Man City sexual abuse

[Akira]

Reading the news this morning, and came across this story:

https://news.sky.com/story/barry-bennell-paedophile-ex-coach-to-give-evidence-for-manchester-city-after-club-is-sued-by-eight-men-12444619

Barry Bennell is serving 30+ years for sexual abuse he carried out when working as a youngster's football coach. 

However, 8 men are suing Man City for damages. To counter this, quite surprisingly, Man City are going to call him up as a witness. 

Now, right or wrong, that's up to them to call upon who they wish, but I can't be alone in thinking that with all the money Man City have got, why not just agree to a settlement? We know the horrendous crimes took place, he's not a credible witness, and surely this hurts their PR? Not entirely sure what they gain from this.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Akira

[Engvall’s Splinter]

Regardless of how much money the current owners have - how are they liable for what happened X amount of years before their time? (Genuine question)

We have this with governments having to apologise for the mistakes made by others 50+ years ago. Offering compensation even.

I have sympathy with people who have been affected by such crimes and hopefully Bennell gets some form of comeuppance in prison, I really do. Yet if Man City were Bury FC I doubt this would be being pushed for compensation so many years down the line. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by Engvall’s Splinter

[Littlesh*t]

24 minutes ago, Akira said:

Reading the news this morning, and came across this story:

https://news.sky.com/story/barry-bennell-paedophile-ex-coach-to-give-evidence-for-manchester-city-after-club-is-sued-by-eight-men-12444619

Barry Bennell is serving 30+ years for sexual abuse he carried out when working as a youngster's football coach. 

However, 8 men are suing Man City for damages. To counter this, quite surprisingly, Man City are going to call him up as a witness. 

Now, right or wrong, that's up to them to call upon who they wish, but I can't be alone in thinking that with all the money Man City have got, why not just agree to a settlement? We know the horrendous crimes took place, he's not a credible witness, and surely this hurts their PR? Not entirely sure what they gain from this.

Surely if man city pay up they are admitting that the club itself was aware and did wrong? It was awful what happened but the person has been punished and I am not sure the club should pay up regardless of how much money they have 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

3 minutes ago, Littlesh*t said:

Surely if man city pay up they are admitting that the club itself was aware and did wrong? It was awful what happened but the person has been punished and I am not sure the club should pay up regardless of how much money they have 

I’m not sure how good a defence it is for the club to say “we didn’t know”, however long ago it was.  The fact is that the club should have known and should have done something to stop it.

[Akira]

12 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Regardless of how much money the current owners have - how are they liable for what happened X amount of years before their time? (Genuine question)

We have this with governments having to apologise for the mistakes made by others 50+ years ago. Offering compensation even.

I have sympathy with people who have been affected by such crimes and hopefully Bennell gets some form of comeuppance in prison, I really do. Yet if Man City were Bury FC I doubt this would be being pushed for compensation so many years down the line. 

That's a very good point, and you're probably right. Watching the BBC documentary last year I think it was, about the darkest days in football when this all came to light, wasn't it mentioned on there that someone high up in the club was made aware of the abuse claims but did nothing about it? Memory isn't the best, so could be wrong! 

[PHILINFRANCE]

14 minutes ago, Akira said:

That's a very good point, and you're probably right. Watching the BBC documentary last year I think it was, about the darkest days in football when this all came to light, wasn't it mentioned on there that someone high up in the club was made aware of the abuse claims but did nothing about it? Memory isn't the best, so could be wrong! 

 

Was that Manchester City or Crewe (and Chelsea), including Dario Gradi?

I'm not sure - it might have been all three of them.

 

[ExiledAjax]

23 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Regardless of how much money the current owners have - how are they liable for what happened X amount of years before their time? (Genuine question)

We have this with governments having to apologise for the mistakes made by others 50+ years ago. Offering compensation even.

I have sympathy with people who have been affected by such crimes and hopefully Bennell gets some form of comeuppance in prison, I really do. Yet if Man City were Bury FC I doubt this would be being pushed for compensation so many years down the line. 

