Paedophilia within the game/City launch redress scheme

[inchy14]

This goes far beyond individual clubs and point scoring at this point - so far 429 victims of 155 potential suspects at 148 clubs have now been implicated.

There's no point scoring going on here mate, if MCFC are involved in covering stuff up i'd hope that we were rightly condemned and that steps were taken to ensure nothing happened again and that the relevant individuals were brought to task.
I'm off the belief that those who kept quiet are almost as bad as the perpetrators who've committed these terrible acts.

 

[Sir peace frog]

I've not read through the thread, so forgive me if this has been said already.

ive just seen Chelsea have been cleared of any wrong doing about paying that player off to keep quiet, how the fuck has that happened ?
a crime has been committed and they paid the victim money t say noting ?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

They didn't break any PL rules is what they're saying. The fact that there were no rules in place to handle situations like this is crazy. What Chelsea did was wrong. They should have dealt with the poor gentleman in a far better way. But it's kind of difficult to find somebody guilty of breaking rules that don't exist. It's a shambles from top to bottom.

I think the first two lines sum up the basis of this decision.

The rest is obviously true.

 

[oakiecokie]

This goes far beyond individual clubs and point scoring at this point - so far 429 victims of 155 potential suspects at 148 clubs have now been implicated.

I wonder how many more victims will not come forward and we may never find the true figures.This whole episode stinks of a cover up and the FA should be ashamed of themselves,but alas they are the "see no evil,speak no evil and hear no evil" wise monkeys.Disgraceful.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I wonder how many more victims will not come forward and we may never find the true figures.This whole episode stinks of a cover up and the FA should be ashamed of themselves,but alas they are the "see no evil,speak no evil and hear no evil" wise monkeys.Disgraceful.

What would you like the FA to do over this?

 

[oakiecokie]

What would you like the FA to do over this?

The FA havn`t come out of this smelling of roses.They have allowed a club (Chelsea) to try and airbrush historic cases when in reality the FA should have been notified of wrong doings once it came to light.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The FA havn`t come out of this smelling of roses.They have allowed a club (Chelsea) to try and airbrush historic cases when in reality the FA should have been notified of wrong doings once it came to light.

That's true, certainly.

The only concrete thing they really seem to have failed in is not having rules in place that allow them to do anything. I think they're stuck though due to the legal side of things - I haven't seen any comment to that effect from the FA though, which does surprise me.

 

[Centurions]

According to the BBC article:

In 2014, the rules stated that clubs had to notify the Premier League of any safeguarding issues reported to the authorities. That has since changed to an obligation to tell the Premier League of any safeguarding issues at all.

Chelsea said in their original statement that when the settlement was reached the club's board understood it was "usual practice" to include a mutual confidentiality agreement, adding that Johnson's solicitors had not objected to the clause.

Anyone have any idea when this was changed and perhaps more importantly what forced the change? Were they aware of the Chelsea case (or indeed another one) and changed the rules to cover themselves?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38411955

 

[oakiecokie]

According to the BBC article:

In 2014, the rules stated that clubs had to notify the Premier League of any safeguarding issues reported to the authorities. That has since changed to an obligation to tell the Premier League of any safeguarding issues at all.

Chelsea said in their original statement that when the settlement was reached the club's board understood it was "usual practice" to include a mutual confidentiality agreement, adding that Johnson's solicitors had not objected to the clause.

Anyone have any idea when this was changed and perhaps more importantly what forced the change? Were they aware of the Chelsea case (or indeed another one) and changed the rules to cover themselves?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38411955

I don`t like the wording "obligation" as it doesn`t appear to be a regulation within the FA`s rules.Maybe I`m wrong but it doesn`t seem right.

 

[blueinsa]

What would you like the FA to do over this?

What they said when the story broke.

Clubs found guilty of covering up these offences would be punished.

Chelsea paid hush money, a cover up in anyone's book yet they have no case to answer?