Wizaard
Well-known member
We should go to the EFL to resolve a dispute between two of their members. They'll be straight on it and get it sorted in no time...oh.Hope so. Wages too?
We should go to the EFL to resolve a dispute between two of their members. They'll be straight on it and get it sorted in no time...oh.Hope so. Wages too?
Totally agree
I’m not going to comment on the criminal proceedings- just the BFC/Crawley dispute and whether the investigation should have been disclosed.
More your field than mine but if you’re released under investigation I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume the issue has gone away? Don’t you get a letter from the CPS/police telling you the investigation has been dropped?
Without checking I recall there was a lot of talk of him being transferred to other clubs just before we jumped in and signed him up. I’m now wondering if those other sales fell over because they were told or found out about these issues?
As for where BFC stand so far as Crawley is concerned it depends on the questions asked and the answers given. Generally silence can’t be a misrepresentation but omissions can sometimes be very relevant.
Sometimes you get questions along the lines of “is there anything else that a buyer could reasonably expect to be told that might impact on their decision to proceed?”. And usually the answer is that along the lines of “this enquiry is too vague and wide to answer”.
There’s then the question of what’s in the contract. All contracts will include as a boiler plate an “all agreement”’clause which basically says the contract encapsulates everything and which is designed to exclude pre contract representations. If a buyer wants to protect against a particular risk then they ask for a specific warranty in the agreement. But obviously if the risk hasn’t been disclosed then they won’t know about it!
It’s being reported that a civil case has already been brought and failed. I’d like to know whether that’s the end of the civil proceedings or whether the civil court has just put ma
Mex- the straightforward answer is no, you don’t generally get a letter to say that you aren’t going to be charged. After somebody has been interviewed the police can either bail without charge for a short period, usually no more than 3 months in total or release “under investigation”.I’m not going to comment on the criminal proceedings- just the BFC/Crawley dispute and whether the investigation should have been disclosed.
More your field than mine but if you’re released under investigation I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume the issue has gone away? Don’t you get a letter from the CPS/police telling you the investigation has been dropped?
Without checking I recall there was a lot of talk of him being transferred to other clubs just before we jumped in and signed him up. I’m now wondering if those other sales fell over because they were told or found out about these issues?
As for where BFC stand so far as Crawley is concerned it depends on the questions asked and the answers given. Generally silence can’t be a misrepresentation but omissions can sometimes be very relevant.
Sometimes you get questions along the lines of “is there anything else that a buyer could reasonably expect to be told that might impact on their decision to proceed?”. And usually the answer is that along the lines of “this enquiry is too vague and wide to answer”.
There’s then the question of what’s in the contract. All contracts will include as a boiler plate an “all agreement”’clause which basically says the contract encapsulates everything and which is designed to exclude pre contract representations. If a buyer wants to protect against a particular risk then they ask for a specific warranty in the agreement. But obviously if the risk hasn’t been disclosed then they won’t know about it!
It’s being reported that a civil case has already been brought and failed. I’d like to know whether that’s the end of the civil proceedings or whether the civil court has just put matters on hold as they don’t want to prejudice the criminal proceedings at all.
BFC3- see my response to Mex’s postDo you mean BFC's civil case or the criminal case?
Ah OK…BFC3- see my response to Mex’s post
Plus wagesWe paid Crawley 300,000 for Bez so I would assume the club are doing everything they can to recoup that if Crawley are found to have not disclosed that pertinent information despite knowing.
I obviously understand that but he will say he didn’t know about any of that and that he signed for us genuinely believing he was in the clear. I honestly can’t think of any other reason he would have won a civil case against BFC, and if he did win on that basis the same could easily be argued by CrawleyAh OK…
The reason for the delay may well relate to the victim. Reading the information published it seems she changed her mind about proceeding with the complaint a couple of times.
It seems that she was torn between simply moving on with her life or essentially putting herself through the hell of a case and all that goes with it…. (Not uncommon in these types of cases for the victims to have concerns about the upset and upheaval of trial I’m sure)..
It seems a fairly obvious and plausible reason for the delay.
Says £300,000 on what I’ve read and Blackpool were paying him £1800 per weekAh ok thanks
I’m not sure what has happened with the Civil Case. I was assuming that if they hadn’t requested any disclosure then he may not have been under any obligation anyway…I obviously understand that but he will say he didn’t know about any of that and that he signed for us genuinely believing he was in the clear. I honestly can’t think of any other reason he would have won a civil case against BFC, and if he did win on that basis the same could easily be argued by Crawley
It is all supposition as usual because we have very little information to go on, but safe to say if it is right that he won a civil case against Blackpool as he said in his evidence then it must’ve been for a reasonI’m not sure what has happened with the Civil Case. I was assuming that if they hadn’t requested any disclosure then he may not have been under any obligation anyway…
I suppose it may have been possible (given what I said above) that he may have even been aware that she had decided to discontinue…
It is all supposition as usual because we have very little information to go on, but safe to say if it is right that he won a civil case against Blackpool as he said in his evidence then it must’ve been for a reason.
