Media Thread - 2021/22

[petrusha]

Not according to one media piece I've seen. City are, in the view of Daniel Taylor, although you wouldn't have the chance to put your point of view, as comments are disabled.

Taylor's piece in The Athletic and his tweets today are rather one-sided and simplistic, though I don't think he's deliberately setting out to give a biased account to MCFC's detriment. They just show the problems of someone reporting on legal proceedings without a full understanding of the technicalities of what they're commenting on.

Now, he's right that the claimants' QC objected to the club's assertion that its being named as defendant was purely a "technicality". The QC is also right that this was a poor choice of words on the club's part. MCFC is the defendant as it was allegedly negligent to the point that such negligence facilitated the abuse of the claimants by Bennell and without it, no one would be there in court.

But the fact remains: MCFC HAS NO SAY IN HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING CONDUCTED. When you take out insurance, you enter into a contractual relationship with the insurance company such that, in return for it footing the bill when an insured event occurs, it has sole discretion in settling any relevant third-party claims and having absolute discretion in the handling of any litigation arising.

As I said in the other thread this morning, it's the same situation as would occur if you or I were an insured driver in a traffic accident and the matter ended up being litigated. We'd be contractually bound to let the insurers handle that litigation however they wished to, whether or not we actually approved of it. For example, we might, if we were a defendant and the claimant had suffered horrific injuries, baulk at the insurers' lawyers deciding to lambast the claimant's reputation as part of the defence. We couldn't stop them, though.

So, people may ask, City are absolutely minted and why, therefore, don't they dispense with the insurance company and just reach a settlement with the claimants in the current case? Well, City set up a compensation scheme for victims of abuse by Bennell (and others). It made offers to these claimants under the scheme based on the best assessments of the amounts that could reasonably have been awarded in each individual case had the matter gone to court.

THESE CLAIMANTS REJECTED THOSE OFFERS. Advised by a single law firm, the men in question are seeking far higher levels of damages based on a factor that's never been taken into account in a comparable football-related case. What, then, are City supposed to do? Just go ahead and make these guys go away by stumping up what they've asked for? That would betray everyone else who's gone under the claims and reached settlements in good faith.

No, what anyone would quite reasonably do in the club's position is handle the matter as it would be dealt with in comparable circumstances in any other industry in the real world. If it doesn't consider the claims reasonable, why should it pay them up when they seem contrary to our own and other clubs' recent settlements in this area. Unfortunately, that means involving the insurers and the case being litigated, which is adversarial by its nature and thus can be cruel.

Of course, the claimants are entitled to sue City in the civil courts if they're unhappy with the offer from the scheme. And I think it's pretty reprehensible that the insurers' lawyers have called Barry Bennell to give evidence, which seems to have included him trashing the claimants and must be extremely traumatic for them. But CITY CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT OR REITERATE APOLOGIES WHILE THE CASE IS ONGOING, or they'd likely be contractually liable to the insurers.

I'm sure the club wishes in all sincerity that Bennell hadn't given evidence as it's been a PR disaster for MCFC despite no reasonable course of action being available to them whereby they're able to stop it. It might be nice to see reporting that was a bit more nuanced in that respect. As it is, the club will face a hammering in the media for something it couldn't really have prevented.

Unfortunately, we'd better get used to it. Benjamin Mendy will go on trial towards the end of January and we didn't suspend him despite knowing he was being investigated for rape. Now, I suspect there were legal constraints which shaped that decision, too, and the club's stance is at least arguable. But I expect we'll face a lot of criticism that doesn't even stop to consider the point.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Taylor's piece in The Athletic and his tweets today are rather one-sided and simplistic, though I don't think he's deliberately setting out to give a biased account to MCFC's detriment. They just show the problems of someone reporting on legal proceedings without a full understanding of the technicalities of what they're commenting on.

Now, he's right that the claimants' QC objected to the club's assertion that its being named as defendant was purely a "technicality". The QC is also right that this was a poor choice of words on the club's part. MCFC is the defendant as it was allegedly negligent to the point that such negligence facilitated the abuse of the claimants by Bennell and without it, no one would be there in court.

