Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Manchester United 'cooperating fully' with FA review into historical sex abuse
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
Honestly I’m surprised something like this hasn’t come out before. With how long SAF was in charge I’d expect something Paterno-like to have surfaced.
I very much doubt Sir Alex would ever jeopardize his legacy from some peado
Yeah but if it’s to protect the club’s image he might have kept it quiet.
That's a hell of a comparison to make my friend.
Not great if the person was redeployed, unless they were fully cleared
Absolute mental gymnastics.
I’ve absolutely zero doubt that if Ferguson came across something like this he would have reported it straight to the police and made sure the club put the well being of the victim and their families above anything else.
What the feck
You have a very strange view of SAF
Went dark real quick.
Never in a million years. The damage a historical case could cause would weigh heavier upon his shoulders and conscious than the clubs image. Notice you didn't mention that Big Ron was in charge in the early 80's and that maybe HE kept it quiet for the clubs interest?
Whoever hired those in charge of the youth development team at that time will have questions to answer. The club will stand tall against the wrongdoers and be completely open and honest I will assume.
I was going to say, SAF only came to us in 1986. We did have another manager. in the 80's.
1) Hopefully the issue is thoroughly investigated and anyone involved with the club who did anything wrong (including failing to respond to the allegations in an appropriate manner) is exposed.
2) There was no need to even mention SAF in this thread as someone who may have failed to respond to allegations appropriately. Given the person being accused faced disciplinary procedures in the 1980's and the investigation is speaking to people who were at the club in the 70's and 80's, I'm not even sure we know that this person still worked at the club by the time SAF arrived?
3. Having said that, I wouldn't have "zero doubt" about anyone in this context, nor assume that it's impossible that [insert name of any United figure] failed to respond appropriately. We don't know these people personally, so assuming that they are above reproach is a terribly naive position to take. Too many organisations (and well regarded people within them) have failed to respond to abuse allegations in the past and football certainly isn't the most enlightened of arenas.
2) There was no need to even mention SAF in this thread as someone who may have failed to respond to allegations appropriately. Given the person being accused faced disciplinary procedures in the 1980's and the investigation is speaking to people who were at the club in the 70's and 80's, I'm not even sure we know that this person still worked at the club by the time SAF arrived?
3. Having said that, I wouldn't have "zero doubt" about anyone in this context, nor assume that it's impossible that [insert name of any United figure] failed to respond appropriately. We don't know these people personally, so assuming that they are above reproach is a terribly naive position to take. Too many organisations (and well regarded people within them) have failed to respond to abuse allegations in the past and football certainly isn't the most enlightened of arenas.
Billy Watts, who died in 2009, was subject to disciplinary action in 1989 that saw him moved to a new role away from the club’s youth players
That is what the indo is saying and they guy from the athletic is a sports writer and was previously the chief football writer for The Guardian and The Observer and spent nearly 20 years working for the two titles. and never once reported it till he was at his new job, wonder why ?
Last edited by a moderator:
Daniel Taylor wrote a series of articles on this for the Guardian, starting with the Barry Bennell case. He's been doing additional reports since then, as other players have come forward and other cases have been revealed.
Some stories he won't have been able to run because the inquiry and any follow-up police action might have stopped him. Others, he'll have been trying to get enough evidence to build an actual story rather than just a sentence saying, "United had a training ground caretaker acting suspiciously, so they changed his job."
In other words, it's just our turn in the headlamps.
A friend of mine is also Sir Alex's close friend. He was very well connected to politics in my own country (he basically served as a body guard to a politician) at a rather turbulent period. Now he used to go quite regularly to OT and was treated as VIP because of his connections. Unfortunately he was a bit of a love rat as well and he was screwing a United employee at the side while playing the family man in Malta. Well Sir Alex found out, he took him to his office and told him, quite clearly that unless he stopped the relationship immediately then he can forget coming to OT again. He would use all the powers at his disposal to bar him from Carrington, the stadium while revoking his season ticket etc. Now as said before this guy is tough as nails and yet Sir Alex was able to shake him to the core.
Therefore I very much doubt that Sir Alex would accommodate such behaviour.
I know am going on thin ice here but him being redeployed doesn´t mean he was not guilty as society has changed a lot since the 80´s. Today he probably wouldn´t have had a chance but back then these thing were looked opp on with different glasses. I am a child of the 80´s and sadly I can say that many of my friends and family have had torrid times later in life due to terrible things happening in summer camps, church or sports when they were kids.
Just to add a bit of what we already know about United's conduct in the late 80s.
From a previous Daniel Taylor article on the Barry Bennell case. Bennell worked for Stoke, Crewe, and freelanced for people like the FA and City at various times. We managed to avoid him:
To give an idea of how young players in the area saw Bennell for example, here's a player (Matthew Monaghan, who joined United from Crewe as a youth team player) talking about it:
‘The rumours about Barry were rife. When we played Crewe, I’d get stick from the United lads. “Weren’t you one of Bennell’s boys?” they’d say. I’d laugh it off but my head was battered for days after. If they knew, how did Crewe not know?’
United may have had their problems with this, there may well be more stories to come out, but certainly by the late 80s, SAF and United were becoming more alert than many similar organisations of the era.
From a previous Daniel Taylor article on the Barry Bennell case. Bennell worked for Stoke, Crewe, and freelanced for people like the FA and City at various times. We managed to avoid him:
However, by then Bennell had already brought multiple groups of kids to the training ground, using United as part of his sales pitch in effect. Could the caretaker have let him in, or were there some other more direct allegations about how Watts himself had acted? At any rate, Billy Watts got moved to a job at Old Trafford perhaps because something had happened, or something had raised suspicion. Certainly, as far as we know, there was no police action, but United reacted to something by moving him away from daily contact with players, rather than firing him. Incidentally it's thought he left United soon after for a cleaning job at a police station, so we may have done an "everything except fire him" sort of move.
To give an idea of how young players in the area saw Bennell for example, here's a player (Matthew Monaghan, who joined United from Crewe as a youth team player) talking about it:
‘The rumours about Barry were rife. When we played Crewe, I’d get stick from the United lads. “Weren’t you one of Bennell’s boys?” they’d say. I’d laugh it off but my head was battered for days after. If they knew, how did Crewe not know?’
United may have had their problems with this, there may well be more stories to come out, but certainly by the late 80s, SAF and United were becoming more alert than many similar organisations of the era.