Club statement regarding Barry Bennell's conviction

Roachy said:
Come on mate, think about what you're saying.
Click to expand...

You can't just quote me insolation to the point i was responding to. I agree that the current regime at the club hold no personal responsibility as to what happened but my point was that it's not really good enough to say the club at the time did nothing wrong because he wasn't officially an employee. There were clearly enough red flags at the time that something was off about this guy and we gave him full access to our facilities to bring kids in unsupervised which culminated in boys being molested on our pitch. Daniel Taylor, who has always been pretty good in his reporting of City and has a good relationship with the club has said there'll be more in coming days that shows the club's response, at the time, was "abysmal". I'm sure he'll back that claim up.

All in all, I think it's clear the club allowed something to happen on their premises on their watch that they could've prevented. Should this be a slight on who we are now? No, but we have to accept that. I'm just grateful that the club clearly took this seriously when it first emerged, investigated thoroughly of their own volition and also identifed another offender because at least his victims might also get the help they need. The club failed in the past but the new regime is at least dealing with it in the best way they can now (from what I can see). That is at least of some comfort I hope to those affected.
 
geoff clipp said:
You can't just quote me insolation to the point i was responding to. I agree that the current regime at the club hold no personal responsibility as to what happened but my point was that it's not really good enough to say the club at the time did nothing wrong because he wasn't officially an employee. There were clearly enough red flags at the time that something was off about this guy and we gave him full access to our facilities to bring kids in unsupervised which culminated in boys being molested on our pitch. Daniel Taylor, who has always been pretty good in his reporting of City and has a good relationship with the club has said there'll be more in coming days that shows the club's response, at the time, was "abysmal". I'm sure he'll back that claim up.

All in all, I think it's clear the club allowed something to happen on their premises on their watch that they could've prevented. Should this be a slight on who we are now? No, but we have to accept that. I'm just grateful that the club clearly took this seriously when it first emerged, investigated thoroughly of their own volition and also identifed another offender because at least his victims might also get the help they need. The club failed in the past but the new regime is at least dealing with it in the best way they can now (from what I can see). That is at least of some comfort I hope to those affected.
Click to expand...
To make it clear I'm not saying they did nothing wrong or had no responsibility. It seems to be clear that there were whispers about Bennell and these may well have been ignored by people at City up to and including the board. If so then that needs to come out into the open, despite the fact that the current ownership clearly have no direct responsibility for the situation. We also have to remember that times were different then.

There was no Childrens Act in those days and people were, to some extent, more inclined to brush stuff like this under the carpet. If City had been determined to act, the likelihood is that they would have quietly moved him on rather than shop him to the police. The word may have been put out quietly that he wasn't to be trusted (as seems to have been the case around the local football world with Bennell) but he'd probably have found another way of getting what he wanted. There wasn't a culture of going to the authorities in those days and, as the Rochdale case showed, even in more recent times the authorities were only too ready to turn a blind eye.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
All here:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/15/manchester-city-barry-bennell-warning

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/feb/15/barry-bennell-gary-cliffe-manchester-city
Click to expand...

I saw that, but Daniel Taylor is stating it without actual evidence, based on one of the victims stories. The boy in question says that Bennell took some lads sunbathing on the pitch; he never inferred they were abused on the pitch.

I also read a report stating although he had links to City via Whitehill, there is ‘no evidence’ any of the abuse took place on City property.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
To make it clear I'm not saying they did nothing wrong or had no responsibility. It seems to be clear that there were whispers about Bennell and these may well have been ignored by people at City up to and including the board. If so then that needs to come out into the open, despite the fact that the current ownership clearly have no direct responsibility for the situation. We also have to remember that times were different then.

There was no Childrens Act in those days and people were, to some extent, more inclined to brush stuff like this under the carpet. If City had been determined to act, the likelihood is that they would have quietly moved him on rather than shop him to the police. The word may have been put out quietly that he wasn't to be trusted (as seems to have been the case around the local football world with Bennell) but he'd probably have found another way of getting what he wanted. There wasn't a culture of going to the authorities in those days and, as the Rochdale case showed, even in more recent times the authorities were only too ready to turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...
Good post on the whole story that.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
To make it clear I'm not saying they did nothing wrong or had no responsibility. It seems to be clear that there were whispers about Bennell and these may well have been ignored by people at City up to and including the board. If so then that needs to come out into the open, despite the fact that the current ownership clearly have no direct responsibility for the situation. We also have to remember that times were different then.

