Club have tried to get Lubala out.

Tangerine Tractor

Tangerine Tractor

Well-known member
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.

Julia Smart QC, defending Lubala, said there is still an ongoing dispute between Crawley Town and Blackpool, who say his former team should have informed them about the allegations.

Lubala said: “If I lost my contract that would have been it really. I am still technically signed by Blackpool but I am not being played. They made me sign a safeguarding contract where I can’t shower at the training ground, I have got to be chaperoned around the stadium, if there’s a female in the room I have to leave the room. With the under-18s I can’t play unless the whole of the team is there and I can only play friendly games.”
 
Innocent until proven guilty, but from the club's perspective they'll be pissed that neither Lubala nor Crawley told us during negotiations last summer about the allegations.

Have to feel that we have a pretty good legal case against both Lubala and Crawley to terminate his contract/ get our money back.

Also think it's pretty clear now with everything out; Lubala will never play for us again.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
No I wouldn’t.

I’am just repeating all the “he’s innocent until proven guilty” comments on the other Lubala thread from yesterday.

Seems it’s not the case in this instance the club have clearly judged him already.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying though Jaffa, It's not so much about whether they are judging him or not... It's simply the case that you cannot afford to take the risk. As I say, someone accused of paedophilia would also be innocent until proven guilty, but you're not going to let them babysit your grandkids as you'd always prioritise their safety and rightly so.
 
tangerine_neil said:
If he’s found innocent it’s two years of his career gone that he will never get back. And the stigma will never go away.

If he’s found guilty, it will look like the BFC safeguarding measures were entirely appropriate.
Click to expand...

Agree, but from the club's perspective they will feel aggrieved because they had a right to know about the allegations before he was signed.

I have a strong feeling that if they had known, they wouldn't have signed him because they wouldn't have wanted to become embroiled in that mess regardless of whether he's innocent or not.

Since neither Crawley or Lubala disclosed to Blackpool those very important details about Bez the club will feel every right to demand termination of his contract and repayment from Crawley.
 
AmericanTangerine said:
Agree, but from the club's perspective they will feel aggrieved because they had a right to know about the allegations before he was signed.

I have a strong feeling that if they had known, they wouldn't have signed him because they wouldn't have wanted to become embroiled in that mess regardless of whether he's innocent or not.

Since neither Crawley or Lubala disclosed to Blackpool those very important details about Bez the club will feel every right to demand termination of his contract and repayment from Crawley.
Click to expand...
Agree. It does say: “there is still an ongoing dispute between Crawley Town and Blackpool.”

One for the legals to sort out, separate to this court case
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
So much for being innocent until proven guilty.
That to me sounds like he’s already been judged. 😮
Click to expand...

I think it's more a case of the club know they can't play him and should never have been put in this position in the first place, I doubt they've formed an opinion about the case itself.


TTractor said:
Certainly there must be some stuff we're not hearing. The club don't think he's safe to be left unsupervised.
Click to expand...

I think it's more a case that the club need to protect their own position, if anything did happen, or indeed if there was a vexatious claim, the club would be horribly exposed if they did not implement safeguarding measures.
 
todayistheday said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hardly

It appears as though the other two parties knew he was at risk of what has transpired and should have declared it.
 
Looking at Wikipedia he signed for us on the 1st September 2020. I think the big issue will be when he was actually charged with the rape. If they had known that he had already been charged and failed to disclose it that must amount to misrepresentation.

However, these investigations do take a long time and it may well be the case that he was simply under police investigation when he sign for us.

That means there is no guarantee of a charge, it is well publicised that a small percentage of complaints of rape ever make their way to court.

So if at the time he saying for us he had not been charged or told he was going to be charged, I’m not sure that we would have any where near as strong a case
 
AmericanTangerine said:
Agree, but from the club's perspective they will feel aggrieved because they had a right to know about the allegations before he was signed.

