nevertheless whilst the existence of black players within the squad does not rule out the squad or club operating in a racist manner, it does help undermine the idea that such a conspiracy is bedded in at a player level. Just look at who the most expensive player at Leeds is after all...

Of course the position of people of Asian/Middle Eastern descent in football is still pretty much in the dark ages.

Yes Pete, that's one of the things that irks me about being a West Ham supporter. As Tim suggests, a true football team should be both representative and supportive of the community in which it is located.

Upton Park has a thriving Asian community - Green Street (where the stadium is situated) is a predominantly Asian area - yet how many of these people can be seen at the games? Virtually none. It's a disparity that I'm certainly not comfortable with.

So yes, I'd love to see an Asian player in the first team at West Ham. It's way overdue, although I understand we have a number of promising youngsters.

On a different note, I hear that Rio Ferdinand's younger brother Anton is an absolute star in midfield...

...I just hope to god he doesn't end up playing for Leeds. ;-)

Leeds of course have a youngster called Harpal Singh in their reserve squad who is tipped for the first team, how does he feel about all this? And why is he just about the only Asian player of any note in the premiership squads? (that I know of)

That branch of the Ferdinand family, of course, are proud Peckhamites, hooray! So their local community club = Millwall. Not that that means anything at all, really. Is Fedinand Minor at West Ham then, Trevor?

Lee Bowyer's image in the press / on the telly is so irksome that I can't imagine being able to spend time happily in the same room as him. He seems to have a positive effect on team spirit when he's around, though. Weird.

Leeds fans reported to be likely to protest against him being sold. I guessed he was chancing his arm while injured, seeing whether by protesting at a time when he had no chance of playing anyway he might gat the fine reduced. It seems to be going a bit far for that now.

I note reports suggesting Tottenham are in the market for LB. Also that he will be entitled to 5% of any fee he attracts if he does leave Leeds, plus a signing-on fee, all of which is likely to leave him with a fat wedge, even after his recently-incurred legal costs.

Harpal Singh has been on loan at Bury since September (Bury also feature Baichung Bhutia, an Indian international, by the way). My guess is that everyone in the LUFC hierarchy desperately hopes that Harpal makes the grade, for his own sake and for the obvious wider ones.

Anyone have any theories on why British Asian men haven't made much impact on the Professional game in this country? The mechanisms of institutional racism which have kept tham out (if, as I suspect, that's what's kept them out)?

The lack of Asian players I think will diminish over the next ten years when third generation kids slowly come of age. From the Asian communities perspective there is the (first generation parents) perspective that sport is not worthwhile doing - certainly not persuing as a career, hence training etc is a waste of time. Couple with that the perception (not wholly undeserved back in the seventies at least) that the football hooligans they see/saw on the TV were also the racists who were giving them a hard time - it is not too surprising that the community has never been all that involved. That said there are clubs with very large second generation Asian support (Man U has a very large Asian community following) and the fact that second generation families are not so entrenched in such a close knit Asian community (in certain areas at least) suggests that these traditional barriers are coming down.

We will have to see if football scouts less prejudiced about what it takes to be a footballer these days so that barrier breaks down too. I think most clubs would fall over themselves to have a good homegrown Asian player, just for the PR value.

Certainly our football teams here at SOAS are fifty percent Asian (though possible more with those from Middle Eastern extraction). Another good question is why are there not many Jewish players of note playing in the UK - though traditional day of playing the game may be the obvious answer.

Yes, Anton Ferdinand plays in our under-17's squad. I only hope we can hold onto him!

Pete, your next-generation theory will hold *only* if the institutional racism in football's scouting structure (see Dave hill's "Out Of His Skin" about John Barnes's experience) changes very, very quickly. I get the impression that there is quite some currency given in football to some pernicious stereotypes of Asian men: that while they are hard-working they aren't aggressive enough or physically strong enough to compete and tend to lack individual flair (please note these really aren't my opinions: all such racial stereotypes are demonstrably untrue; rather they're things I've picked up from reading bits & bobs on the subject). The point is not that these are necessarily conscious attitudes on the part of the manager or chair of the club, but may be ingrained deep in the 'football people' in the scouting structure where promising young footballers are found. Those sort of assumptions take years to change.

Of course an opposite set of racist stereotypes was used to exclude kids of African - Carribbean background and that only started to change twenty or thirty years ago...

I agree Tim, I'm looking at it very much from a position of observing lots of Asian footballers within a University - where football is played for fun, we are already passed traditional scouting age. I know very little about the scouting system, though I assume there is a degree of ex-professionals in it. How does the structure work? Does a scout invite a senior scout, and then we get tryouts. Because institutional racism only really takes a grip if you have a hierachy at least three management levels deep (ie enough for management predjudices to leek into grass-root predjudices & vice versa). I'd be surprised that once the intial barrier is broken that it would take more than five to ten years before we see considerably more Asian footballers on the pitch.

This seemed the most appropriate thread to post this on given the football talk. What have the BBC done!?!?!? BBC Radio Five Live have made a major football signing for the New Year. Jonathan Pearce will join the network having spent 14 years at London's Capital Radio.

Oh *God*.

Please tell me you heard that wrong and he's joined TalkSport ...

"But I would be surprised if they try to suggest that LUFC is institutionally racist - they would either go for football as a whole or leave it off."

