Club have tried to get Lubala out.

bfcpete said:
Totally agree
Click to expand...
Mexboroseasider said:
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
Click to expand...
Mexboroseasider said:
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.
Click to expand...
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”.
In the vast majority of this type of case somebody will be bailed for the three months and if they are still not in a position to make a decision then released under investigation. From then on it is a case of “no news is good news“
The reason I think that the timescales will be relevant is that it looks like he was charged 14 or 15 months after he was interviewed and therefore probably a year after he was released under investigation .
I’m obviously only guessing, but it may well be that he won his civil case on that basis. In other words he will probably have argued that it was not unreasonable for him to assume that the whole thing has gone away bearing in mind he have not been charged so long after the event.
The same argument may well apply to Crawley in defending any claim brought by BFC. Whether or not that will succeed, who knows
 
tigger said:
BFC3- see my response to Mex’s post
Click to expand...
Ah 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.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Ah 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.
Click to expand...
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
 
tigger said:
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
Click to expand...
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 suppose it may have been possible (given what I said above) that he may have even been aware that she had decided to discontinue…
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
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 suppose it may have been possible (given what I said above) that he may have even been aware that she had decided to discontinue…
Click to expand...
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
 
At the end of the day I feel sorry for Simon Sadler and the club generally, as it is hard to know what they could do differently to avoid a situation like this, there is no central register to check on police investigations
It must be really frustrating at times especially with other legal battles he inherited when he took over the club
 
tigger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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...


Imagine if these precautions weren't taken and he sexually assaulted someone.

Imagine if your daughter worked with someone with these allegations against them and her employer allowed them to work late and alone with them.

Imagine if you had a young child and their teacher had these allegations against them and they were allowed to continue normal unsupervised contact.

This doesn't mean the accused are guilty, but it does protect all parties.

Back on topic, if neither Crawley nor Lubala have disclosed this, I'd be stunned if we can't litigate to recoup our losses. It's standard process in hiring an employee to request any spent, ongoing or pending charges are disclosed.

Quick enhanced DBS check would give confidence to an employer about an employee, although it depends if the police see the allegations as being pertinent to the job role.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
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
Click to expand...
I 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.
 
Always tangerine said:
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..........
Click to expand...
You can apply to the court for a declaration in relation to a contract

No idea if it happened in this case
 
It’s been a disaster of a transfer but not one that has put the club in a disastrous state. There are mega millions players who’ve ended up causing nightmares for bigger clubs than us. Just chalk it down to bitter experience and move on.
 
todayistheday said:
So you are saying there is nothing to see here and lubby can go about his everyday business.
Click to expand...

Today

No, I am not saying anything like what you have suggested.

I don't know the exact ins and outs of the case but as trigger suggested, it could be that there was nothing for Lubala and/or Crawley to tell BFC during transfer negotiations from a legal point of view.

The situation below IS A HYPOTHETICAL ONE:


1 Jan: Male A meets Female B

8 Jan: B complains to the police that she might have been raped by A

9 Jan: The police speak to A and take no action

31 Jan: A who plays for Mexborough agrees to sign for Man Utd, Mexborough receive £500k and A signs a contract for £5k per week.

30 Jun: New evidence comes to light and A is arrested and charged with a previous incident.


I COULD BE WRONG but I don't think that A or anybody from Mexborough had ANY LEGAL OBLIGATION to disclose any information relating to any alleged previous incident between A and B.


THE ABOVE WAS A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE.
 
Whose responsibility would it generally be to check these things out in a club of our size? The club secretary or external contract law advisors? Either way it's in the past now. If Lubala is not pursued further on this matter by the powers that be it might be better to cancel his contract, or loan him out if anyone will take him, rather than throwing good money after bad with m'learned friends?*

*No offence to all learned friends on here of course
 
Mexboroseasider said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wizaard said:
As a public servant, you have to declare all incidents involving the police, regardless of outcome. Obviously, footballers aren't public servants...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Wizaard said:
As a public servant, you have to declare all incidents involving the police, regardless of outcome. Obviously, footballers aren't public servants...
Click to expand...

Wiz

No problem with anything you say, you make a fair point but I am not making myself clear in my responses so I will stay out of this one.
 
It’s a mess we could do without and the sooner it’s settled the better. Let’s hope that now it’s out in the open it doesn’t affect any of the other player, they will have different opinions about him.
 
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...
Employment Law and Criminal Law are separate. If he worked for me he would have walked immediately purely by bringing the company into disrepute.
 
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...

No Karl.
 
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?
 
BestTrip said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 straightforward
 
BestTrip said:
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?
Click to expand...

We've got him under contract until June 2023, presumably we'll try to loan him out somewhere if we can't find anyone to buy him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top