….into a former employee over allegations of historic child abuse.”
Employing a law firm, apparently.
If a “payment” was made to a former youth team player in the (decidedly less than “historic”) last three years, why don’t they just send an internal memo down to the Chelsea Football Club Accounts Department?
An Accounts Department should know why it was decided to sanction an amount of money to go to a former youth team player from 40 years ago, surely?
I just don’t understand it.
Jackthebiscuit says
Am I missing something here?
I just don’t understand it.
Bingo Little says
Not to worry; it’s just a new blog feature they’re trialling – a live feed in to deram’s internal monologue. Grab some popcorn and let’s see if he manages to puzzle this one out…
corganiser says
“grab some popcorn”
Is that an Afterword euphenism that I’ve missed the genesis of?
Black Celebration says
It’s not an AW thing. It’s to acknowledge a possibly controversial/incendiary post that’s bound to be expanded on – it’s just a question of waiting until it happens.
Sewer Robot says
If it was coined here it would be “grab some crumhorn”
Moose the Mooche says
Pull up a mellotron, this is going to be interesting. Or not
Moose the Mooche says
No more than three posts can pass without some bastard mentioning prog.
Black Celebration says
I like it when people are close to edge.
DougieJ says
Maybe. This is anecdotal of course but Ray Wilkins, one of the stars who the Chelsea youth coach in question worked with, said he personally had no problems with him, nor was he aware of any issues involving team mates.
It’s a tricky time this, as so far all that’s really come to light in recent weeks has been involving Barry Bennell, who has already been convicted and whose offences have been in the public domain for 20 years.
There is a danger now that abuse will be assumed to be absolutely endemic throughout the game. There may just be a more nuanced, reasonable, way of looking at it, which is that there was undoubtedly a lax attitude to such things in the 70s and 80s but we have now swung to the absolute opposite extreme of panic.
Sitheref2409 says
860 calls to the helpline.
At least one other coach/scout names (one with previous convictions)
My bet is that this would have been your reaction to when the Catholic Church scandal broke.
As well as the number of people affected, it will be how the issues were handled. As so often happens, the cover up can be as bad, or worse, than the crime itself
anton says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEB0l6OqLR4
Johnny Concheroo says
Before they do anything else Chelsea should launch an investigation into that bloody daft hat their goalie wears
johnw says
When did you last watch a Chelsea game?… or an Arsenal one come to that!
Johnny Concheroo says
Oh yeah, he’s gone to Arsenal hasn’t he? It’s still a daft hat though.
NigelT says
Aha! I’ve been saying for years that this protective headgear shouldn’t be allowed as it gives the wearer an unfair advantage (e.g. Diving at someone’s feet). I get that he had a serious blow to the head, but that’s surely part of the risk the keeper has to weigh up when performing his craft – in theory, they could presumably wear all sorts of protective gear a la US ‘football’…? Not like that in my day….bloody overpaid prima donnas….Trautmann played on with a broken neck….never did me any harm….#wanders off muttering incoherently#
Sewer Robot says
..and Trautmann’s protruding neck bone didn’t have an Adidas logo on it!
count jim moriarty says
Thing about it is that the headguard Cech wears doesn’t give any protection to his cheekbone, which is what was broken in the incident that caused him to start wearing it in the first place. Seems to me that it is more of a psychological crutch than anything.
Bingo Little says
Cech’s injury at Reading was a fractured skull. His skull was literally dented, and fragments moved towards his brain.
There’s a useful article on the incident here: http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/the-horror-of-petr-cech-s-head-injury/
From what I gather, there’s no medical need for him to keep wearing the headguard, but I’d defy anyone to read the article linked above and not feel that the bloke’s entitled to wear a fez if it makes him feel a bit more secure after all that.
Junglejim says
I read somewhere that PC was one of quads, or possibly even quins, and as a result some physiological ‘flaws’ or weaknesses are not uncommon.
Obviously he’s a healthy strapping chap but I was led to believe that some parts of his skull are considerably less robust than the average, & this only came to light as a result of the injury.
I can’t speak for the story’s veracity, but it seems plausible & he is still an excellent keeper, even with the ‘wrong’ jersey on.
Bingo Little says
He’s been very good so far this season. I know a few people who have a theory he’s weak at his near post, but no keeper is perfect and he’s definitely the best we’ve had for at least a decade, possibly longer. Seems like a nice bloke too.
Sitheref2409 says
He is, as I understand it, wearing a scrum cap.
Ability of scrum cap to stop broken bones occurring: Zero.
Ability of scrum cap to stop concussion: Zero.
Jim Cain says
Given the subject matter at hand, it seems weird that we’re entering a heated discussion about whether a near mortally-wounded goalkeeper should be allowed to wear a hat.
count jim moriarty says
Not wearing a ‘hat’ per se, but the effectiveness of said headgear.
If I got the nature of the injury wrong, I stand corrected. Simply went on my own recollection.
MC Escher says
No argument here but surely they could pimp it a bit? A flat cap, or maybe a topper?