Well according to this morning's Metro, a civil action is also being made against Leeds Utd FC on two grounds - firstly, that they made a concerted effort to cover up the incident, and secondly, because they failed to control their players. It will certainly be interesting to see whether or not the wider implications behind their action, or lack of, get explored.

Thanks for that Trevor. I'm a bit perplexed, though. What laws are they alleging LUFC have broken? Would a cover up be against the law? (Perverting the course of justice?)

Does this mean that any employer can be sued for any criminal / offensive actions of any of their employees, on the ground that they "failed to control" them? Is it an employer's duty to 'control' their employees outside the working environment?

If LUFC or the individuals named were to be found guilty on these charges, what are the potential penalties?

Its a civil case so if they are found liable it would be for financial damages. Listening to a couple of lawyers discuss this on radio four yesterday they were very surprised that LUFC had been named on the action. Nevertheless the idea that the club can control its players outside of their working hours is also the partially the idea behind them being fined for breaking club rules. The fact that this fine has only been applied after the criminal proceedings has finished could be used to suggest that Leeds were with-holding evidence and falling down on their self appointed duty to discipline their players. Seems a bit weak though. That said the excerpts of "Leeds On Trial" serialized in the News Of The World did mention that Leeds hired a Private Detective to discover what happened on the night. If this evidence was with-held and it was significantly more useful the the police evidence - which I would doubt - then there might be liability there.

Tim, those were the points I was trying to make above with regards to the contract between club and player being the same as an employee/employer relationship. There was recently the case of the Post Office worker fired for being photographed at Euro 2000 as a hooligan, which the worker won. So as I said above, grounds for dismissal etc. should be clear in the initial contract - bound up with a guide to the rules & conduct.

And of course now Bowyer isn't going. The PFA brokered a deal (or more likely told the silly scamp to pay up - obviously removing the 2 week fine ceiling as this is a special case).

Well Tim, it's a civil action, so any finding against the club will lead to a payout of damages to the victims, there won't be any resulting criminal sanctions imposed.

Also it's important to know that the standard of proof is substantially lower in civil cases. In a criminal allegation the prosecution must prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt (ie. at least 90% certainty), whereas the civil threshold is "on the balance of probabilities" (theoretically, establishing 51% certainty is sufficient to win your case).

And yes, it's a well established principle that employers can be held liable for the actions of their employees - it's called vicarious liability.

Like you, I was initially perplexed as to how Leeds could be held vicariously liable for the actions of Woodgate and Bowyer, as the incident occurred outside the course of their employment.

The only way I can see that causal link being made is by establishing (a) that the attack was racially motivated (b) Leeds Utd FC are institutionally racist thereby establishing a connection between (a) and (b).

Football and the law. It's a funny old game.

Blimey!

Civil action is decided by a judge as well, not a jury (is that right Trevor - Perry Mason of ILE)? Of course when suing for damages its always a good idea toname as many people with money as possible.

Can you give us any examples where vicarious liability would have been used? It sounds like a very interesting bit of law.

Yes Pete, juries are only involved in criminal trials, not civil hearings. This is because the burden of proof is so much higher, a jury is required as an additional safeguard.

This case is one of the best recent examples of vicarious liability in practice:

VARIOUS CLAIMANTS v (1) BRYN ALYN COMMUNITY HOMES LTD (2) THE ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE PLC (2001)

In 14 claims arising out of physical and sexual abuse in children's homes in North Wales between 1973 and 1991, the defendant had breached its direct duty of care to the children to take all reasonable steps to provide a safe home for them. Although the claims were statute barred, the court would exercise its discretion under s.33 Limitation Act 1980 to allow the claims to proceed.

I don't think any analogies can be drawn between this case and the proposed Leeds case, but it's a good example of a company being held (partly) responsible for the criminal activities of its employees.

Although playing devil's advocate, both cases raise potential "failure to control" arguments.

I can see an obvious difference in the child abuse case though, as the children were in the care of homes, and therefore part of that care would be the selection and control of suitable carers/staff. I can see an direct connection in this case.

I think what you've said above is a good point, if the club could be shown to be institutionally racist AND this could be shown to be a racist attack then there could be a degree of liability. But lordy, that looks tenuous.

I agree.

But if anyone can do it, Imran Khan.

Ho Ho.

Well I'm off for Christmas now though I daresay me and Tim will bat this baby around in the pub for a bit. See you on 2nd Jan. Happy New Year.

Yeah, take care guys. Make sure you have a good one.

Thought I'd resurrect this old-ish thread to report on new developments, this fresh from this week's Law Society Gazette, published today:

"A Leeds solicitor and a Manchester law firm were both the subject of complaints received this week by the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in relation to the recent trail of Leeds footballers Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate.

Peter McCormick, a former director of Leeds United and senior partner of Leeds firm McCormicks, is accused of acting in conflict of interest, along with Manchester firm Freeman & Co, which acted for Woodgate."

I'm not sure about Freeman & Co, but I reckon Mr McCormick's in a spot of bother, what with him being a director of Leeds whilst acting for both players in the early stages of their case.

(A Newcastle fan hangs his head in shame.)

Have they done something new?

Not yet.

A bit off topic but.. ouchy for Newcastle http://www.ananova.com/sport/story/sm_870700.html?menu=

Ho, and, indeed, ho.