But the fact remains: MCFC HAS NO SAY IN HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING CONDUCTED. When you take out insurance, you enter into a contractual relationship with the insurance company such that, in return for it footing the bill when an insured event occurs, it has sole discretion in settling any relevant third-party claims and having absolute discretion in the handling of any litigation arising.

As I said in the other thread this morning, it's the same situation as would occur if you or I were an insured driver in a traffic accident and the matter ended up being litigated. We'd be contractually bound to let the insurers handle that litigation however they wished to, whether or not we actually approved of it. For example, we might, if we were a defendant and the claimant had suffered horrific injuries, baulk at the insurers' lawyers deciding to lambast the claimant's reputation as part of the defence. We couldn't stop them, though.

So, people may ask, City are absolutely minted and why, therefore, don't they dispense with the insurance company and just reach a settlement with the claimants in the current case? Well, City set up a compensation scheme for victims of abuse by Bennell (and others). It made offers to these claimants under the scheme based on the best assessments of the amounts that could reasonably have been awarded in each individual case had the matter gone to court.

THESE CLAIMANTS REJECTED THOSE OFFERS. Advised by a single law firm, the men in question are seeking far higher levels of damages based on a factor that's never been taken into account in a comparable football-related case. What, then, are City supposed to do? Just go ahead and make these guys go away by stumping up what they've asked for? That would betray everyone else who's gone under the claims and reached settlements in good faith.

No, what anyone would quite reasonably do in the club's position is handle the matter as it would be dealt with in comparable circumstances in any other industry in the real world. If it doesn't consider the claims reasonable, why should it pay them up when they seem contrary to our own and other clubs' recent settlements in this area. Unfortunately, that means involving the insurers and the case being litigated, which is adversarial by its nature and thus can be cruel.

Of course, the claimants are entitled to sue City in the civil courts if they're unhappy with the offer from the scheme. And I think it's pretty reprehensible that the insurers' lawyers have called Barry Bennell to give evidence, which seems to have included him trashing the claimants and must be extremely traumatic for them. But CITY CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT OR REITERATE APOLOGIES WHILE THE CASE IS ONGOING, or they'd likely be contractually liable to the insurers.

I'm sure the club wishes in all sincerity that Bennell hadn't given evidence as it's been a PR disaster for MCFC despite no reasonable course of action being available to them whereby they're able to stop it. It might be nice to see reporting that was a bit more nuanced in that respect. As it is, the club will face a hammering in the media for something it couldn't really have prevented.

Unfortunately, we'd better get used to it. Benjamin Mendy will go on trial towards the end of January and we didn't suspend him despite knowing he was being investigated for rape. Now, I suspect there were legal constraints which shaped that decision, too, and the club's stance is at least arguable. But I expect we'll face a lot of criticism that doesn't even stop to consider the point.

With regards to your last point, my boys are 13 and City daft. They deal with the normal City-sniping that kids and even daft adults do these days all the time. They ask me about Oil Money and Empty Seats and all that daft kiddie shit regularly and I give them ammo to give back to their armchair fan friends or internet aquaintences.

Yesterday one of them asked me about Adam Johnson, then Robinho and then asked me why all the sex offenders were from City. It broke my heart a bit because they're clearly getting hammered with this from morons. WE are now the frigging "Nonce Club".


Of course I did like any decent Dad would do and told him they were sex offenders everywhere, then told him all about Christiano Ronaldo in some detail just to hammer the point home ;-)

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Unfortunately, we'd better get used to it. Benjamin Mendy will go on trial towards the end of January and we didn't suspend him despite knowing he was being investigated for rape. Now, I suspect there were legal constraints which shaped that decision, too, and the club's stance is at least arguable. But I expect we'll face a lot of criticism that doesn't even stop to consider the point.

Let's face it, the media don't need much of an excuse to have a pop at us these days.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Taylor's piece in The Athletic and his tweets today are rather one-sided and simplistic, though I don't think he's deliberately setting out to give a biased account to MCFC's detriment. They just show the problems of someone reporting on legal proceedings without a full understanding of the technicalities of what they're commenting on.

