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.