Because when you buy a company in the way that Man City's owners did you buy all of its assets...and also all of its liabilities. You buy it warts and all.

The claim is, according to that article, against Man City the legal entity, and not against the owners themselves. The claimants aren't piercing the Corporate veil here. It's the Club that apologises/pays out, not the current owners.

Because of the principal that you take assets and liabilities, when you buy a company, you try to find out all the liabilities first. Too many big liabilities that have unknown consequences and you might either not buy, or chip the price down, or get some sort of indemnity from the sellers. The current owners will therefore have conducted due diligence on their new purchase. That will have included asking questions around any potential claims or litigation. They would either have been told about the possibility of people claiming re Bennell, or will not have been told. If told then they should accept it. If not told, then the entity Man City should pay out, and the owners can then pursue their own claim against the former owners - possibly under indemnity clauses, or possibly though the courts if the indemnity has expired.

The former owners might say "we didn't know either", and then you get into a legal wrangle over what they should/could have reasonably known, and to an extent the answer to that depends on the exact wording of the purchase agreement and disclosure letter prepared at the time of the last sale of Man City. 

Each former owner should then claim against the previous one, up the chain of previous owners, until you hit the people in charge during Bennells grim tenure.

Either way, the current owners shouldn't be able to deny a victim's compensation simply because they weren't running the club at the time. Paying out a claim like these is part of the risk of owning the club.

You're right that no one would sue Bury. Bury have no money/don't even exist any more. The golden rule of litigation is that you only sue people who a) exist and b) have money.

[grifty]

23 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Because when you buy a company in the way that Man City's owners did you buy all of its assets...and also all of its liabilities. You buy it warts and all.

The claim is, according to that article, against Man City the legal entity, and not against the owners themselves. The claimants aren't piercing the Corporate veil here. It's the Club that apologises/pays out, not the current owners.

Because of the principal that you take assets and liabilities, when you buy a company, you try to find out all the liabilities first. Too many big liabilities that have unknown consequences and you might either not buy, or chip the price down, or get some sort of indemnity from the sellers. The current owners will therefore have conducted due diligence on their new purchase. That will have included asking questions around any potential claims or litigation. They would either have been told about the possibility of people claiming re Bennell, or will not have been told. If told then they should accept it. If not told, then the entity Man City should pay out, and the owners can then pursue their own claim against the former owners - possibly under indemnity clauses, or possibly though the courts if the indemnity has expired.

The former owners might say "we didn't know either", and then you get into a legal wrangle over what they should/could have reasonably known, and to an extent the answer to that depends on the exact wording of the purchase agreement and disclosure letter prepared at the time of the last sale of Man City. 

Each former owner should then claim against the previous one, up the chain of previous owners, until you hit the people in charge during Bennells grim tenure.

Either way, the current owners shouldn't be able to deny a victim's compensation simply because they weren't running the club at the time. Paying out a claim like these is part of the risk of owning the club.

You're right that no one would sue Bury. Bury have no money/don't even exist any more. The golden rule of litigation is that you only sue people who a) exist and b) have money.

Genuine question;

Is it not similar to say if I bought a car that 3 years ago someone else was driving when they ran someone over, then the person who was run over 'recovers' and then sues me because I now own the car?

[Akira]

29 minutes ago, grifty said:

Genuine question;

Is it not similar to say if I bought a car that 3 years ago someone else was driving when they ran someone over, then the person who was run over 'recovers' and then sues me because I now own the car?

But the car can't be sued, the person can. Whereas a club can be sued, as it's a business or organisation. 

I get the idea though, surely you'd sue the person, but as it might be a case of the club knew about the allegations but did nothing, they have a duty of care and a responsibility, within reason, to protect the kids in their care.

Turning a blind eye to a paedophile obviously isn't looking after the children within your care, as they're training with the club, not an 'independent' coach. 