So much for being innocent until proven guilty.
That to me sounds like he’s already been judged.
I agree it's a shitty situation all round.Yep… We’re in the business of wild speculation and conjecture etc..
Whichever way you look at it, it’s a bit shitty from all concerned to see Blackpool forking out transfer fees etc.. without disclosing something of such potential significance…whatever the legalities
You can apply to the court for a declaration in relation to a contractFrom my limited knowledge of employment law I think there's no legal obligation to disclose you have been charged with a offence unless you are asked or it's a question in the contract. But as it's a very serious charge then there's the question of whether you might expect someone to disclose it, especially if you are in the public eye .
Para 1 of the OP is unclear, particularly the last sentence
"Lubala also said Blackpool took him to court as they wanted to terminate his contract for being dishonest and not disclosing he had been interviewed by police before signing. He told the court he was able to beat the case with the help of the FA and he is still in a contract with Blackpool - but with strict conditions."
I can't see how you have to go to court to dismiss someone ( as I said before in some cases eg v serious offences it may be possible to dismiss someone before the case is heard , depending on what effects keeping someone on could have related to relationships with employees and the employers reputation) . It should become clearer eventually I imagine, but could drag on..........
Thankfully the option is irrelevantI agree it's a shitty situation all round.
If Bez is found guilty he will presumably then be sacked.
His contract is until June 2023 + 1yr option.
Lubala’s case is. But if anyone took action against BFC it would be a civil caseIsn't it a criminal case?
And many other occupations under the Disclosure and Barring regulations.The nature of the offence would mean you have to let people know if you were a teacher.
So you are saying there is nothing to see here and lubby can go about his everyday business.
Probably not I'd say.You can apply to the court for a declaration in relation to a contract
No idea if it happened in this case
As a public servant, you have to declare all incidents involving the police, regardless of outcome. Obviously, footballers aren't public servants...Surely a teacher would not have to let anybody know anything if there was nothing to tell them ?
On top of all you say, Covid has put Police, Courts and just about every other public service back by many months if not years. This would also contribute to the delay, so one can’t just pretend it’s gone away.I’m not going to comment on the criminal proceedings- just the BFC/Crawley dispute and whether the investigation should have been disclosed.
More your field than mine but if you’re released under investigation I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume the issue has gone away? Don’t you get a letter from the CPS/police telling you the investigation has been dropped?
Without checking I recall there was a lot of talk of him being transferred to other clubs just before we jumped in and signed him up. I’m now wondering if those other sales fell over because they were told or found out about these issues?
As for where BFC stand so far as Crawley is concerned it depends on the questions asked and the answers given. Generally silence can’t be a misrepresentation but omissions can sometimes be very relevant.
Sometimes you get questions along the lines of “is there anything else that a buyer could reasonably expect to be told that might impact on their decision to proceed?”. And usually the answer is that along the lines of “this enquiry is too vague and wide to answer”.
There’s then the question of what’s in the contract. All contracts will include as a boiler plate an “all agreement”’clause which basically says the contract encapsulates everything and which is designed to exclude pre contract representations. If a buyer wants to protect against a particular risk then they ask for a specific warranty in the agreement. But obviously if the risk hasn’t been disclosed then they won’t know about it!
It’s being reported that a civil case has already been brought and failed. I’d like to know whether that’s the end of the civil proceedings or whether the civil court has just put matters on hold as they don’t want to prejudice the criminal proceedings at all.
I would have thought all contracts of employment would have built in protection against things like this, it's like it's a new unheard of phenomenon. If you agree to pay some for 3 years you need to make sure you won't end up paying out in circumstances like these.As a public servant, you have to declare all incidents involving the police, regardless of outcome. Obviously, footballers aren't public servants...
As a public servant, you have to declare all incidents involving the police, regardless of outcome. Obviously, footballers aren't public servants...
Employment Law and Criminal Law are separate. If he worked for me he would have walked immediately purely by bringing the company into disrepute.So much for being innocent until proven guilty.
That to me sounds like he’s already been judged.
Could you say its similar to the Gary Parkinson fiasco in the way BFC are acting.
Try to terminate Lubs contract before he is proven guilty (If)
Terminating Gary Parkinsons contract before they knew he wouldnt get better and to be able to resume work.
All for the sake of saving a few dollars more.
In my book people can do as they please when running a business.
If he is found not guilty then that should be that, he’s then judged like every other player, purely on footballing merits. If he’s found guilty and sent to prison it’s fairly straightforwardNow what happens if he is found innocent and she made it up all up? Not for one second saying this is the case but interesting to see how he moves on. Would you have him back playing if he was or is damage already done?
Presume that's the PFA and not the FA!He told the court he was able to beat the case with the help of the FA
Now what happens if he is found innocent and she made it up all up? Not for one second saying this is the case but interesting to see how he moves on. Would you have him back playing if he was or is damage already done?