Innocent I thought in our law until proven guilty.
The "disclosure" dispute - irrelevant of the eventual outcome of the trial - is whether the purchaser paid a fair price at the time. The central focus being the obligations of all parties in the transaction: - if commercially-sensitive information was deliberately withheld by the vendor - if the scope & quality of "due-diligence" by the purchaser was adequate
In our corner is the huge precedent of football transfers with an extensive history of disappointment, invariably cited as "caveat emptor"... ...they are not always on the £90m scale of Paul Pogba either...!
According to this article Bez wasn’t charged until January 21 which was months after Crawley sold him to Blackpool. I’m no legal expert at all, but how can Crawley be sued for selling a player who hadn’t even been charged with this crime let alone convicted. If Blackpool are suing Crawley it seems they are lashing out looking for someone to blame trying to keep their reputation in tact.
We already know that the paid transfer occurred months prior to any formal charges. Isn't that precisely why the Purchasers are unhappy...?
Sorry thad, I do t understand what point you are making. Bez wasn’t charged when he the transfer was completed. Would Crawley have known about this matter? Maybe, maybe not. Would they have been under any obligation to disclose what was at the time an accusation? I don’t see how they would?
Alex, from what I've read (and my scant knowledge of the law) Lubala was arrested while still a Crawley player. He was then released under investigation. He was formally charged after he had left us.
Now I don't know if Blackpool are suing CTFC or not but from my understanding the writ would be because we were aware of the serious nature of the alleged offence and the possibility of a court case and did not alert Blackpool to this. As I said in my earlier post I'm not sure if this would be accepted as CTFC would not have been kept informed of the ongoing investigation.
We already know that the paid transfer occurred months prior to any formal charges. Isn't that precisely why the Purchasers are unhappy...?
Sorry thad, I do t understand what point you are making. Bez wasn’t charged when he the transfer was completed. Would Crawley have known about this matter? Maybe, maybe not. Would they have been under any obligation to disclose what was at the time an accusation? I don’t see how they would?
Straightforward answer Alex, is that it is not about the charge or the court case, but simply whether we met our legal obligations at the time of the sale. Neither of us are qualified to provide a definitive schedule of those "obligations". However - a reasonable minimum requirement is to directly answer the Purchasers questions to the best of our knowledge.
Blackpool are hoping to establish that we deliberately withheld information that would have impacted the value of the transaction. The onus is placed on them to prove the validity of their accusation, which is not straightforward, but - as I posted previously - Blackpool have little to lose from pursuing the matter.
Sorry thad, I do t understand what point you are making. Bez wasn’t charged when he the transfer was completed. Would Crawley have known about this matter? Maybe, maybe not. Would they have been under any obligation to disclose what was at the time an accusation? I don’t see how they would?
Straightforward answer Alex, is that it is not about the charge or the court case, but simply whether we met our legal obligations at the time of the sale. Neither of us are qualified to provide a definitive schedule of those "obligations". However - a reasonable minimum requirement is to directly answer the Purchasers questions to the best of our knowledge.
Blackpool are hoping to establish that we deliberately withheld information that would have impacted the value of the transaction. The onus is placed on them to prove the validity of their accusation, which is not straightforward, but - as I posted previously - Blackpool have little to lose from pursuing the matter.
I get what you saying thad.
If Blackpool would have known about the investigation and potential court case prior to buying Lubala I suspect they wouldn’t have gone ahead with the sale.
Would Crawley have known about what was going on with Bez. Maybe not. As far as I can tell there was nothing in the media at the time of the sale regarding any potential court case and why would there be as he wasn’t charged at the time. I don’t see how Bez would have been under any obligation to reveal what was going on in his private life to the club so I would think there’s a chance Crawley may not have known about what was going on so I suspect if Blackpool are making a legal case against Crawley it may be difficult prove Crawley knowingly withheld information at the time of the sale.
One additional point in our favour Alex, is that - if I have read it correctly from the Blackpool forum post (see quote below) - they initiated parallel actions against the individual player and CTFC, the former (where they arguably had the stronger case) has already found in favour of the Player.
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.
Edit: Only just noticed in that quote... "...his former team should have informed them about the allegations"... Interesting... cos in everyday legal circumstances, "allegations" are invariably dismissed as "hearsay"...(?)
It's very hard to articulate a response to the not guilty verdict. I cant really write good for you Bez or well done Bez. They are just inappropriate in these circumstances.
I will say the argos article is distasteful in reprinting the allegations at the end of that report. At the beginning yes. Not as the final part.
I hope all involved will be able to move on with their lives.
I get what you are saying Jim in that saying ‘good news’ or ‘congratulations’ doesn’t feel appropriate in these circumstances, but once someone has been cleared in court of law they should be allowed to resume their life.
Will be interesting to see what happens with him now. Will he be eased back into the Blackpool squad once he has regained his fitness?
If he could recapture his initial form he is still young enough to have a decent career.
His next challenge is rebuilding the damaged relationship between Employer & Employee. There is a possibility that Blackpool could drop their claim against us to assist that process and enable all parties to move on...
...however, their claim is solely about what information was known, requested & provided at the time of sale, which is unaffected by the trial or the verdict.