[The Bard]

1 hour ago, Littlesh*t said:

Surely if man city pay up they are admitting that the club itself was aware and did wrong? It was awful what happened but the person has been punished and I am not sure the club should pay up regardless of how much money they have 

Not quite.  They would be acknowledging that they could be seen as being negligent and that it's better to make an agreement which doesn't admit as much but results in the victims getting some recompense.

[The Bard]

If you'd seen the programme about sexual abuse in football you would be in little doubt that there were rumours about the likes of Bennell long before they were held to account.  Despite this they continued to be employed in football and allowed access to young boys with parents unaware of their reputation.

[PHILINFRANCE]

44 minutes ago, grifty said:

Genuine question;

Is it not similar to say if I bought a car that 3 years ago someone else was driving when they ran someone over, then the person who was run over 'recovers' and then sues me because I now own the car?

I am assuming, because your example is so ludicrous as to be laughable, that your question was not genuine at all, but, rather, was a facetious attempt at humour. 

3 minutes ago, The Bard said:

Not quite.  They would be acknowledging that they could be seen as being negligent and that it's better to make an agreement which doesn't admit as much but results in the victims getting some recompense.

There is not necessarily even any need to admit negligence/liability.

Manchester City might just take the view that a Without Prejudice settlement, with no admission of anything, might be a more expedient and less expensive means to close this unsavoury incident once and for all, thus avoiding any further negative publicity.  

[ExiledAjax]

33 minutes ago, grifty said:

Genuine question;

Is it not similar to say if I bought a car that 3 years ago someone else was driving when they ran someone over, then the person who was run over 'recovers' and then sues me because I now own the car?

No. The car doesn't have what's called "legal personality". The car cannot own things, cannot enter a contract, cannot have its own obligations, and cannot have liabilities. The car is simply an object, or a tool, and what it does is entirely within the control of, and is the responsibility of, the individual behind the wheel.

A company however is a "thing" rather than a tool. A company can do all those things I say above. Yes it is controlled by the directors, and funded by shareholders, but it has its own agency. To an extent the actions of the company are it's own responsibility. 

Therefore it is right to sue the company itself in the Bennell case, and in your example to sue the driver at the time of the event.

Hope that makes sense. It's an area that has many books and cases about it. I've attempted to summarise a very extensive matter in a few paragraphs. 

[steveybadger]

It’s PR shoot yourself in the foot. Incredibly wealthy club chooses to use a convicted paedophile to help win a case, against the very people who are the victims.
 

Just another reason to dislike this ownership - As if the sportwashing wasn’t enough.

[grifty]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

No. The car doesn't have what's called "legal personality". The car cannot own things, cannot enter a contract, cannot have its own obligations, and cannot have liabilities. The car is simply an object, or a tool, and what it does is entirely within the control of, and is the responsibility of, the individual behind the wheel.

A company however is a "thing" rather than a tool. A company can do all those things I say above. Yes it is controlled by the directors, and funded by shareholders, but it has its own agency. To an extent the actions of the company are it's own responsibility. 

Therefore it is right to sue the company itself in the Bennell case, and in your example to sue the driver at the time of the event.

Hope that makes sense. It's an area that has many books and cases about it. I've attempted to summarise a very extensive matter in a few paragraphs. 

Thanks, it was the legal personality bit I didn't think of, makes sense now.

8 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I am assuming, because your example is so ludicrous as to be laughable, that your question was not genuine at all, but, rather, was a facetious attempt at humour. 

No, was a question. Thanks for being a **** though. Before 10am too, very impressive.

[Bannerman]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

Because when you buy a company in the way that Man City's owners did you buy all of its assets...and also all of its liabilities. You buy it warts and all.

The claim is, according to that article, against Man City the legal entity, and not against the owners themselves. The claimants aren't piercing the Corporate veil here. It's the Club that apologises/pays out, not the current owners.

