This is what the Telegraph said:
The alleged victim was paid off after threatening to go public with claims he was sexually assaulted in the 1970s by Eddie Heath, Chelsea’s influential chief scout for more than a decade.
The payment, made in the past three years, was agreed on condition that the victim, his family and lawyers were banned from talking about the alleged abuse.
The confidentiality agreement is so stringent, the parties involved in the case are not even allowed to acknowledge its existence. But after being approached by The Telegraph, which first disclosed that a payment had been made by a Premier League side, Chelsea issued a statement on Tuesday night confirming it had “retained” an outside law firm to carry out a full investigation concerning an individual employed by the club in the 1970s, who is now deceased.
The club, owned by the Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich, did not deny the claim that they had paid Heath’s accuser and settled the case. It is not known at what level the payment was authorised. The Telegraph has learnt that the victim took his allegation to Chelsea about three years ago, emboldened by the publicity over the unmasking of Jimmy Savile as a serial paedophile. He had also taken his complaint to the Metropolitan Police.
It is understood the club initially rebuffed the claim, but decided to make a payment when the victim threatened to make the allegations public. It is understood the club did not accept liability.
Heath, who had died before the allegation was made and was therefore unable to defend himself, was Chelsea’s chief scout from 1968 to 1979 and discovered some of the club’s greatest players, including Ray Wilkins.
A source has told The Telegraph: “He [the alleged victim] thought there were more [victims] but it was never publicised and the case settled. These were very serious offences.”
In an official statement published on Chelsea’s website on Tuesday night, the club said: “Chelsea Football Club has retained an external law firm to carry out an investigation concerning an individual employed by the club in the 1970s, who is now deceased. The club has also contacted the FA to ensure that all possible assistance is provided as part of their wider investigation. This will include providing the FA with any relevant information arising out of the club’s investigation.
“While the club’s investigation is ongoing, we will make no further comment on this matter.”
The Telegraph is not aware of any evidence corroborating the claim made against Heath by his accuser, although rumours of the chief scout’s alleged behaviour had been circulating among some of Chelsea’s former players.
A lot is unknown, and I don't think we should read too much into the Telegraph's choice of words. For example, when they talk about the alleged victim threatening to go public, we shouldn't conclude that this means he approached the club and was like, "Pay me or else I'll drag your name through the mud". Of course it could have meant that, but it also could have meant that the he told the club, the club said we don't care, then he said okay I'll tell the press and that will force you to investigate, and the club were like no no we believe you, take this money and shut up.
We simply don't know, and the Telegraph probably doesn't either.
I'm particularly curious about the role of the Metropolitan Police and what they did/didn't do.