CAS judgement: UEFA ban overturned, City exonerated (report out p603)

Funnily enough, Daily Mail then chose to run a piece that City had called Bennell as a witness for the club's defence.

Strangely choosing to omit he had been called by the insurers...

I'd forgotten about that. Ian Herbert wrote it, IIRC. He took the view that the case was in City's name so the club should be hammered, and didn't allude at all to the context.

The principle was exactly the same as if I were involved in a road traffic accident, had injured the other party, was viewed as being at fault and for some reason the case went to trial with me being sued because the insurers couldn't reach a settlement. My insurers, under the terms of my policy, would have full conduct of the case. That's exactly the same as City in the Bennell case.

If they chose to try and trash the reputation of the claimant by pointing to alcohol problems or mental health issues as likely to have been at the root of contributory negligence, I might well be horrified at the prospect. I'd have zero influence over what happened in the proceedings, though. Again, exactly the same for City regarding Bennell giving evidence.

Great post and I'd like to read more about this high court position re his competency. Would somebody mind directing me if possible? Thanks.

I finished my piece of work and have found it. The link to a PDF version of the judgment is here: Judgment in TVZ -v- Manchester City Football Club. I runs to 134 pages, so I expect most people won't want to wade through looking for the relevant bit. Let me tell you, then, that you want numbered paragraph 153.

As for what this means, let me point you to an article from May of this year on the website of Fieldfisher, a highly-rated international law firm with its HQ in London and an office in Manchester: Expert witnesses: The independence factor. They discuss issues arising from a recent case, but they have a helpful discussion of the nature of expert evidence as well:

What is an expert witness?

An expert is ‘a person who, through specialist training, study, or experience, is able to provide a court, tribunal, or hearing with relevant scientific, technical, or professional information or opinion, based on skills, expertise, or knowledge, that is likely to be beyond the experience and knowledge of the representing lawyers, judge, jury or panel’ (per Jackson and Powell on Professional Liability).

The main difference between an expert witness and a witness of fact (ie. an ordinary witness) is that the expert can provide an opinion, whereas the witness of fact may only give factual evidence.

The rules on expert witnesses in the courts of England and Wales are governed by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) r.35.

When is expert evidence required?

Expert evidence is required when the issues in dispute are beyond the knowledge of the presiding court.
 
He was called as an 'expert witness', with regards players' wages in the sex abuse case brought against our insurers.

The judge stated he could not be considered an expert on whether any of these kids would have made it, nor that they would now be earning £100k a week, so the jury were asked to disregard his 'expert' opinion.

Funnily enough, Daily Mail then chose to run a piece that City had called Bennell as a witness for the club's defence.

Strangely choosing to omit he had been called by the insurers...
Ahh, wrong case. I blame that on petrusha for putting it in this thread.

I'm just going to have to stop posting for awhile, the wife has been very poorly for a bit now and I struggle to recall what day of the week it is at the moment.
 
Ahh, wrong case. I blame that on petrusha for putting it in this thread.

I'm just going to have to stop posting for awhile, the wife has been very poorly for a bit now and I struggle to recall what day of the week it is at the moment.

No need for apologising, whatsoever!

Wishing your wife a speedy recovery, mate.
 
I just watched this video . The question is has Harris ? I bet he knows this but his goal is to paint City as the bad guys as possible.
The real story is not a dodgy new partner for City but they are all at it Liverpool, United, Leicester, Wolves, Southampton everyone, he should investigate how much money there are in it for these club's, why does Premier league alow it, also he doesn't say how much City is paid vonder why.
Fascinating video. Do you know when it was first posted?
Makes Harris look a know nowt, which of course he is.
 
Ahh, wrong case. I blame that on petrusha for putting it in this thread.

I'm just going to have to stop posting for awhile, the wife has been very poorly for a bit now and I struggle to recall what day of the week it is at the moment.

Sorry about that, mate. I'm afraid that I saw how riled Harris was by the expert thing and I know he snoops around on here a bit. So whenever he's mentioned, I shoehorn I'm a reminder that the High Court didn't see him as an expert.

Remember that, Nick? You aren't an expert. The judge didn't think so and not does anyone with an IQ of more than 50.

Wish your wife a speedy recovery. Hang in there.
 
I haven't read the piece. I've better things to do with my life, and I'd be according anything with Nick Harris's byline excessive respect if I printed it out on tissue paper then wiped my arse on it. Nonetheless, I can comment on the issues that I understand he raised.

First, he seems to be trying to insinuate that a low-level sponsorship deal he goes out of his way to paint as dodgy is symptomatic of the entire revenue generated by MCFC's commercial operation. That's feeble, spurious bullshit even by his own standards. This sponsorship likely accounts for well under 0.5% of City's total commercial income, and he would, if he could, cite other similarly dubious deals with others among our sponsors whose fees, taken together, constitute a much more significant proportion of MCFC's commercial income. That he doesn't speaks volumes.

Second, this information has been out there since being revealed in the football magazine Josimar four months ago. That's plenty of time for MCFC to have checked things and pulled the deal if the circumstances warranted it. They haven't. Now, that in itself doesn't mean it isn't dodgy, but the club is clearly comfortable and that's potentially telling. Any reporter acting in good faith would at least try to assess why City might be taking this stance. Nick doesn't, which shows him up for what we know him to be: a malevolent dickhead attempting a smear.

Third, Harris claimed on Twitter that City's mention of the PL investigation in the accounts was the first time we'd referred to it in the financial statements. This is simply untrue. Exactly the same statement was in the previous set of accounts, and it may even have been in the one before that as well (I haven't had time to check). If Nick can't even be accurate with regard to something so basic, how can we treat anything else he says as credible?

Fourth, in the same tweet, Know-nowt Nick suggested that City's mention of the PL investigation in our accounts might reflect an awareness on City's part that the investigation would produce an outcome unfavourable to the club. Yet we know that MCFC don't think so, and we can presuppose that neither do the auditors or the club's legal advisers. This is because no provision is included in the accounts for this matter (for those unfamiliar with the terminology, making a provision means, in this context, setting aside money to meet an expected future expense, such as any prospective PL fine).

Of course, Nick isn't interested in the truth but nor - despite his own belief to the contrary - does he have much of as grasp of the field he's writing about. He won't know what happens in situations such as these, but I do. The auditors will write to City's solicitors asking for details of any matters the latter might be aware of that could impact the bottom line in future periods. The auditors can follow up and have further discussions if the reply raises any doubts. The lack of a provision as the outcome of this process makes the collective view clear.

This isn't conclusive, as the professionals can sometimes find their evaluations not subsequently borne out in fact. But what we can say is that the view of MCFC's auditors and external legal advisers have vastly more worth than the pitiful ramblings of a bad-faith, dull-witted prig like Nick Harris.

Finally, given the tantrum he threw when he read on here nine months ago that this forum had discovered the position of the High Court when the suggestion was made that Harris should give evidence as an expert witness, we'd be remiss not to refer to the fact again here. The judge was well aware that you're no expert, Nick. You pontificate but know fuck all. We've long since understood that and we won't let you forget it.
An absolute gem of a post. You know your stuff !!! Could I ask a question?? Say City potentially did something wrong..Perhaps a borderline decision in retrospect. Do you hold your hands up and admit guilt, which could be detrimental, or do you say, well in our eyes, we acted in good faith, so prove we did something wrong ? i ask this in light of the ongoing PL investigation and just wonder if admitting guilt may not be the best approach.

I personally am sick and tired hearing of these pathetic snippets about our club when truthfully I can not remember one article which deals with the absolute benefit City have made for the local community.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.