Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

[hammocity]

Yep. If we're to believe former Crewe director Hamilton Smith - and I can't see any reason why he would lie - then it's clear that Crewe's claim that concerns were never raised with them about Bennell is completely false.

I know we need to be careful what we say but it will be interesting to know where Dario Gradi stands in all this and how much he knew. While I don't think there is any suggestion anywhere that he took part in any alleged abuse, he worked with Bennell at Chelsea in the 70's before they linked up again at Crewe. Plus there is the allegation that Gradi covered for Eddie Heath at Chelsea as well. On the face of it, it's difficult to comprehend that Gradi was unaware of any abuse or, at least, any allegations.

I think you probably have a good handle on this, will be interesting to see how the Crewe issue progresses.

 

[petrusha]

A lot of talk in the media about Crewe recently and very little about MCFC. Tne Crewe stuff is therefore in the thread in the General forum, while this one has slid down the main forum.

Given that Daniel Taylor, the journalist most prominently associated with covering the story, has accused both City and Crewe of behaving abysmally at the time, some observers (Crewe fans especially) have asked why City seem to be getting a free pass at the moment. Taylor has this morning written an opinion piece for the Observer rightly excoriating Crewe for their latest moves, and that text is here (you have to scroll down past the Arsene Wenger stuff): https://amp.theguardian.com/footbal...al-arsenal-send-off?__twitter_impression=true

However, at the end, he deals with the reason that the media is currently treating City and Crewe differently:

People ask why Manchester City have been spared this many headlines when they, too, have been accused of serious failings. Well, the answer should be obvious: City have shown a human touch, fronted it up and recognised the importance of bringing in independent lawyers to investigate properly and avoid allegations of a whitewash. Crewe, on the other hand, have done the precise opposite. The chairman, John Bowler, has shown what kind of man he is and if those poor boys who were raped, molested and psychologically scarred under the care of this arrogant, conniving and hard-faced club feel let down – well, tough. It is enough to make any decent person feel sick.

In other words, City are currently doing the right thing. Let's hope we continue to do so. I believe we will.

 

[jrb]

Barry Bennell: Men lose case against Manchester City over abuse

Eight men said they were abused by paedophile Barry Bennell while he was a Manchester City scout.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[SWP's back]

Barry Bennell: Men lose case against Manchester City over abuse

Eight men said they were abused by paedophile Barry Bennell while he was a Manchester City scout.

www.bbc.co.uk

Good. David McGlecaghan can also suck my balls. I’m very disappointed in his behaviour.

Also a solicitor complaining about a technicality is amusing.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Good. David McGlecaghan can also suck my balls. I’m very disappointed in his behaviour.

Also a solicitor complaining about a technicality is amusing.

The fact that he says he is disappointed in City, not the legal process or the insurers, suggests to me that there was a bit more to this action than those bringing it would have the public believe.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Good. David McGlecaghan can also suck my balls. I’m very disappointed in his behaviour.

Also a solicitor complaining about a technicality is amusing.

Whenever City ‘win’ anything (not that there are any winners in this particular shit show) it’s always portrayed as having been on a technicality rather than simply because the law supports our position. All part of the narrative……

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

As I understand it, all eight of the abused had still been offered financial compensation by City, but they refused and wanted more for a potential loss of earnings and career?

 

[Centurions]

As I understand it, all eight of the abused had still been offered financial compensation by City, but they refused and wanted more for a potential loss of earnings and career?

I believe so, but details are (rightly) scarce.

 

[JASR]

As I understand it, all eight of the abused had still been offered financial compensation by City, but they refused and wanted more for a potential loss of earnings and career?

I thought that was the case as well, and that it was a case against City’s insurers, the case was nothing to do directly with City?
Appalling stuff for those involved.

but also (to a far lesser degree) appalling behaviour by the media to say that City have won, that the case was against City, and the demonisation of City as some sort of fagin in this all.

 

[The blue phantom]

As I understand it, all eight of the abused had still been offered financial compensation by City, but they refused and wanted more for a potential loss of earnings and career?

So in the end they get nothing now?