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.
