A serious question about Richie Wellens.........

[mrfrostsdad]

As, as now seems likely (apparently he was at the game yesterday) Richie Wellens has not yet signed for QPR or anyone else, does anyone ITK know what, if anything, we are trying to do to ensure he doesn't?

For example, do we know if he's actually been offered a contract and turned it down? If so, are we going to try and improve it. Or, as some people have said on here, has he not been offered anything at all yet? Is there another board meeting planned to discuss it?

If he's not gone yet, then it's not too late

[silent majority]

He's been offered a substantial contract, as was reported a few days ago. The club expect him to sign it.

[mrfrostsdad]

SM, thanks.
The only 'official' thing I've seen is that the board was meeting last week to 'discuss it' and they expected him to stay. I've not seen anything yet that says he's been offers a 'substantial contract'. Until now

[keith79]

SM hope your right. Because if RW leaves and he then says no contract was on offer you would look stupid. In my eyes anyway

[DonnyBazR0ver]

He's hardly likely to say it if not true is he. Listen to what PD says in his post match interview. How official do you want? Whether he signs it is another matter but I'm confident the club have done what they can and, I wouldn't be surprised he'll become the highest paid player at the club by some margin.

[keith79]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

[mushRTID]

DBR, isnt Coppinger still our highest paid player? I thought I read he was on 7/8 k a week when he was shipped out to Forest. I wouldnt think we'd be offering Wellens that much?

[RedJ]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Because players tell the truth 100% of the time eh.

[silent majority]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

[silent majority]

SM hope your right. Because if RW leaves and he then says no contract was on offer you would look stupid. In my eyes anyway

Thanks for your support.

[Wellred]

Maybe Mr Wellens might be one of the three players we are to sign in the January transfer window 

[drfc1951]

Tommy Spurr said in DFP that he was offered a contract but it was to late,he also said that he was on less money at Blackburn that he would have been had he stayed.

[MachoMadness]

What Tommy actually said at the Rosso game was that he had agreed everything with the club but he was waiting for the club to draw up a physical contract that he could sign, for what it's worth. If Richie has actually been offered terms as SM says then I don't know what more the club can do.

[Lifelong supporter]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

No wonder you have writs served against you.
Tommy Spurr didn't lie and it's an offence to call someone a liar unless you can legally prove otherwise.

[Norfolk N Chance]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

No wonder you have writs served against you.
Tommy Spurr didn't lie and it's an offence to call someone a liar unless you can legally prove otherwise.

Just like when they called JR a lier ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

No wonder you have writs served against you.
Tommy Spurr didn't lie and it's an offence to call someone a liar unless you can legally prove otherwise.

Point of fact. It isn't.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

No wonder you have writs served against you.
Tommy Spurr didn't lie and it's an offence to call someone a liar unless you can legally prove otherwise.

Is it?  Find me the law that says that...

[Lifelong supporter]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

No wonder you have writs served against you.
Tommy Spurr didn't lie and it's an offence to call someone a liar unless you can legally prove otherwise.

Point if fact. It isn't.

BST,
I normally have the greatest of respect for you and your ability to come up with all sorts of facts and figures.
Perhaps you could research this and give us your verdict.
I'm sure you'll find I'm right.
You can only defame someone with impunity if you are speaking in Parliament.
But then MPs get away with all sorts of things.

[BillyStubbsTears]

LS

Firstly, in general the point is that the onus of proof is on the person who is accused of having lied. Calling someone a liar is not in itself an offence, even if they are not a liar. The person acvused of lying would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were not, in fact a liar.

Secondly, under the 2013 Defamation Act,
"A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation_Act_2013

In other words, I could call you a liar in full knowledge that you weren't, you could prove that my statement was incorrect and malicious, and yet you would still not win a court ruling against me unless you could demonstrate that you had seriously suffered as a result.

[silent majority]

I think you'll find I'm on safe ground.

But to suggest you can draw parallels with the action of a certain hedge fund when requesting solicitors letters are sent to a supporters trust for having the temerity to ask questions is, quite frankly, preposterous.


But yet again my honesty is brought into question. I answered a question that was asked and I gave the correct answer. However that not being good enough for some I'm then warned as to how I might be lying by somebody drawing other parallels.

If you don't want answers don't ask questions.

[PDX_Rover]

John Ryan is a liar. Proven.

[bpoolrover]

Pdx is there really any need for it

[DearneValleyRover]

The same was said about tommy spur. Then he said no contract was offered

Well Tommy Spurr lied. He was offered a contract, he even told supporters at pre-season games  he was staying, and then changed his mind after being offered a much better deal elsewhere.

No wonder you have writs served against you.
Tommy Spurr didn't lie and it's an offence to call someone a liar unless you can legally prove otherwise.

Just like when they called JR a lier ?

That's because he did but don't let that stop you.

[roversdude]

Can't believe that a genuine question turned round to having a cheap shot at SM
I for one appreciate the thankless work carried out by VSC
Can't help but notice that the same people who take every opportunity to shoot down the VSC are so full of negativity regarding the club, team and life

[Beerseller]

To label something an offence is misleading where its not a criminal "wrong".  There is no longer a criminal offence of defamation.  As far as I'm aware, it was a little used common law offence and repealed anyway in 2010.

The tort of defamation would only require to be proven to the civil standard ie on the balance of probabilities and not on the criminal standard ie beyond reasonable doubt.

Where defamation differs from all other civil actions is that the burden of proof is placed on the defendant.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Beerseller

"Where defamation differs from all other civil actions is that the burden of proof is placed on the defendant."

You are right of course. My mistake earlier.

[keith79]

SM never said you was lying.

[Beerseller]

No worries BST.  Your last paragraph said it all anyway.

[keith79]

Anyway back to the question RW  has been offered a contract and we hope he Will sign it. Thankyou

[Al4475]

Roversdude:

Can't believe that a genuine question turned round to having a cheap shot at SM
I for one appreciate the thankless work carried out by VSC
Can't help but notice that the same people who take every opportunity to shoot down the VSC are so full of negativity regarding the club, team and life

Absolutely right mate, SM get's so much flak that borders on personal abuse that it's unreal - and very few of the dissenters will join, make their voice heard and offer an alternative perspective - believe it or not the VSC wish they would!

And before anyone says the last bit won't happen - at least 2 current VSC board members were sceptics and joined to try and make their voices heard which has happened and they are now vital cogs in the way the VSC thinks.