Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

tolmie's hairdoo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yeah, hopefully they get what they were originally offered. Can't help thinking that their vulnerability has been exploited somewhat by lawyers looking for a big fuck off pay day.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
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?
Click to expand...
Any previous settlement would have been full and final and far better and more tightly worded and enforceable than Epstein’s settlement with Guiffre, I’ll hazard!

The purpose of settlements such as that, as much as anything, is to provide certainty to both parties. A court will be very reluctant indeed to revisit.
 
Centurions said:
I was talking about this with the wife, don't no-win no-fee vultures usually only take on cases they're certain to win (or at least get an out of court settlement)? I wonder if the 8 claimants are paying them?
Click to expand...
No case is ever certain. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, a liar or both.
 
tolmie's hairdoo said:
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?
Click to expand...

I've been a legal adviser involved in administering compensation schemes akin to this one (though on a bigger scale). It depends on the terms and conditions of the scheme, but I'd be surprised if they provide for anything other than that if an offer is rejected (as we understand was the case here), the offer in question lapses.

I don't see why we couldn't reinstate offers assuming this judgment isn't successfully appealed, though. In fact, I'd expect us to do so.
 
Last edited:
petrusha said:
I've been a legal adviser involved in administering compensation schemes akin to this one (though on a bigger scale). It depends on the terms and conditions of the scheme, but I'd be surprised if they provide for anything other than that if an offer is rejected (as we understand was the case here), the offer in question lapses.

I don't see why we couldn't reinstate offers assuming this judgment isn't successfully appealed, though. In fact, I'd expect uis to do so.
Click to expand...
Likewise. Presentationally it would look pretty bloody awful if we didn’t
 
If anyone's interested, this is the solicitor who's been handling the case on behalf of the claimants: https://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/why-bolt-burdon-kemp-bbk-solicitors/meet-our-team/david/

FWIW, he seems to have a decent track record in the sphere and CSA isn't an area I'm familiar with. So I'll restrict myself to saying that if, as reported, his clients have been claiming amounts of money not usually compensated in such cases and then lose, that does raise questions.

EDIT - The judgment, in PDF, is available here: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/tvz-v-manchester-city-football-club/
 
petrusha said:
If anyone's interested, this is the solicitor who's been handling the case on behalf of the claimants: https://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/why-bolt-burdon-kemp-bbk-solicitors/meet-our-team/david/

FWIW, he seems to have a decent track record in the sphere and CSA isn't an area I'm familiar with. So I'll restrict myself to saying that if, as reported, his clients have been claiming amounts of money not usually compensated in such cases and then lose, that does raise questions.
Click to expand...
As I’ve commented before I just don’t see how they were ever going to get over the line on the causation of loss point, given the tiny numbers of talented kids that go on to make it in the game.
 
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 only reason their case was "too late" was because they left it "too late".
 
The applicants not happy that City called Bennell as a witness to defend the action. I think if it was clear cut that City were legally responsible for the acts of abuse he carried out, then we would have admitted it and reached a suitable settlement already.
 
Would it be in the interest of all parties to revert to the initial offer made by the Club to these men with a NDA and no option to appeal? Not City’s fault, but these men would still be compensated for their abuse, it would be a welcome gesture not that it would be portrayed that way by the Media.
 
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...
Licensing barristers are surely lower than those?
 
stan bowles said:
The applicants not happy that City called Bennell as a witness to defend the action. I think if it was clear cut that City were legally responsible for the acts of abuse he carried out, then we would have admitted it and reached a suitable settlement already.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that the case was being run by City's insurers and, under the terms of the insurance policy, City will have had no input whatsoever into the strategy for the defence case. It's the same as if you're involved in a car accident and are covered by insurance: the case goes forward in your name, but you otherwise have no say in how your defence is run. You might think that the insurance company is being vile if it runs an aggressive defence and tries to use circumstances that allow it to attack the claimant, but you can do nothing about it.

Aside from that, I note the following from the judgment, the link to which I've posted above (it's numbered para 51):

I was told that 64 individuals have received redress payments under the Scheme. The claimants have not applied for payments under the Scheme. That would have required them to abandon these claims. They maintain that MCFC is vicariously liable for Bennell’s actions, and that they are entitled to damages assessed on common law principles, rather than the more limited payments that would be made under the Scheme. Moreover, the Scheme only came into effect after they had instructed lawyers and incurred significant legal costs which would not be recoverable under the Scheme.
Click to expand...

So strictly, they didn't turn down offers under the scheme. However, they declined to use the scheme, having been advised that they stood to receive more by litigating. I don't know whether the Scheme is still open, but one assumes that, unless they can appeal the judgment successfully, City would pay them what they would have received if they;ds claimed under the Scheme.

As @Exeter Blue I am here says above, apart from anything else, it would be catastrophic PR for the club to act otherwise. However, we can't enter into that kind of settlement with them unless or until they're willing to drop the appeal or the appeal fails. It's not in City's hands.
 
petrusha said:
The issue here is that the case was being run by City's insurers and, under the terms of the insurance policy, City will have had no input whatsoever into the strategy for the defence case. It's the same as if you're involved in a car accident and are covered by insurance: the case goes forward in your name, but you otherwise have no say in how your defence is run. You might think that the insurance company is being vile if it runs an aggressive defence and tries to use circumstances that allow it to attack the claimant, but you can do nothing about it.

Aside from that, I note the following from the judgment, the link to which I've posted above (it's numbered para 51):



So strictly, they didn't turn down offers under the scheme. However, they declined to use the scheme, having been advised that they stood to receive more by litigating. I don't know whether the Scheme is still open, but one assumes that, unless they can appeal the judgment successfully, City would pay them what they would have received if they;ds claimed under the Scheme.

As @Exeter Blue I am here says above, apart from anything else, it would be catastrophic PR for the club to act otherwise. However, we can't enter into that kind of settlement with them unless or until they're willing to drop the appeal or the appeal fails. It's not in City's hands.
Click to expand...
If City make such an offer, these litigants would be wise to take it rather than incur the cost and risk of the appeal.
 
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