Now, he's right that the claimants' QC objected to the club's assertion that its being named as defendant was purely a "technicality". The QC is also right that this was a poor choice of words on the club's part. MCFC is the defendant as it was allegedly negligent to the point that such negligence facilitated the abuse of the claimants by Bennell and without it, no one would be there in court.

But the fact remains: MCFC HAS NO SAY IN HOW THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING CONDUCTED. When you take out insurance, you enter into a contractual relationship with the insurance company such that, in return for it footing the bill when an insured event occurs, it has sole discretion in settling any relevant third-party claims and having absolute discretion in the handling of any litigation arising.

As I said in the other thread this morning, it's the same situation as would occur if you or I were an insured driver in a traffic accident and the matter ended up being litigated. We'd be contractually bound to let the insurers handle that litigation however they wished to, whether or not we actually approved of it. For example, we might, if we were a defendant and the claimant had suffered horrific injuries, baulk at the insurers' lawyers deciding to lambast the claimant's reputation as part of the defence. We couldn't stop them, though.

So, people may ask, City are absolutely minted and why, therefore, don't they dispense with the insurance company and just reach a settlement with the claimants in the current case? Well, City set up a compensation scheme for victims of abuse by Bennell (and others). It made offers to these claimants under the scheme based on the best assessments of the amounts that could reasonably have been awarded in each individual case had the matter gone to court.

THESE CLAIMANTS REJECTED THOSE OFFERS. Advised by a single law firm, the men in question are seeking far higher levels of damages based on a factor that's never been taken into account in a comparable football-related case. What, then, are City supposed to do? Just go ahead and make these guys go away by stumping up what they've asked for? That would betray everyone else who's gone under the claims and reached settlements in good faith.

No, what anyone would quite reasonably do in the club's position is handle the matter as it would be dealt with in comparable circumstances in any other industry in the real world. If it doesn't consider the claims reasonable, why should it pay them up when they seem contrary to our own and other clubs' recent settlements in this area. Unfortunately, that means involving the insurers and the case being litigated, which is adversarial by its nature and thus can be cruel.

Of course, the claimants are entitled to sue City in the civil courts if they're unhappy with the offer from the scheme. And I think it's pretty reprehensible that the insurers' lawyers have called Barry Bennell to give evidence, which seems to have included him trashing the claimants and must be extremely traumatic for them. But CITY CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT OR REITERATE APOLOGIES WHILE THE CASE IS ONGOING, or they'd likely be contractually liable to the insurers.

I'm sure the club wishes in all sincerity that Bennell hadn't given evidence as it's been a PR disaster for MCFC despite no reasonable course of action being available to them whereby they're able to stop it. It might be nice to see reporting that was a bit more nuanced in that respect. As it is, the club will face a hammering in the media for something it couldn't really have prevented.

Unfortunately, we'd better get used to it. Benjamin Mendy will go on trial towards the end of January and we didn't suspend him despite knowing he was being investigated for rape. Now, I suspect there were legal constraints which shaped that decision, too, and the club's stance is at least arguable. But I expect we'll face a lot of criticism that doesn't even stop to consider the point.

great post, but when did the club know about Mendy?

as someone whos been in trouble with the law before,I was always told by my solicitor that I don't have to inform my work.

So I suspect Mendy may have done this if he was still playing for the club

 

[Paladin]

Which insurer is conducting the defence? I assume it is whoever City were insured with back in the early 1980s. How would this even work, if the company used by City at the time no longer existed?

 

[petrusha]

great post, but when did the club know about Mendy?

as someone whos been in trouble with the law before,I was always told by my solicitor that I don't have to inform my work.

So I suspect Mendy may have done this if he was still playing for the club

I think it was mentioned in one of his court appearances, but I can't find the details now. However, Daniel Taylor speaks about it in an article in The Athletic, which those with a subscription can read here: Why did Manchester City let Benjamin Mendy play on? – The Athletic

For those who don't, below is the opening part of the article:

The last time we saw Benjamin Mendy on a football pitch he was waving to Manchester City’s supporters after a 1-0 defeat at Tottenham Hotspur ...