Because of the principal that you take assets and liabilities, when you buy a company, you try to find out all the liabilities first. Too many big liabilities that have unknown consequences and you might either not buy, or chip the price down, or get some sort of indemnity from the sellers. The current owners will therefore have conducted due diligence on their new purchase. That will have included asking questions around any potential claims or litigation. They would either have been told about the possibility of people claiming re Bennell, or will not have been told. If told then they should accept it. If not told, then the entity Man City should pay out, and the owners can then pursue their own claim against the former owners - possibly under indemnity clauses, or possibly though the courts if the indemnity has expired.

The former owners might say "we didn't know either", and then you get into a legal wrangle over what they should/could have reasonably known, and to an extent the answer to that depends on the exact wording of the purchase agreement and disclosure letter prepared at the time of the last sale of Man City. 

Each former owner should then claim against the previous one, up the chain of previous owners, until you hit the people in charge during Bennells grim tenure.

Either way, the current owners shouldn't be able to deny a victim's compensation simply because they weren't running the club at the time. Paying out a claim like these is part of the risk of owning the club.

You're right that no one would sue Bury. Bury have no money/don't even exist any more. The golden rule of litigation is that you only sue people who a) exist and b) have money.

Bang on

[Steve Watts]

It's a really difficult one. It's an important distinction to make that the club aren't denying victims the compensation they are owed in this instance.  From what I can see they are just not convinced that these 8 people were in fact victims.  No judgment has been awarded in the individuals' favour and it doesn't appear to have even gone through the courts before.  If it had done and compensation had been awarded that the club are refusing to pay out then that is clearly another situation entirely.

The current owners can only rely on the information they have available to them, presumably from the original trial.  Bennell is the only one found responsible that is still alive and therefore the only one that can realistically testify - irrespective of whether or not anything he says is believed.  If the information that has come out before sees no reference to the 8 people suing today then the club are within their rights to wonder whether or not the alleged abuse took place and to counter it if they have reason to suspect that in actual fact it's 8 people looking for a meal ticket because others they knew and trained with had the misfortune to suffer abuse.  It wouldn't be the first time someone has fraudulently joined a class action because they see the opportunity for a windfall.

By allowing it to go through the court, the club then ensures the legal system therefore assesses the evidence and makes a judgment.  If the 8 are determined to be telling the truth then they will receive a payout accordingly and they will likely receive a bigger sum than if it were to be settled out of court.  That bigger sum will still be a drop in the ocean to the current owners and so they're probably happy to take that risk to avoid other unscrupulous people who weren't victims from coming forward thinking it'll be an easy out of court payday for them that ultimately they don't deserve.  

There are of course counter arguments to all of the above, and there is a good chance that these 8 people are genuine victims, but just offering a thought as to why the club aren't just blindly settling out of court.  

[PHILINFRANCE]

16 minutes ago, grifty said:

Thanks, it was the legal personality bit I didn't think of, makes sense now.

No, was a question. Thanks for being a **** though. Before 10am too, very impressive.

I am sorry if you thought I was being a ****; that was most certainly not my intention.

I genuinely thought you were proposing a ludicrous example as a sort of joke and assure you that I did not intend any offence. 

[Littlesh*t]

8 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

I’m not sure how good a defence it is for the club to say “we didn’t know”, however long ago it was.  The fact is that the club should have known and should have done something to stop it.

So by that assumption every paedophile or murder should be known by the company they work for so then all companies become liable. 

If Man City were aware then I agree they have a case to answer but i don't agree that they are guilty just because they employed the guy 

[TBW]

So, what, is he just gunna be like "nah,  didn't touch that one, nah not that one either..." and they believe him?

[LondonBristolian]

6 hours ago, Littlesh*t said:

So by that assumption every paedophile or murder should be known by the company they work for so then all companies become liable. 

If Man City were aware then I agree they have a case to answer but i don't agree that they are guilty just because they employed the guy 

Anyone who employs anyone who works with children or vulnerable adults IS liable for undertaking reasonable checks into the background of those they employ and putting the necessary safeguards in place so that potential predators cannot use their position or role to abuse or exploit people.

