Swell

Any club looking for frivolous threats of law suits is setting a dangerous precedent. If a pundit says " your club supports genocide", then that's a very serious allegation worthy of sanction but a pundit works on the basis that they can give a heartfelt opinion in the safety that football discourse ( making clubs a lot of money in the process, no TV, no money it's that simple) can be discussed in the spirit that we ALL signed up to as players, owners, fans and clubs. That being edginess, forthright opinions fuel the on and off pitch beast. What next? Villa get sued the next time Blues come to VP and we sing some of our more exotic songs at them, live on TV? Using the logic of twitter defamation lawyers does that Blues can say " the Holte were heard singing songs that were damaging to our brand, we are suing you ". Then roll that out across the land, every player sung about sues the club who's supporters defamed him ( and there's a good few who could), every manager who hears his name being shredded by oppo fans behind him can sue for " occupational distress", etc etc etc. You see where this fucking ends? Chaos. There's a reason why Villa's statement pops out. It's because clubs don't fucking sue pundits for what we ALL as fans say, tweet and bring on Saturdays. It's an unwritten, unholy alliance that says.. "This is a 150 year old football culture that in a changing world with changing tolerances, manages to keep the essence, flavour and spirit that is irreverent, sometimes nasty, spiteful, humorous and dark, but it's one we all agree should be preserved as much as possible in a safe, inclusive environment for all" Today, more than ever that's a challenge. Forest 2 weeks ago asked fans to not chant a long standing song to the tune of Oh when the saints. Many thought it was woke, I'm sure many thought it's race had been run and good riddance. At White Hart Lane I had " you're mad and you know you are", weeks after being in a mental health institution. Derby fans still sing a song about me that is inappropriate. I honestly couldn't give a fuck about either because I understand that making the game 100% saccharin, brand awareness overloaded with frivolous law suits is a bad idea. A really fucking bad idea. For so many reasons. "They constantly put us down" isn't a legal defence, that's your pride and partisan nature bring hurt. Imagine rolling that theory out on here, we'd all be in court every fucking day! Any club threatening to sue any pundit is frivolous bar saying the owner funded ISIS, unproven allegations that they nicked club funds or something very serious that really could damage the club reputation. And tagging a whole fan base as being in need of protection is also bollocks. Villa fans nor any others are an amorphous block who all think or feel the same. Some will get the hump, many couldn't give a fig, but now my club has forced a loyalty test on me when I honestly couldn't give a toss what Carra said about Villa, like I couldn't give a toss what Gabby says or anyone else. I make my own mind up thanks, and the unintended consequences of this is other clubs will now look to scare pundits or journalists with lawfare as many wealthy people do in their other business. Be careful what uou wish for. Any club tweeting a threat of action towards a pundit for a legal and honest opinion within the boundaries of " normal football discussion" that any fan would have is absurd. Whatever the name of the club is and whoever its owner is and how many great things he's done. It's just a bad idea with ramifications that lead to censorship of honest opinions that do not meet any real defamation test in English law. "We'll frighten you in order to keep you at heel". That's not brand protection, that's lawfare.