What the vast majority of people would not have known at the time was that the player wearing City’s No 22 shirt was under police investigation for allegedly raping a woman at his house. The crowd that day would not have realised Mendy had been arrested the previous November. But the people in charge at City knew — and, as we now know, decided against suspending their player.
All of which probably warrants some kind of explanation once the trial is done. And it will be intriguing to hear City’s version of events bearing in mind an employer, in virtually every other walk of life, would ordinarily be expected to suspend a member of staff who is being investigated as an alleged rapist.

Instead, Mendy continued to play for City over a nine-month period in which he made 18 appearances. He scored a couple of goals. He was championed by the club’s website. He collected his Premier League winner’s medal and played in the Community Shield against Leicester City at Wembley last month. “See you guys in the PL,” he told his 1.4 million followers on Twitter.

In terms of the legality of it, I stand to be corrected as I'm not an expert here, but while you may not be obliged to tell an employer about a criminal investigation, if you do tell them or they find out, they're entitled to take disciplinary action against you.

However, my understanding - and again, if anyone knows more about this, please correct me as necessary - is that if you suspend an employee in these circumstances, you have to launch your own investigation. In practical terms, City could hardly have investigated these accusations against Mendy, so presumably thought it better to wait for the police decision on whether to charge him. But let's see what comes out during/after the trial.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

I think it was mentioned in one of his court appearances, but I can't find the details now. However, Daniel Taylor speaks about it in an article in The Athletic, which those with a subscription can read here: Why did Manchester City let Benjamin Mendy play on? – The Athletic

For those who don't, below is the opening part of the article:



In terms of the legality of it, I stand to be corrected as I'm not an expert here, but while you may not be obliged to tell an employer about a criminal investigation, if you do tell them or they find out, they're entitled to take disciplinary action against you.

However, my understanding - and again, if anyone knows more about this, please correct me as necessary - is that if you suspend an employee in these circumstances, you have to launch your own investigation. In practical terms, City could hardly have investigated these accusations against Mendy, so presumably thought it better to wait for the police decision on whether to charge him. But let's see what comes out during/after the trial.

Ah yeah, tbh this is the only article I have seen that claims City knew what was going on.

Unless they were told its a nothing claim hence they didn't do anything.

Soon see of course

 

[Chris in London]

Which insurer is conducting the defence? I assume it is whoever City were insured with back in the early 1980s. How would this even work, if the company used by City at the time no longer existed?

No, the relevant insurer is not the one you were insured with back in the day, it's the insurer you are with when the claim is made against you. The original insurer may have gone bust, for instance. We may or may not be with the same insurer now, but they entered a contract with City (as Petrusha said) to meet claims against City during the period covered by the contract of insurance. So if we ended the contract and moved to a new insurer a year later, the original insurers would be off the hook even though the relevant events took place on their watch (so to speak). The insurers who are on the hook are the ones who we were insured with when the claim was made.

That is why they get to run the trial their way: it's their bank account that's on the line.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I think it was mentioned in one of his court appearances, but I can't find the details now. However, Daniel Taylor speaks about it in an article in The Athletic, which those with a subscription can read here: Why did Manchester City let Benjamin Mendy play on? – The Athletic

For those who don't, below is the opening part of the article:



In terms of the legality of it, I stand to be corrected as I'm not an expert here, but while you may not be obliged to tell an employer about a criminal investigation, if you do tell them or they find out, they're entitled to take disciplinary action against you.

However, my understanding - and again, if anyone knows more about this, please correct me as necessary - is that if you suspend an employee in these circumstances, you have to launch your own investigation. In practical terms, City could hardly have investigated these accusations against Mendy, so presumably thought it better to wait for the police decision on whether to charge him. But let's see what comes out during/after the trial.

Nothing can be said at present but the trial in January could have a very negative impact on City's reputation unfortunately.

 

[VOOMER]

errm hmmmp WHO *UCKING CARES WHAT THE MEDIA WRITES!!!!