Fa child abuse enquiry published today-critical of dg.

[out0lunch]

My understanding of that cash was a remuneration form the car park, but I could be wrong

[bigroof]

I’ve read large chunks of it. I think the verdict on DG is contentious to say the least. There are contradictory statements concerning the meeting at the boy’s house, which I feel is understandable considering the gap in time. What is not clear - at all - is how it came about that DG went to see the boy’s parents. The father recalls sending a letter to the club, which can’t be verified; it can’t be traced. The boy, now an adult of course, thought his father had phoned the club. DG recalls meeting the boy’s father at the training ground, and agreeing to a meeting. If Dario was sent, then it’s reasonable to assume that others, ‘higher’ than him, knew of the complaint, if not of the abuse. Dario says he told Ron Suart, who coincidentally had just assumed the role of caretaker manager, about the complaint following the meeting. The QC sets out his doubts about DG’s testimony, and has decided that he doesn't believe him, which is quite a big call. It will be interesting to see if Dario's solicitor advises any further action and/or statement.

[MikeSB]

I’ve read large chunks of it. I think the verdict on DG is contentious to say the least. There are contradictory statements concerning the meeting at the boy’s house, which I feel is understandable considering the gap in time. What is not clear - at all - is how it came about that DG went to see the boy’s parents. The father recalls sending a letter to the club, which can’t be verified; it can’t be traced. The boy, now an adult of course, thought his father had phoned the club. DG recalls meeting the boy’s father at the training ground, and agreeing to a meeting. If Dario was sent, then it’s reasonable to assume that others, ‘higher’ than him, knew of the complaint, if not of the abuse. Dario says he told Ron Suart, who coincidentally had just assumed the role of caretaker manager, about the complaint following the meeting. The QC sets out his doubts about DG’s testimony, and has decided that he doesn't believe him, which is quite a big call. It will be interesting to see if Dario's solicitor advises any further action and/or statement.

Just to reiterate what the QC said..

Dario Gradi missed a chance to stop “dangerous and prolific child abuser” Eddie Heath from ***ually assaulting youth players at Chelsea, a report has found.

[MikeSB]

My understanding of that cash was a remuneration form the car park, but I could be wrong

It was obvious that from past accounts that Dario was a paid employee who received a large wage from Crewe as Manager along with a percentage of outgoing transfer fees. The question was as a Director was there a conflict of interest?

[bigroof]

Just to reiterate what the QC said..

Dario Gradi missed a chance to stop “dangerous and prolific child abuser” Eddie Heath from ***ually assaulting youth players at Chelsea, a report has found.

No need for reiteration; it was all over the press, obviously. The point is: that was the QC’s opinion, but not necessarily fact; which is why I say it was ‘a big call’. He is effectively, and very publicly calling Dario a liar. Having read the relevant ‘bits’, I accept that the QC did ponder very seriously whether or not to ‘name’ DG, and he explains well, as you’d expect from a QC, his reservations about Dario’s testimony; however, it remains contentious, in my humble view, and others may well not have drawn the same conclusion.

[MikeSB]

No need for reiteration; it was all over the press, obviously. The point is: that was the QC’s opinion, but not necessarily fact; which is why I say it was ‘a big call’. He is effectively, and very publicly calling Dario a liar. Having read the relevant ‘bits’, I accept that the QC did ponder very seriously whether or not to ‘name’ DG, and he explains well, as you’d expect from a QC, his reservations about Dario’s testimony; however, it remains contentious, in my humble view, and others may well not have drawn the same conclusion.

Derek, the problem is that Dario and others at Chelsea KNEW about this child being abused. That is fact not supposition. Dario seemed to take the side of the abuser and what is fact is that Dario or anyone else at Chelsea did nothing to stop other kids being abused by immediately insisting that man was dismissed and reporting him to the police. That would have prevented him abusing other kids at Chelsea or anywhere else. This was a criminal offence and yet was brushed under the carpet.

As you said though, Dario has legal means of rebutting the claims of the QC in this report.

[AstonAlex]

It’s not often that I rush to agree with Mike (no offence) but the basic point of his argument is correct. ‘I was only following orders’ was not a defence at Nuremberg nor should it be here when the consequences of the person following those orders might have only been the sack.

Of course it doesn’t help in what subsequently happened at the Alex, nor with the witch hunt against Dario being perpetrated by Daniel Taylor. As to whether Dario’s evidence was unconvincing, well I guess we all have our opinion. However, it should be said that we probably have a somewhat biased view given the unprecedented success that the man brought to our football club. The QC in charge of the inquiry will have no such bias and a considerable amount of experience in dealing with witnesses across the full spectrum of honesty. If he says that, in his opinion, Dario was unreliable as a witness then there’s precious little DG’s legal advisor could do about that as it’s an opinion. If he called him a liar outright then that’s a different call. I haven’t read the full report but most news outlets seem to be reporting the former.

[bigroof]

Derek, the problem is that Dario and others at Chelsea KNEW about this child being abused. That is fact not supposition. Dario seemed to take the side of the abuser and what is fact is that Dario or anyone else at Chelsea did nothing to stop other kids being abused by immediately insisting that man was dismissed and reporting him to the police. That would have prevented him abusing other kids at Chelsea or anywhere else. This was a criminal offence and yet was brushed under the carpet.

As you said though, Dario has legal means of rebutting the claims of the QC in this report.

You can't say that it's 'fact', prior to the boy's allegation which led to the meeting at his house; nowhere within the report is that said, regardless of what might be a general view, looking from the outside, that certain people 'must have known'. The circumstances of Dario going to the boy's house are unclear. Was he sent, following receipt by the club of a letter of complaint from the father? In which case some people at Chelsea, or maybe only one - who knows? - did know of the allegation. Did someone receive a phone-call from the father, and for some reason ask Dario to go to the house? Did the father express the allegation to Dario at a training ground meeting? All three are possibilities, as none are established as fact within the report.
Yes, it's a fact that Dario went to a meeting at the boy's house. He knew of an allegation. Regardless of what was said in the meeting there (and there are differences between the father's testimony and Dario's), Dario says that he told the next most senior person to him within the coaching hierarchy. The QC says he didn't, hence the damning conclusion that he was negligent, thus failing to prevent further abuse.
Sure, probably Dario has to live with that, even if he may yet further profess his innocence, and sure, as AstonAlex says, our judgement is likely to be coloured in a way that the QC's could never be. My own view, still, is that the QC's view is contentious. Dario - not even the 'line manager' of the perpetrator - was caught in the eye of what eventually became a storm, over 40 years later. I think all three of those in the meeting at the boy's house who have testified for the report, Dario, the boy-now-a-man, the boy's father, will have an imperfect memory of what was said, or what was intended by saying anything. Unfortunately, a greater light could only be shone upon the issue by those since deceased.

[gazan]

I can't see that a QC's opinion should count any more than DG's. In a court of enquiry, there is not supposed to be opinion, but interpretation. However, in saying that DG's evidence was scarcely believable, he was expressing an opinion. The evidence submitted is contradictory so cannot be the basis of a judgement. No doubt the enquiry is under political pressure to achieve a result.

[out0lunch]

It was obvious that from past accounts that Dario was a paid employee who received a large wage from Crewe as Manager along with a percentage of outgoing transfer fees. The question was as a Director was there a conflict of interest?

Yes he did but your mail meant that he was still getting paid as above I believe