Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

M18CTID said:
Yep. If we're to believe former Crewe director Hamilton Smith - and I can't see any reason why he would lie - then it's clear that Crewe's claim that concerns were never raised with them about Bennell is completely false.

I know we need to be careful what we say but it will be interesting to know where Dario Gradi stands in all this and how much he knew. While I don't think there is any suggestion anywhere that he took part in any alleged abuse, he worked with Bennell at Chelsea in the 70's before they linked up again at Crewe. Plus there is the allegation that Gradi covered for Eddie Heath at Chelsea as well. On the face of it, it's difficult to comprehend that Gradi was unaware of any abuse or, at least, any allegations.
Click to expand...
I think you probably have a good handle on this, will be interesting to see how the Crewe issue progresses.
 
A lot of talk in the media about Crewe recently and very little about MCFC. Tne Crewe stuff is therefore in the thread in the General forum, while this one has slid down the main forum.

Given that Daniel Taylor, the journalist most prominently associated with covering the story, has accused both City and Crewe of behaving abysmally at the time, some observers (Crewe fans especially) have asked why City seem to be getting a free pass at the moment. Taylor has this morning written an opinion piece for the Observer rightly excoriating Crewe for their latest moves, and that text is here (you have to scroll down past the Arsene Wenger stuff): https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...al-arsenal-send-off?__twitter_impression=true

However, at the end, he deals with the reason that the media is currently treating City and Crewe differently:

People ask why Manchester City have been spared this many headlines when they, too, have been accused of serious failings. Well, the answer should be obvious: City have shown a human touch, fronted it up and recognised the importance of bringing in independent lawyers to investigate properly and avoid allegations of a whitewash. Crewe, on the other hand, have done the precise opposite. The chairman, John Bowler, has shown what kind of man he is and if those poor boys who were raped, molested and psychologically scarred under the care of this arrogant, conniving and hard-faced club feel let down – well, tough. It is enough to make any decent person feel sick.
Click to expand...

In other words, City are currently doing the right thing. Let's hope we continue to do so. I believe we will.
 
SWP's back said:
Good. David McGlecaghan can also suck my balls. I’m very disappointed in his behaviour.

Also a solicitor complaining about a technicality is amusing.
Click to expand...

The fact that he says he is disappointed in City, not the legal process or the insurers, suggests to me that there was a bit more to this action than those bringing it would have the public believe.
 
SWP's back said:
Good. David McGlecaghan can also suck my balls. I’m very disappointed in his behaviour.

Also a solicitor complaining about a technicality is amusing.
Click to expand...
Whenever City ‘win’ anything (not that there are any winners in this particular shit show) it’s always portrayed as having been on a technicality rather than simply because the law supports our position. All part of the narrative……
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
As I understand it, all eight of the abused had still been offered financial compensation by City, but they refused and wanted more for a potential loss of earnings and career?
Click to expand...
I thought that was the case as well, and that it was a case against City’s insurers, the case was nothing to do directly with City?
Appalling stuff for those involved.

but also (to a far lesser degree) appalling behaviour by the media to say that City have won, that the case was against City, and the demonisation of City as some sort of fagin in this all.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
As I understand it, all eight of the abused had still been offered financial compensation by City, but they refused and wanted more for a potential loss of earnings and career?
Click to expand...
If this case had been successful would it have opened the door for those 64 who originally accepted the club's compensation offer to begin their own claims for a bigger settlement?
 
SWP's back said:
Good. David McGlecaghan can also suck my balls. I’m very disappointed in his behaviour.

Also a solicitor complaining about a technicality is amusing.
Click to expand...
When he says ‘technicality’, he means application of legal principles. Fucking clown.

Personal injury lawyers are fucking vultures in the main. Only motoring lawyers are below them in the legal profession morality food chain.
 
Bozzie said:
If this case had been successful would it have opened the door for those 64 who originally accepted the club's compensation offer to begin their own claims for a bigger settlement?
Click to expand...
Possibility of an appeal according to Sky News, so may not be over
 
JASR said:
I thought that was the case as well, and that it was a case against City’s insurers, the case was nothing to do directly with City?
Appalling stuff for those involved.

but also (to a far lesser degree) appalling behaviour by the media to say that City have won, that the case was against City, and the demonisation of City as some sort of fagin in this all.
Click to expand...

Once again, it is the earlier reporting of this case by the Daily Mail, surprise, surprise, which has created the confusion and wider narrative that it was City who called this **** Bennell to the witness stand.

Mike Keegan conveniently chose to omit at the time it was City's insurers who had done it.

Thus, the wider perception was City as a Club were disputing not only the abuse, but forcing these poor guys to relieve their nightmare in front of their abuser.

From what I thought I had read, City has set up a compensation scheme and some individuals considered the settlements not appropriate?
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
When he says ‘technicality’, he means application of legal principles. Fucking clown.

Personal injury lawyers are fucking vultures in the main. Only motoring lawyers are below them in the legal profession morality food chain.
Click to expand...

Let's hope these parasites were on no-win, no fee?
 
The blue phantom said:
So in the end they get nothing now?
Click to expand...

I don't think that would be the case at all, I'd certainly hope not. City set up the compensation scheme and see no reason why the previous settlements on offer would be null and void, as the Club had already offered these poor guys a settlement?

More a case the lawyers probably thought more was obtainable?
 
Bozzie said:
If this case had been successful would it have opened the door for those 64 who originally accepted the club's compensation offer to begin their own claims for a bigger settlement?
Click to expand...

No idea, mate.

GDM would have a much more informed view as to any previous settlements being binding.

Very difficult for those who had been abused to prove they would have gone on to have had pro careers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top