On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT), eusebius
Post by eusebius Post by Memail@example.com
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
You can't expect to sack a high-profile coach with no notice and not
get some blowback. Claims for unfair dismissal usually have to be
lodged within some specified time after the sacking. Arthur's lawyers
are bound to file the most extreme claim they think they can get away
with (or they wouldn't be doing their job), and it is a matter of
court procedure that the details of a claim are accessible to anyone
(on payment of the requisite administrative fees - which are of course
wildly inflated, but that's another story altogether).
It's a pretty good statement of claim, as far as I can see. It's
wide-ranging and mentions lots of high-profile people and lots of
sensitive issues. CA now have to weigh up whether they want several
days of court proceedings involving Arthur's counsel interrogating
Clarke, Watson, Sutherland, Howard, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all being
reported gleefully by the assembled media or whether they would prefer
to reach an "amicable" settlement.
Looks to me as though Arthur's lawyers are doing a damn good job. And
that that's all that you can reasonably conclude.