When I was at school the name "paedo" was never used and no one would have know what it meant .As a kid, there was a rumour about 50% of the teachers in my schools being paedos (and to a lesser extent, my football coaches too). No-one has ever been convicted as far as I'm aware and the vast majority of the accusations were hilariously vindictive and patently false. He gives you detention, he's a paedo. He wears white socks, he's a paedo. He's got a surname beginning with P (eg Mr Parker), he's paedo Parker. So to say that City's conduct was 'abysmal' for not disassociating him from the club on the basis on the back of a rumour is jumping the gun for me. If the guys bringing you in players capable of bagging 20+ goals a season, you can understand the club's reluctance to act in the absense of a specific allegation (there wasn't one until 1993 afaik) . Obviously, when you realise that the rumours are not going away and are getting stronger, that's when you should act which it seems to me is when the club did finally cut all ties with him, on top of refusing his application for a job years previous. So in hindsight, as sad as it is that City didn't act earlier, as far as we know from the information available in the public domain, we were by no means acting abysmally. The horrible reality is, when there's no safeguarding procedures in place (e.g. stopping players staying over at coaches houses), it's almost impossible to stop an intelligent, determined paedophile. Nevertheless, a club in our position should offer the victims compensation even though it's difficult to say (as outsiders) how much more we could have done but I'm sure many of them will be happier seeing Bennell behind bars for the rest of his life.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction
- Thread starter petrusha
- Start date
When I was at school the name "paedo" was never used and no one would have know what it meant .
nmc
Well-Known Member
Said the same yesterday on here abt what the away fans are going to sing. You just fuckin know it will happen.
Well 344 clubs have been cited but of course the media will use it as a way to drag us through the mud. This shouldn’t be about points scoring but addressing a terrible sequence of events, supporting those impacting and taking steps to ensure it never happens again. But you are right, the great unwashed at a few clubs are bound to find some solace in others misfortune.
lancs blue
Well-Known Member
I'd bet that by next season very few will be singing it because a lot of other clubs will be in the same boat.Said the same yesterday on here abt what the away fans are going to sing. You just fuckin know it will happen.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
When I was at school the name "paedo" was never used and no one would have know what it meant .
Tbf, I'm probably a lot younger than you and if 'paedo' or words to that effect accusations were far less common then, that should rightly reflect bad on City. But whilst that should be put into context so should other things from that era too that made it much easier for scum like Bennell to get away with it.
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 8,495
Your probably right mate. This is just the tip of the iceberg i guess.I'd bet that by next season very few will be singing it because a lot of other clubs will be in the same boat.
I think we agree on more things than we disagree on in respect to this. It's a pretty highly charged subject and people will have strong thoughts relative to their own views and experience. All in all, yes, times were different then, things were swept under the carpet, but should anything come to light now in any organisation then I think think it's ok to admit there was a major fuck up and acknowledge their part in any failings.
Of course he'd have gone and found another way of getting what he wanted. That wasnt under our control. What he did on our premises, the access we helped him obtain to his victims and the prestige we offered him via association with City WAS under the club's control though, so City do shoulder some, not all, but some responsibility. I'll also repeat here, i doubt there's a single high profile football club that wouldn't find similar failings on their own part. City's investigation seems to have unearthed this completely unrelated John Broome guy whose actions may not have been otherwise uncovered. I hope other clubs launch similar investigations, because I'm sure there are people they've all worked with in the past that got have gotten away with all sorts and there are survivors who might benefit from any help that can be offered now.
Now is not the time for distancing the club from the allegations and nor should it be seen as an opportunity for other clubs to take the moral high ground. I'm sure they're all in it up to their necks and it's time they all investigate fully.
I completely agree with every word. Now is not the time to be defensive. We gave him the platform and allowed him to be the gatekeeper.
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
But we don't know for sure at this stage what the true relationship was between all the parties. There was a football club where these kids played, that seems to have had some sort of association with City. What that involved we don't really know at this stage. It's not clear what relationship Bennell had with City on a personal level. I'm not saying we don't have some responsibility here but we really don't know.We gave him the platform and allowed him to be the gatekeeper.
Had Bennell been directly employed by us and working at the CFA, then it's clear we would have that responsibility without question. But to prove we were negligent you'd had to show that (a) we had a clear duty of care towards the affected boys and (b) we were negligent in the way we undertook that duty. Let's not forget that Baconface ordered Bennell out of Carrington/The Cliff. He must have known something to have done that but did he approach the police or voice his concerns to the FA or another relevant authority?
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
Listening to the news on 5 Live they were saying than Bennell worked for City. As far as I can see, he wasn't a club employee as such but he did run a youth team or teams that were affiliated to the club and acted as a scout, for which he might have been paid under certain circumstances. Clubs weren't allowed to run U16 teams at that time as far as I understand it so there were feeder clubs, which weren't officially part of the structure as the youth teams are now but had some sort of association with us or other local clubs.
The legal question around responsibility might well be whether Bennell was acting as an agent for the club (in its legal sense) such that he was to all intents and purposes a representative of the club either in an express or implied capacity. Everyone seems to have had their suspicions that Bennell was a wrong 'un to some degree but no one seems to have known for sure.
Did City have any jurisdiction over these feeder clubs and what could or should they have done if they had been convinced or had reasonable grounds for suspicion that Bennell was up to no good? If they'd gone to the police and the police (had they taken the allegation seriously which is possibly open to doubt) had questioned some boys who said that there was nothing going on, what more could they have done? It's a very grey area really but if Bennell didn't actually work for us then the club should be clarifying this and not letting the media put a false picture out. But the other side of the coin is that they can't afford to be seen to be washing their hands of this or attempting to try to do so.
The part which that article completely ignores, & the same with some of the hysterical posters on here, is that the story seems to be a bunch of people 'in football' have tipped City a wink not to use this child molester as a coach. Then basically gone 'well we warned them'. Years later.
So what if he hadn't worked for City ? It's ok for him to molest kids somewhere else ? Or is he just going to stop ?
It's just down to City to stop him ? None of these fuckers can speak to the police & the FA ?
Their concience is clear I suppose because they chucked City & few rumours then left him to get on with it, whilst they all bitched about it & tutted.
The part which that article completely ignores, & the same with some of the hysterical posters on here, is that the story seems to be a bunch of people 'in football' have tipped City a wink not to use this child molester as a coach. Then basically gone 'well we warned them'. Years later.
So what if he hadn't worked for City ? It's ok for him to molest kids somewhere else ? Or is he just going to stop ?
It's just down to City to stop him ? None of these fuckers can speak to the police & the FA ?
Their concience is clear I suppose because they chucked City & few rumours then left him to get on with it, whilst they all bitched about it & tutted.
Surely you must think it’s slightly alarming though if City chose to ignore warnings that an alleged (at the time) paedophile was working on their behalf with young boys?
As @Prestwich_Blue says, the precise nature of the relationship between Bennell and City isn’t clear yet, and I’m sure the truth will out over the coming months, but I find it odd when people seek to absolve City of any blame in this.