The issue is not simply whether the club employed a paedophile. It is that, according to the claimants, a scout who was sanctioned by the club to go out and approach children on the clubs’ behalf abused and exploited children and the club did not put the measures in place to check into that scout’s background, to enable people to raise concerns or to prevent that scout from getting away with abuse and exploitation.

The question is not whether the club employed the guy so much as whether they enabled him to abuse children and get away with it.

[GlastonburyRed]

14 hours ago, grifty said:

Genuine question;

Is it not similar to say if I bought a car that 3 years ago someone else was driving when they ran someone over, then the person who was run over 'recovers' and then sues me because I now own the car?

Car isn't a legal entity, football club is.

[GlastonburyRed]

6 hours ago, Littlesh*t said:

So by that assumption every paedophile or murder should be known by the company they work for so then all companies become liable. 

If Man City were aware then I agree they have a case to answer but i don't agree that they are guilty just because they employed the guy 

Not all companies becomes liable...just those that employ paedophiles/murderers, have them commit offences during the course of their employment, and haven't taken steps to ensure they don't commit said offences.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

15 hours ago, Littlesh*t said:

So by that assumption every paedophile or murder should be known by the company they work for so then all companies become liable. 

If Man City were aware then I agree they have a case to answer but i don't agree that they are guilty just because they employed the guy 

If they are committing offences in the course of their work and directly connected to their work, then yes.  We are talking about systematic abuse of children within football.  

People knew about Bennell, ahd I find it almost impossible to believe that Man City weren’t aware of the rumours about him.  Crewe Alexandra certainly knew about what was going on at their club, and did little to stop it, and tried to cover it up later.

[The Batman]

1 hour ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

 

People knew about Bennell, ahd I find it almost impossible to believe that Man City weren’t aware of the rumours about him.  

Man City knew about Benjamin Mendy following his arrest in November 2020 and continued to play him, rather than suspend him pending investigations. 

[lenred]

13 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Man City knew about Benjamin Mendy following his arrest in November 2020 and continued to play him, rather than suspend him pending investigations. 
 

Innocent until proven guilty though no? Genuine question as I don’t actually know. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by lenred

[The Batman]

1 hour ago, lenred said:

 

Indeed, but on 4 rape charges? 

Not to rehash the Everton player because his name has been kept out of the news (we all know who it is). He was suspended following his arrest pending further investigations, and that one 1 count of child sex act, and he's still suspended by the club. 

[LondonBristolian]

44 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Indeed, but on 4 rape charges? 

Not to rehash the Everton player because his name has been kept out of the news (we all know who it is). He was suspended following his arrest pending further investigations, and that one 1 count of child sex act, and he's still suspended by the club. 

Indeed. Obviously you never know exactly what's going on internally in a club and why decisions are made but it seems very strange on the face of it Mendy was able to play on. Mind you, I'm also a bit confused by the fact that Mendy was arrested in November, not charged until August and the implication seems to be at least some of the alleged offences happened after his arrest so the picture is confusing as to how he was allegedly able to be in a position to allegedly commit more alleged offences. If he is convicted there might be a time when questions are asked about whether the fact the club took no action was part of what enabled him to be in a position to do that. 

I know he wasn't a senior player but we obviously moved Sesay on pretty swiftly when he was arrested. 

[lenred]

2 hours ago, The Batman said:

Indeed, but on 4 rape charges? 

Not to rehash the Everton player because his name has been kept out of the news (we all know who it is). He was suspended following his arrest pending further investigations, and that one 1 count of child sex act, and he's still suspended by the club. 

Forgot about Everton but I guess every case has it’s own facets.  I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with it as I don’t know the story or any of the facts at all. Just questioning whether the club were in any position to suspend him based upon the innocent until proven guilty ruling (much the same as our friends in Horfield who are going down that route). Seems they wouldve  been though judging by Everton’s actions. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by lenred