There was no Childrens Act in those days and people were, to some extent, more inclined to brush stuff like this under the carpet. If City had been determined to act, the likelihood is that they would have quietly moved him on rather than shop him to the police. The word may have been put out quietly that he wasn't to be trusted (as seems to have been the case around the local football world with Bennell) but he'd probably have found another way of getting what he wanted. There wasn't a culture of going to the authorities in those days and, as the Rochdale case showed, even in more recent times the authorities were only too ready to turn a blind eye.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Nowt to do with current owners, staff or management of the club. I would just love to ask one of these so called reporters just what they are attempting to achieve.
Those responsible at the time are the ones who need questioning - not the current ownership or management team. (This guy deserves to go in general population of a prison and suffer the consequences if all allegations are true - or even one.)
 
Moot point maybe but apparently Bennell was all set for a role at united but fergie kicked him off the premises with the suggestion that he knew about his reputation. Did he report his concerns?
 
levets said:
I’ve read all that in detail, I have a vested interest as my brother played for Whitehill and White Star. The lad doesn’t actually state he was abused on the pitch, this is my point.
Click to expand...

Come on, nobody is disputing that that is the story in this piece. Do you seriously think that they would have misrepresented him in the headline, in such such a blatant way if that wasn't what he'd said? The journalist is the guy that broke the story originally and has the trust of many of the survivors that have chosen to speak.

Not only that, but Cliffe pretty much spells it out here:

“We were one end of the pitch, we had our tracksuit bottoms on and he spied his opportunity. It just shows the arrogance of the man and his confidence that he could do what he liked, and never thought he would be caught. But he had the run of the place.."

Don't know why I'm even arguing this point with you. It's clear and also, the precise location is not really that important is it.
 
My heart goes out to all that bastard's victims. Whether he was a City employee isn't the point - makes no difference and certainly not to the public at large. With more to come involving other clubs, this case may well be the tip of the iceberg. The club needs to be seen to be being open and honest - not defensive and not trying to distance ourselves from 80s City. Let's be honest, the media want us to be defensive and attempt to avoid the hard horrible questions so they can stick the boot in. No doubt Panorama and other documentaries to come. This whole situation is repellant, revolting and worse than disgusting. Just two words - child safeguarding.
 
As a child in the 70s and 80s I don’t remember on any occasion receiving guidance or education on potential wrongdoing against us as a generation by people in positions of responsibility - unquestionably, those that were presented with evidence of wrongdoing who chose to do nothing should be held to account retrospectively, individuals and institutions like Crewe, City, the BBC etc but it’s also my opinion that our generation was severely let down by society as a whole, poloticians, police, parents, schools, journalists etc etc who all could have done so much more to protect children from this abuse
 
I'm sure the club will do everything it can to assist in these investigations, it does feel however that the press are having an absolute field day dragging 'Manchester City' as if the current owners/directors were complicit in this. What about Stoke and all the other clubs he scouted for? I sincerely hope the piece of shit rots to death in prison but the hatchet job going on towards the club isn't right either.
 
Bennel was never a full time employee of City but never the less if as reported knowledge or even suspicion was ignored then it was neglect of children on a massive scale.
John Broome has now been named who was a manager of Whitehill teams around 1968 onwards.
Whitehill played at Park Road Cheadle which was Citys training ground at the time and the link was one that was pushed by these 'coaches'
Broome actually worked full time for Manchester Education Committee in some capacity.
Many of the players aged 12 upwards were aware of his predatory instincts and spoke openly of it.
Broome 'left' or was 'asked to leave' and took a younger team with him as the Whitehll idea was scaled down,however this team lasted a season only as far as I can remember.
Don't think the scale of incidents by Broome will be on the same scale as Bennel as Bennel was more or less full time coach/abuser.
I played for Whitehill around the time Broome was there but never knew Bennel .
The age group above who had a different manager (TC) had a few players who did play for the first team.
 
There are so many angles to this story but the one I find most disturbing is the fact that clubs (of which our beloved City were highly involved) could turn a blind eye to this in the hope of finding the next star young player.

There is absolutely no way that anyone in the close knit footballing community would not have been aware of what this monster was doing. I include clubs who had no direct contact with him as well as those directly involved.

I was a member of a really succesful school team in the High Peak area in the mid eighties and a number of our team played for a Bennell ran side (I think they were called White Knowle but I could be wrong). It was a running joke at school that these boys were Bennell’s special friends and he would always be openly referred to as Bummer Barry or Bummer Bennell. Sadly the lure of the promise of becoming footballers drew my friends into Bennell’s group. Although no one mentioned any specific instances of abuse I can only wonder what experiences they had to endure.

I am also friends with one of the guys who waived their anomynity before this trial but not once had he previously mentioned this abuse. God only knows what he has had to live with all these years!!
 
SiMCFC said:
I'm sure the club will do everything it can to assist in these investigations, it does feel however that the press are having an absolute field day dragging 'Manchester City' as if the current owners/directors were complicit in this.
Click to expand...
I think they've been quite restrained, and stuck to the facts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top