• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Chelsea paid 50k last year to cover up paedo scout

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Like the other cases that have been brought to light so far, the abuse itself is historical, but the fact that this money was only paid out last year is really quite shocking.

I wonder what Chelsea were thinking (if anything) when they came up with this scheme?! Surely, they will suffer far more damage now from this exposure than they would have if they had just held their hands up last year - the current ownership would have had every right to distance themselves from the abuse itself, given it was so long ago.

It seems like these stories are going to keep rolling out, now that the first brave few have stepped forward. Hopefully, once it is all out in the open, football can clean up its act - but I doubt it.
 
Yeah they'll unlikely be the last club caught in covering up similar problems.

I dont know why the chumps at the FA are getting involved though or what suitable judgement they could offer, surely its a criminal matter - perverting the course of justice or whatever?
 
HC said:
Yeah they'll unlikely be the last club caught in covering up similar problems.

I dont know why the chumps at the FA are getting involved though or what suitable judgement they could offer, surely its a criminal matter - perverting the course of justice or whatever?
Click to expand...

I agree. But once everything is brought to light, if Chelsea are found to be in the wrong, then the FA must surely impose some pretty hefty sanctions for this.

The FA also to needs to answer to a few things itself, like why it pulled all funding from a review of child protection policies in 2003 (article linked below).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38145061
 
HC said:
Yeah they'll unlikely be the last club caught in covering up similar problems.

I dont know why the chumps at the FA are getting involved though or what suitable judgement they could offer, surely its a criminal matter - perverting the course of justice or whatever?
Click to expand...

If there was no complaint made to the police then it's just a civil matter. In that case Chelsea are free to deny liability and offer the cash as a confidential settlement, which is what they did. Except now they look like cunts, which is what they are. The FA obviously want to get involved because when something bad happens in football, then they get paid. You can't have the player getting paid and the FA left out of the loop, that's not how they roll.
 
dantes said:
If there was no complaint made to the police then it's just a civil matter. In that case Chelsea are free to deny liability and offer the cash as a confidential settlement, which is what they did. Except now they look like cunts, which is what they are. The FA obviously want to get involved because when something bad happens in football, then they get paid. You can't have the player getting paid and the FA left out of the loop, that's not how they roll.
Click to expand...

He went to the police who apparently told him to sort it out with the club? It doesn't sound like it was sorted particularly well by the Club

After keeping his ordeal a secret for decades, Gary first went to the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Yewtree in 2014, but he said he was advised to “go back to Chelsea” with his case
Click to expand...

It also Sounds like the Met fucked up to be fair though
 
Windom Earle said:
I agree. But once everything is brought to light, if Chelsea are found to be in the wrong, then the FA must surely impose some pretty hefty sanctions for this.

The FA also to needs to answer to a few things itself, like why it pulled all funding from a review of child protection policies in 2003 (article linked below).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38145061
Click to expand...

Jesus, That's almost equally criminal

I find the fact that British Football as a whole is going through one of its most shocking and disturbing moments in god knows how long as a fricking ridiculous moment to unveil your new National team manager. You'd think they'd have bigger fish to fry?
 
HC said:
He went to the police who apparently told him to sort it out with the club? It doesn't sound like it was sorted particularly well by the Club. It also Sounds like the Met fucked up to be fair though
Click to expand...

The coach was already dead by then. Had he been alive, it would be hard enough to prove him guilty. But now, to prove the club guilty of some involvement in his crimes is an order of magnitude harder. The police were probably trying to save him the bother. What he should have done is taken the initial £50k offer of settlement, then told the club that they need to shift the decimal point over a couple of places or else he goes to the papers and sings like a canary. That was a pretty derisory sum given what he must have suffered.
 
I don't see there's a scandal if he approached the police and they said there's nowhere near enough to go on. Then, if he threatened to sue Chelsea and he settled for 50k on account of the weakness in bringing a case that is long since statute barred, and the settlement contained a non disclosure clause - I'm not sure anybody acted all that inappropriately.
 
dantes said:
The coach was already dead by then. Had he been alive, it would be hard enough to prove him guilty. But now, to prove the club guilty of some involvement in his crimes is an order of magnitude harder. The police were probably trying to save him the bother. What he should have done is taken the initial £50k offer of settlement, then told the club that they need to shift the decimal point over a couple of places or else he goes to the papers and sings like a canary. That was a pretty derisory sum given what he must have suffered.
Click to expand...

We're talking abuse carried out in the 70s here, right?

So compensation of around £1.25k a year since he suffered this abuse. Derisory is putting it lightly.
 
Rosco said:
I don't see there's a scandal if he approached the police and they said there's nowhere near enough to go on. Then, if he threatened to sue Chelsea and he settled for 50k on account of the weakness in bringing a case that is long since statute barred, and the settlement contained a non disclosure clause - I'm not sure anybody acted all that inappropriately.
Click to expand...

It's a moral argument though, no? Yes, Chelsea acted within the law in settling with non-disclosure clause but that's not the 'right' thing to do here.
 
manwithnoname said:
You wouldn't get any of this shit in a sport for real men, like darts.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is because the potential victims would have three sharp projectiles in their hand, and nobody would question it being a tragic accident if they ended up in the coach's head.
 
Windom Earle said:
We're talking abuse carried out in the 70s here, right?

So compensation of around £1.25k a year since he suffered this abuse. Derisory is putting it lightly.
Click to expand...

