The guardian articles

[valefaninpeace]

I would suggest valefaninpeace that you and your club have a lot more to worry about than **** videos...

In actual fact we have had many discussions about this subject since it started to come out and virtually all of us have agreed that the club could have been more open and been more proactive instead of hiding behind the usual we can't discuss it while the enquiry is going on.

The FA enquiry still underway seems unlikely to reveal more than an independent police enquiry don't you think?

The point has also been well made here that there seems to be a witch hunt against Crewe, while the like of ManC are getting of scot free in the media.

After reading your bizarre opinions on this, I think you need to reevaluate things a little. And crewe arent the victims here.

[Timmy58]

After reading your bizarre opinions on this, I think you need to reevaluate things a little. And crewe arent the victims here.

Mike is right (not often I say that) when he says there seems to be a witch hunt against Crewe Alexandra. Further emphasised by the fact that Manchester City were aware of the dubious nature of BB's activities and yet said nothing to CAFC about it. The forum on Monday night was a football related forum, not a criminal one and it was quite right that questions concerning the case were batted away and I imagine the applause was for the club sticking to the principle of the evening rather than being sidetracked by something there has already been an extensive police inquiry into. The written media coupled with the BBC seem hell bent on making CAFC look guilty when they have found to be otherwise. I hope this satisfies your curiosity.

[thnhouse]

I do think there has been a bit of a witch hunt against us in the press, particularly by the Mail and the Guardian, but from what went down with Bennell it's to be expected and acting like the victim does not help us at all. We're also a much easier target than City and Chelsea , one of which has been actively proved to have covered up a peadophile at the club. It's going to happen.

The club needs to very publicly demonstrate how things have changed at the club and go out of their way to try and deal with this PR nightmare.

The **** thing at Darios really is a nothing though, with the amount of investigation ,and money that would have been thrown at people to tell a story, that someone remembers wiping **** off his computer is not that bad. You'd have to be a fool to not see through these stories.

[valefaninpeace]

I do think there has been a bit of a witch hunt against us in the press, particularly by the Mail and the Guardian, but from what went down with Bennell it's to be expected and acting like the victim does not help us at all. We're also a much easier target than City and Chelsea , one of which has been actively proved to have covered up a peadophile at the club. It's going to happen.

The club needs to very publicly demonstrate how things have changed at the club and go out of their way to try and deal with this PR nightmare.

The **** thing at Darios really is a nothing though, with the amount of investigation ,and money that would have been thrown at people to tell a story, that someone remembers wiping **** off his computer is not that bad. You'd have to be a fool to not see through these stories.

The difference between Crewe and Man City is that those who were there at the time are not there now at city, where that can’t be said of Crewe. Man City are also holding an investigation and have sounded regretful for what happened. Was BB on the coaching staff at city or just linked through some scouting and running teams that fed to them? Not that it makes a difference if they knew, but I suppose that’s why Crewe are the main focus.

[out0lunch]

The difference between Crewe and Man City is that those who were there at the time are not there now at city, where that can’t be said of Crewe. Man City are also holding an investigation and have sounded regretful for what happened. Was BB on the coaching staff at city or just linked through some scouting and running teams that fed to them? Not that it makes a difference if they knew, but I suppose that’s why Crewe are the main focus.

What is the difference? Just as the people at City are no longer there it's ok !!!

[valefaninpeace]

What is the difference? Just as the people at City are no longer there it's ok !!!

No. I was talking about possible reasons why they are happier to do an investigation.

[thnhouse]

The difference between Crewe and Man City is that those who were there at the time are not there now at city, where that can’t be said of Crewe. Man City are also holding an investigation and have sounded regretful for what happened. Was BB on the coaching staff at city or just linked through some scouting and running teams that fed to them? Not that it makes a difference if they knew, but I suppose that’s why Crewe are the main focus.

This is actually a good example of how City’s media team are doing a better job than ours. They tried to claim he didn’t work for them at all and it was just for “connected organisations” then someone unearthed his old Man City business card. Neither have been well reported.

I think the difference is we have a very outdated way of looking at things and a media team that is probably less than 2 people. Compared to a multimillion pound agency and PR team. The big difference is in risk though, we make a mis-step and get sued that could be the end of the club, with City it’s a drop in the ocean.

Whether there’s still board members from that time at the club shouldn’t change a thing though. It’s also hard not to feel targeted when Chelsea were caught paying a victim of abuse to not come forward, then actively covering up with parents and it barely gets reported.

We’re not the victims here, but we’re also not the perpetrators, there’s two police investigations backing that up.

[itwasin]

This is actually a good example of how City’s media team are doing a better job than ours. They tried to claim he didn’t work for them at all and it was just for “connected organisations” then someone unearthed his old Man City business card. Neither have been well reported.

I think the difference is we have a very outdated way of looking at things and a media team that is probably less than 2 people. Compared to a multimillion pound agency and PR team. The big difference is in risk though, we make a mis-step and get sued that could be the end of the club, with City it’s a drop in the ocean.

Whether there’s still board members from that time at the club shouldn’t change a thing though. It’s also hard not to feel targeted when Chelsea were caught paying a victim of abuse to not come forward, then actively covering up with parents and it barely gets reported.

We’re not the victims here, but we’re also not the perpetrators, there’s two police investigations backing that up.

Chelsea were cleared of any wrong doing by the F.A some months ago,however the person who did go to the victims home to try and get him to drop the charges was DG and yet he still remains suspended? one can only guess! at this time why.

[Gobstopper]

Chelsea were cleared of any wrong doing by the F.A some months ago,however the person who did go to the victims home to try and get him to drop the charges was DG and yet he still remains suspended? one can only guess! at this time why.

From what I understand Dario did go and talk to the player and his family, the media says to smooth things over so we don't really know the truth about why he went or what was said or even who asked him to go. The story was that Chelsea paid this player not to take his allegation any further, if Chelsea have been cleared by the FA, then they decided either not to pursue this allegation because all those presently at the club are no longer if football or they did not believe the allegation. The one person who was still in football is DG so they made the decision to please the media to suspend him, but the Police are involved so he cannot talk to the FA until there investigation is complete. I'm sure if the player was paid to keep silent then the money came from Chelsea not Dario and the payment would have to be approved by the chairman or other director not by a coach. Also the decision to pay him would have to come from someone at a higher level in Chelsea than a football coach. Lots of questions unanswered as well as why were Chelsea cleared, I doubt DG just turned up without the authority of Chelsea and was he asked to talk to the family and report back to Chelsea or was he sent to smooth things over, whatever that actually means. I have not heard any comment that DG made during this meeting that he made any reference to money, I'm sure the press would have been all over that one. So what did he actually do apart from a cup of tea and a chat. Its that comment 'smooth things over', what does that mean, the press makes out its sinister but as we know the media is not a reliable source of information and neither is social media. So is DG guilty of something or not, my view is probably not, we don't know why he went to the house of the player who made the allegation, so its wrong to say that his intention was to get the family to keep the allegation within Chelsea football club, all we have heard is what's reported in the media and that is a totally discredited source of factual news. My theory is the FA is pandering to the media as they always do.

[somersetcrewe]

And crewe arent the victims here.

Not at the minute but if this witch hunt continues, we could be!!