Well I was also told they cancelled his contract as well as that article... So I guess I should take it with a spoonful of salt..

Sheffield united succesfully sued West Ham for the playing of an ilegible player for the sum of 20 million (Carlos Tevez)Kevin McCabe SUFC chairman was told all the reasons why he wouldnt win like on this thread,He did win the case,The Eagles current home Is Bramall Lane,Wonder if Marks had a word with Mr McCabe and his lawyers

,As you have already said though,the Eagles have no chance of wiining any case

Just read the article in the League Express which is very detailed in the coverage. Looks like it has been written by Sheffield and has some very questionable reasoning in it.

Mark Aston, and Sheffield, come across very poorly in this and it does sounds like he is the type of person who is going to struggle to back down and is just going to embarrass himself and his club in the meantime.

Hope he ends up with egg on his face and Sam gets to counter-sue for dragging his name through the mud.

But Fax havent played an ineligible player. So whats your point?

Daft comparison tho! This case bears as much resemblence to the Tevez case as comparing me with Johnny Depp!!!!

Fax and Barlow will argue Barlow was eligible to play in the play offs and have the contractural documentation that will support Barlow's case! Tevez was never Utds player - was never subjected to a similar loan agreement or "exclusion contract" and/or the legal argument that goes with such a case.
The Tevez affair was far more complex and ivolved registration arguments at the time if I remember correctly.
This doesn't. He was registered with Fax and a Fax player -- that is without question! The 'clause', [size=150if[/size one exists, that excludes Sam from playing v Sheff in the play offs is what is open to legal judgement.

Fax may just argue that Sheffield have already granted Barlow permission to play against them this season.

It seems that its all in the wording. Fax must have been fully aware of what Sam signed as it was Fax who asked Sheffield permission for him to play in the 9s. The fact permission was given for the 9s does not mean that permission counts for any other game, which is what Sheffield could argue. To me, a simpleton in legal matters, if it just said 2010 then he has breached that legal agreement (if it was drawn up legally) and Fax are surely implicated in getting him to breach that agreement. Even if it states 2010 season, then surely that doesn't end until after the GF.

Even if Barlow was found to be in a breach of contract. Surely the damages have to reflect the losses incurred by Sheffield for him playing.

If this is the case, Barlow had little effect on the overall result and therefore, if Barlow had not played, the result for Sheffield would have been the same. What was the loss to Sheffield?

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/B ... 6540354.jp mr steele,s comments to the courier.

www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/local/B ... 6540354.jp mr steele,s comments to the courier.

Mr Steele sums it up perfectly here-

"Given that Sheffield are intimating they are preparing to take court proceedings, the right place to deal with this is in private rather than in the media," said Steele.
"As such, we will be making no further comment at this time."

Why Mark Aston is so keen to go running to the media I don't know, but he certainly doesn't seem to want to keep it a private matter

If it existed would the Eagles clause amount to a restraint of trade and perhaps be illegal anyway?

No, conditional endorsements from early contractural release are NOT a restraint of trade if both parties agree and sign up to it!

Slap a print out of Aston's text messages on their lawyers desk and bring an immediate end to this sham stand off.

Or publish them in league express like Mr Aston has with everything in this saga.

May give some insight into the character of Mr Aston with his integrity and honesty.

thats the legal point - they cannot prove a direct or even an indirect loss - i would imagine the journalists will get bored with this very soon

Again, by taking on the case, Sheffield will believe they CAN prove that Barlow broke a contract, Fax knowingly played him and as a result Sheffield were 'disadvantaged'!
How great or how little a loss would be decided by the court.

And you are correct. I guarantee that quite soon this case will be forgotten. Another topic will be the vogue!

Don't think it's a sham Rich. I think Aston might not be as confident as perhaps he thought he was - I'm not sure, but I think the process has actually started.
Can't see it as a sham!

I think if the threats that have been made by txt message were exposed, he'd lose a lot of credibility

Already has, as far as I am concerned

by focusing on this subject in his post match interview instead of biging up his team and season, after what was a good run for them, shows he has lost it

he should have been the big man he thinks he is and done any legal stuff in a better mannor

very narrow performance in my opinion, he is trying to be a bully and it has back fired!

His credibility may already be flushed down the gary glitter, that's down to personal judgement - it doesn't mean any intention to persue the matter through the legal process is unjust or a sham. A judge will decide that if it gets that far!

Why does it? He was/is aggreived. He spoke his mind and has a right to do that as long as he didn't libel anyone. Whether he looks or sounds like an @rse is largely irrelevant!



As he's the one considering the legal action, it's Aston that will decide how and when it happens and in what manner. What he "should" do is what he considers best for him and his club! How he's perceived by his actions will have little influence on the legal process as long as it's not considered 'prejudicial' to the case! Bullying doesn't come into it if he feels he/the club have been disadvantaged and are seeing legal redress.

Not saying its unjust that he does pursue it through the correct channels, but there is a way you go about the process, sending threatening txt messages to the other party is not the correct way,

Halifax have placed it in the hands of solicitors and made no further comment, It seems Mr Aston has phoned the media before phoning his solicitors

It appears he has. And the reason FAx haven't responded through the media is that any comments prejudicial to the case that are made public can and will affect the case. They have to be careful what is said.

Aston is now in the same boat but is safe to comment what is already in the public arena and what his intentions are! It seems a bit imbalanced but that's the nature of this kind of case.

I take your point about the text - that's not how I would do things, but I'm of a certain age. I've just discussed this with my daughter - aged 25. She doesn't see any problem. A text is just another form of communication - is this just an age thing?? Maybe Aston feels so hacked off with the issue he felt a text was the appropriate media for venting his spleen - I don't know what was/is in his head!

Astons intention is and was, to acheive what?
His reaction appears to indulge his motive. In some repects pro Sheffield 100% .... but.....

If he continues to act like this, how does he think it will effect players he wants to sign in the future, perhaps i am more enlightened than him, but how would people feel prior to signing when you consider his reactions to Worrincy and Barlow leaving.

Mark needs to take a deep breath and consider things more disspassionately. Its a game! Rugby or Life. Calm down.