I have a strong feeling that if they had known, they wouldn't have signed him because they wouldn't have wanted to become embroiled in that mess regardless of whether he's innocent or not.

Since neither Crawley or Lubala disclosed to Blackpool those very important details about Bez the club will feel every right to demand termination of his contract and repayment from Crawley.
Click to expand...
From 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..........
 
TTractor said:
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.

Julia Smart QC, defending Lubala, said there is still an ongoing dispute between Crawley Town and Blackpool, who say his former team should have informed them about the allegations.

Lubala said: “If I lost my contract that would have been it really. I am still technically signed by Blackpool but I am not being played. They made me sign a safeguarding contract where I can’t shower at the training ground, I have got to be chaperoned around the stadium, if there’s a female in the room I have to leave the room. With the under-18s I can’t play unless the whole of the team is there and I can only play friendly games.”
Click to expand...
The plot thickens.
I can see a film with Joe Nuttall playing the part of Bez
 
tigger said:
Looking at Wikipedia he signed for us on the 1st September 2020. I think the big issue will be when he was actually charged with the rape. If they had known that he had already been charged and failed to disclose it that must amount to misrepresentation.

However, these investigations do take a long time and it may well be the case that he was simply under police investigation when he sign for us.

That means there is no guarantee of a charge, it is well publicised that a small percentage of complaints of rape ever make their way to court.

So if at the time he saying for us he had not been charged or told he was going to be charged, I’m not sure that we would have any where near as strong a case
Click to expand...

According to this report, "....jurors heard Lubala was interviewed just days after the alleged rape in September 2019. He was charged at the end of 2020."

www.lancs.live

Beryly Lubala worked at Amazon warehouse after Blackpool suspension

Blackpool FC's Beryly Lubala denies raping an 18-year-old woman
www.lancs.live www.lancs.live

So it appears the matter was under investigation when he signed for us.

Any recourse BFC might have from Lubala or Crawley will surely depend on the wording of any enquiries made - did we ask about any potential legal actions?
 
tigger said:
Looking at Wikipedia he signed for us on the 1st September 2020. I think the big issue will be when he was actually charged with the rape. If they had known that he had already been charged and failed to disclose it that must amount to misrepresentation.

However, these investigations do take a long time and it may well be the case that he was simply under police investigation when he sign for us.

That means there is no guarantee of a charge, it is well publicised that a small percentage of complaints of rape ever make their way to court.

So if at the time he saying for us he had not been charged or told he was going to be charged, I’m not sure that we would have any where near as strong a case
Click to expand...
Disgree, if he was being investigated, it should have been disclosed. Do not forget all the people involved with the club to whom the club owes a duty of care. The terms of his suspension, in that he could be involved effectively with a chaperone, are actually very fair. Years ago I had an employee accused of a less serious sexual offence and legal advice was full suspension until trial. He is innocent until proven guilty, but duty of care demands a response.

If he is found innocent, he is free to pursue his career as a footballer. The issue of non disclosure is a totally separate civil matter which again will be settled in court if Crawley duck their responsibilities.
 
Tangerinemoss said:
Disgree, if he was being investigated, it should have been disclosed. Do not forget all the people involved with the club to whom the club owes a duty of care. The terms of his suspension, in that he could be involved effectively with a chaperone, are actually very fair. Years ago I had an employee accused of a less serious sexual offence and legal advice was full suspension until trial. He is innocent until proven guilty, but duty of care demands a response.

If he is found innocent, he is free to pursue his career as a footballer. The issue of non disclosure is a totally separate civil matter which again will be settled in court if Crawley duck their responsibilities.
Click to expand...
I still say that the claim isn’t going to be as strong as it would have been had he already been charged at that point

Especially when you bear in mind that he had been interviewed approximately 14/15 months Earlier and had not been charged, he could surely very properly say that he assumed that it had all gone away

In my opinion, the longer the period of time from the incident when he was charged the weaker the case must be.
 
