Paedophilia within the game/City launch redress scheme

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

High Court Case reported in Daily Mail this evening

Been sports headline news on Talk Sport most of the day
The last bulliten I heard said City are looking at having Bennell in court to testify in City's defence.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Been sports headline news on Talk Sport most of the day
The last bulliten I heard said City are looking at having Bennell in court to testify in City's defence.

correct, due to the only two people they could of asked have sadly passed away

 

[Newman Noggs]

Been sports headline news on Talk Sport most of the day
The last bulliten I heard said City are looking at having Bennell in court to testify in City's defence.

Except, as the Mail article points out right at the bottom, it's not City calling Bennell, it's lawyers acting for our insurers. The matter is out of our hands.

 

[Hamann Pineapple]

Except, as the Mail article points out right at the bottom, it's not City calling Bennell, it's lawyers acting for our insurers. The matter is out of our hands.

Do you think this story would have been framed differently if it involved, say, Liverpool or United ?

 

[Newman Noggs]

Do you think this story would have been framed differently if it involved, say, Liverpool or United ?

It's such a toxic subject I wouldn't speculate. I'd only say that City have handled a terrible situation in an exemplary way.

 

[eastmanc]

Do you think this story would have been framed differently if it involved, say, Liverpool or United ?

Yes of course it would.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

There are two possibilities here:

firstly, the claimants in this case may fall outside the scope of the scheme that City have set up but they consider that they're still entitled to compensation, and there's a dispute in relation to whether they actually are or to the amount they're claiming; or

secondly, they may have been made an offer under the scheme and decided not to accept it, in which case the scheme can't prevent them from litigating to seek to recover whatever better settlement they think they may be entitled to.

With regard to the latter, in the distant past as a government lawyer, I was responsible for overseeing two very large schemes that operated along similar lines for former employees of a nationalised industry who'd suffered industrial diseases as a result of their work. Rejecting an offer under one of the schemes was invariably an ill-advised course of action, but one that people were perfectly entitled to take if they wished. FWIW, I suspect that the same is true here.

My understanding from what I've read is that it's the latter case and they've rejected the scheme offer. As you say, that's not usually a good idea.

 

[cptaidan88]

I was under the impression that our review scheme was very generous and wholehearted and very widespread. The only reason I can figure this happening is that they want more. I could be wrong but that is the way it looks.

How do you put a value on what determines "generous" for this situation?

 

[domalino]

My understanding from what I've read is that it's the latter case and they've rejected the scheme offer. As you say, that's not usually a good idea.

This explains the difference in strategy between the initial cases which drew a lot of praise from the journalists covering it like Daniel Taylor, and the seemingly less delicate poorly received handling of these last few cases by the insurance company.

 

[bluemoon32]

The club are coming under heavy criticism for using a pedo as a defence witness for the club.
Even if that isn't what's really happening