2 hours ago, bluedave said:

Just to clarify, we've been cleared of not breaking any FA rules by paying off Gary Johnson. It still happened though, and by buying his silence we may have prevented this issue becoming public sooner. There may be other clubs who have paid off victims in similar ways, we have no idea yet, but I don't think we have any right to play the victims.

Just to clarify, we've been cleared of not breaking any PL rules. I'd be surprised if the FA comes to the same conclusion regarding their own dynamically changing rules ;)

1 hour ago, bluedave said:

So you think, because the MET brushed it off, that it was right to pay him the hush money? It took Adam Woodward to bite the bullet and to go to the Guardian, thereby encouraging others to come forward, before any of this was taken seriously. With that in mind, surely you can see why paying hush money is possibly the worst thing we could have done.

compensation is the term I believe, unless your working for one of the many media rabble and want a sensationalist headline that is

10 minutes ago, strong centreback said:

compensation is the term I believe, unless your working for one of the many media rabble and want a sensationalist headline that is

Nope.

Hush money: money paid to someone to prevent them from disclosing embarrassing or discreditable information.

Hush money is when you find out someone is going to spill the beans and you pay them to keep quiet. Gary Johnson approached the club for compensation, via his solicitors. A compensation package invariably comes with a gagging clause, and Johnson didn't raise any objections. There is a moral argument about such gagging clauses but they are within the law, and if anybody has any beef it should be with the law-makers. The payment is compensation rather than hush money though such a distinction may not mean anything to the man in the street and it certainly doesn't mean anything to the media, who choose to go for the sensationalist term, and the one which discredits Chelsea as much as possible. That's my opinion. Merry Christmas everybody. 

2 hours ago, bluedave said:

So you think, because the MET brushed it off, that it was right to pay him the hush money? It took Adam Woodward to bite the bullet and to go to the Guardian, thereby encouraging others to come forward, before any of this was taken seriously. With that in mind, surely you can see why paying hush money is possibly the worst thing we could have done.

The rights and wrongs of paying the money can be debated long and hard. I think we all agree that any child abuse is a dispicable act. But when the police decide not to pursue the allegations, what exactly are the club supposed to do.As I said previously it is an assumption we didnt seek advice from the authorities, something we just aren't privy to as yet.  Should we have gone to the newspapers with the story? If we had made it public would Gary Johnson have been happy with this at the time? He could have done this himself.  Maybe if they had just said sorry for the wrong doings of former custodians of the club, would that have sufficed? As for the term 'hush money',that again is a term used by the media. As it was, someone decided to pay a sum of money as unopposed compensation for the wrong doings of a previous member of staff, a very poor error of judgement but probably one made in good faith. What price do you put on someone who has suffered abuse other than the abuser facing the wrath of the law.

17 hours ago, bluedave said:

Nope.

Hush money: money paid to someone to prevent them from disclosing embarrassing or discreditable information.

Like covering up an affair or stopping an ex employee going to the press saying how you use brass regularly, gary johnson went to the club after the fa/met palmed him off for compensation for the alledged ordeal, the insurance company/solicitors involved agreed a apparant industry standard non disclosure clause be added i to the settlement/compensation, to me that doesnt sound like hush money but a ill advised clause added to the compensation payout. 

I believe carneiro also has a gaging clause as part of her payout

On ?24?/?12?/?2016 at 15:26, strong centreback said:

Like covering up an affair or stopping an ex employee going to the press saying how you use brass regularly, gary johnson went to the club after the fa/met palmed him off for compensation for the alledged ordeal, the insurance company/solicitors involved agreed a apparant industry standard non disclosure clause be added i to the settlement/compensation, to me that doesnt sound like hush money but a ill advised clause added to the compensation payout. 

I believe carneiro also has a gaging clause as part of her payout

Good points and after Ray Stewart and others coming forward it's beginning to look like this was endemic.

Re carneiro or carneirogate I think whatever happened here, and I don't mean just Jose's comments on the pitch this turned the dressing room against him. Whatever this other factor was, it is unlikely we will know for decades. JM said one day he would talk about it.  

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/12/graham-rix-gwyn-williams-accused-racism-bullying-chelsea

Didn't want to start a new thread, but Jesus Christ, this is absolutely horrific to read

Can't understand how anyone at the club thought it was right to re-hire that guy after he came out of prison.

Pair of disgusting c**ts, if true I hope they get locked up for a very long time. Sounds like they did well to cover this all up too as ruud gullit has said he and his staff had no idea this was happening.

Though we have to be careful here to not find someone guilty without question.

Edited January 12, 20188 yr by dkw

18 minutes ago, dkw said:

Pair of disgusting c**ts, if true I hope they get locked up for a very long time. Sounds like they did well to cover this all up too as ruud gullit has said he and his staff had no idea this was happening.

Though we have to be careful here to not find someone guilty without question.

To get away this they would have been very clever and covered their backs immaculately. They would have almost certainly targeted the young lads when alone and probably would have added the 'sweetner' of no-one will believe them if they were thinking of telling.

They have a thread on Red Café too.  Nasty, will there be prosecutions though as I gather proof will be difficult to ascertain in court.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/12/graham-rix-gwyn-williams-accused-racism-bullying-chelsea

Didn't want to start a new thread, but Jesus Christ, this is absolutely horrific to read

Read this and as black supporter of Chelsea this was making my blood boil, based on the description of one of the players 6 feet plus there weren't many black youth players around that time 6+ feet so not hard to have few guesses of who it might be

 

Horrendous stuff.  Rix hasn't exactly been a shining pillar of the club.  Never got a good feeling about him.  Obviously different times, and not part of the current club, but we need to distance ourselves from this while taking care of the abused.