Well it seems like he will see out his contract without kicking another ball in anger for us. Gotta feel for SS, what a waste of money.
 
AmericanTangerine said:
Agree, but from the club's perspective they will feel aggrieved because they had a right to know about the allegations before he was signed.

I have a strong feeling that if they had known, they wouldn't have signed him because they wouldn't have wanted to become embroiled in that mess regardless of whether he's innocent or not.

Since neither Crawley or Lubala disclosed to Blackpool those very important details about Bez the club will feel every right to demand termination of his contract and repayment from Crawley.
Click to expand...
Totally agree
 
tigger said:
I still say that the claim isn’t going to be as strong as it would have been had he already been charged at that point

Especially when you bear in mind that he had been interviewed approximately 14/15 months Earlier and had not been charged, he could surely very properly say that he assumed that it had all gone away

In my opinion, the longer the period of time from the incident when he was charged the weaker the case must be.
Click to expand...
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.
 
todayistheday said:
I would presume you have to notify criminal convictions not possible convictions. Football is a strange business so maybe different but doubt it.
Click to expand...
Most employers (or their HR dept) will ask prospective employees whether they have any pending or ongoing criminal or disciplnary actions or have any issues that may suggest they are not of good character. You would also seek the same assurances from their current employer. Clearly, neither BL nor Crawley decided to disclose this, even when it was running well before we signed him.
 
tigger said:
I still say that the claim isn’t going to be as strong as it would have been had he already been charged at that point

Especially when you bear in mind that he had been interviewed approximately 14/15 months Earlier and had not been charged, he could surely very properly say that he assumed that it had all gone away

In my opinion, the longer the period of time from the incident when he was charged the weaker the case must be.
Click to expand...

tigger

I wouldn't pretend to know the ins and outs of the case but I think you hit the nail on the head regarding exactly what was known at exactly what time.
 
tigger said:
I still say that the claim isn’t going to be as strong as it would have been had he already been charged at that point

Especially when you bear in mind that he had been interviewed approximately 14/15 months Earlier and had not been charged, he could surely very properly say that he assumed that it had all gone away

In my opinion, the longer the period of time from the incident when he was charged the weaker the case must be.
Click to expand...
A certain Owen John Oyston comes to mind 7 years was it after the event? he would most certainly disagree.

I do get where your coming from mind.
 
tigger said:
I still say that the claim isn’t going to be as strong as it would have been had he already been charged at that point

Especially when you bear in mind that he had been interviewed approximately 14/15 months Earlier and had not been charged, he could surely very properly say that he assumed that it had all gone away

In my opinion, the longer the period of time from the incident when he was charged the weaker the case must be.
Click to expand...
Do you mean BFC's civil case or the criminal case?
 
Macseasider said:
Feel sorry for the club officials having to deal with all this. Totally outside of their employment description I'm sure.
Click to expand...

I think football executives should expect to have deal with all sorts of extraordinary issues from time to time and they should ensure that they handle them appropriately and effectively.

I agree with you in that I'm sure nobody wants to have to deal with such a matter and there can't be any winners in such a case.
 
tigger said:
Looking at Wikipedia he signed for us on the 1st September 2020. I think the big issue will be when he was actually charged with the rape. If they had known that he had already been charged and failed to disclose it that must amount to misrepresentation.
Click to expand...

The key issue is not the charging, it's the knowledge of an investigation, that has to be disclosed.

Maybe Crawley didn't know, in which case it's on Bez, or maybe they did in which case it's on them, but somewhere along the line we're out of pocket by several hundred grand, somebody's lied and we'd like them to pay us back.


Edit:

I suppose it's possible it's a reasonable misunderstanding, indirectly a result of Covid, if the player was spoken to by police in 2019, and nothing has happened by September 2020 then maybe one might think it's a non-issue and going nowhere and might provide information on that basis, it might depend on the precise wording of what was asked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top