He accepted it, presumably on the basis of some legal advice.

Any half decent lawyer would have said there are fundamental weaknesses in a case if you haven't reported the issues within a reasonable time, and are taking proceedings 30 odd years later than the Court rules allow and you have the police advising there isn't sufficient evidence for them to progress a case.
 
Buddha said:
It's a moral argument though, no? Yes, Chelsea acted within the law in settling with non-disclosure clause but that's not the 'right' thing to do here.
Click to expand...

What are you suggesting the right thing to do is ?
 
Rosco said:
What are you suggesting the right thing to do is ?
Click to expand...

Listening to him, instead of referring him to your solicitor. Ascertain that he is telling the truth, then give him an apology. Pay him a large amount of money, beyond what he would have been legally entitled to. Then once he is sorted out, go ahead and investigate how it happened and who knew what. Identify the criminals and the corrupt people turning a blind eye, fire them all, name them, shame them, await libel proceedings, then at that point is when you introduce your corruption skills to totally fuck them over in court with multiple fabricated witness statements, and you empty their life savings. Then optionally troll them using your social media account knowing they can't afford to sue you again.
 
Buddha said:
Not hush it up so you can potentially take care of all the other very likely numerous victims too.
Click to expand...

But if Chelsea didn't instruct him / allow him / turned a blind eye to him then why are they responsible for a paedo ? Because i'm sure thats what Chelsea position will be.

What about all the people that have come out saying they knew about it all happening at Crewe etc ?

Didn't they have a duty to report what was going on ?
 
Rosco said:
What about all the people that have come out saying they knew about it all happening at Crewe etc ?

Didn't they have a duty to report what was going on ?
Click to expand...

They certainly did have a duty to report what was going on. As a society we need to change the culture of people being too busy to / turning a blind eye to / afraid of the confrontation / don't need the hassle and making people aware of the tell tale signs.

There are far too many people (I don't mean the victims of this) claiming they knew this was going on but did nothing about it.
 
The Independent running a story that Dario Gradi covered up a sexual assault claim while assistant manager at Chelsea.

Not looking good for old Dario.
 
Rosco said:
But if Chelsea didn't instruct him / allow him / turned a blind eye to him then why are they responsible for a paedo ? Because i'm sure thats what Chelsea position will be.

What about all the people that have come out saying they knew about it all happening at Crewe etc ?

Didn't they have a duty to report what was going on ?
Click to expand...
It's not about responsibility, it's about doing the right thing. They paid off an ex-employee with a non-disclosure, why so?

Re Crewe, of course! I don't see your point in bringing it up. Not least because Crewe, so far, haven't been found to have paid anyone off to keep quiet. However, they've handled the recent revelations abysmally too.

All clubs involved have a duty of care. What's difficult about that?
 
I don't think it can be said Chelsea paid him to keep quiet - if he was bringing proceedings for personal injury. Non disclosure clauses are bog standard.

The reality is it looks like Chelsea have settled a compensation case. Crewe haven't paid anything to anyone for the damage caused by their employee - and look a lot more culpable from what I've read.

Clubs do have a duty of care, nobody has shown that it has been breached. It does not mean that a club has to pay everyone who says they were abused.
 
Rosco said:
I don't think it can be said Chelsea paid him to keep quiet - if he was bringing proceedings for personal injury. Non disclosure clauses are bog standard.

The reality is it looks like Chelsea have settled a compensation case. Crewe haven't paid anything to anyone for the damage caused by their employee - and look a lot more culpable from what I've read.

Clubs do have a duty of care, nobody has shown that it has been breached. It does not mean that a club has to pay everyone who says they were abused.
Click to expand...

It's the non-disclosure bit that I think is morally dubious.
 
Buddha said:
It's the non-disclosure bit that I think is morally dubious.
Click to expand...

Even if the player approached the club and threatened to go to the press if he didn't get a payoff ?

We don't know that it happened that way but ita presumably the only leverage the player had. He was never winning in Court.
 
he didn't need to win in court , it doesn't appear as though he was financially motivated in the slightest and let's face it , the damage done to the Chelsea brand would far exceed £50k anyway !
 
Chelsea have now issued an apology for their "inappropriate behaviour" in dealing with this.
 
Rosco said:
He accepted it, presumably on the basis of some legal advice.

Any half decent lawyer would have said there are fundamental weaknesses in a case if you haven't reported the issues within a reasonable time, and are taking proceedings 30 odd years later than the Court rules allow and you have the police advising there isn't sufficient evidence for them to progress a case.
Click to expand...

I'm sure what Chelsea did in paying out and putting this agreement in place, will turn out to be correct in the eyes of the law.

But as Buddha has been arguing in here it is also about morality.

We don't know the ins and outs of everything that has gone on here, so we take sides on gut instinct. You are knowledgeable about the law behind this kind of thing so that is naturally where your argument leads, for others (myself included) who don't have that knowledge - we take a more emotional, moral view of it.

I guess it is difficult to thing of any kind of hushing up of abuse as 'right' whether it was legally done or not.



Chelsea have apologised for their handling of it now it would seem, so perhaps they realise the implications from a public perception standpoint at least.
 
Well the public perception and reality are usually two different things.

They've done the easiest thing they could do with the apology.

If he'd gone demanding 50k or he goes to the papers, how would you feel about Chelsea's actions ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom