Removing Ted Bates Statue

[LGTL]

Looks like it's being considered by the club...

https://theathletic.com/3080123/2022/01/20/southampton-considering-taking-down-ted-bates-statue-st-marys/?article_source=search&search_query=southampton

[Millbrook Saint]

Ridiculous, this can't be allowed to happen

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, Millbrook Saint said:

Ridiculous, this can't be allowed to happen

Have you read the reasoning? If true then it taints Ted Bates' legacy significantly. 

[JRM]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Have you read the reasoning? If true then it taints Ted Bates' legacy significantly. 

I haven't been able to read past the first couple of paragraphs but Ted died a Saints legend and isn't around to defend himself against any allegations now, would be a very sad day for this football club to remove his memory because of Higgins 

[Bad Wolf]

I think with what happened, everyone in a position of power (and therefore trust) at the club at the time needs to take some responsibility. I'm not saying remove the statue but let's be honest, the one and only person to come out of this horrible situation with any kind of credit is Dave Merrington (other than the victims obviously). Everyone else is discredited.

With that being said, is there any evidence that Bates ignored these allegations? If not, I don't agree with removing his legacy just because they happened to be associated with the club at that time.

[SaintsLoyal]

What is this 'athletic' load of tabloid tosh

[CB Fry]

5 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

What is this 'athletic' load of tabloid tosh

Except, it's not. It's a considered piece with appropriate inputs from those involved and/or those representing those involved. The Athletic is no tabloid.

Yours is a tabloid trash reaction to it, though.

[alehouseboys]

The world's gone mad if this were to happen. That statue is honouring a fantastic service to this football club by, many people have said it, a good, honourable man.

Where does all this stuff end? Will all statues and monuments to the Queen and royalty be removed if Andrew turns out to be a paedophile, guilty by association?

And an insult to Leon Crouch who (along with bunging in money to save the club in its hour of need) replaced the 'Mandaric' one out of his own pocket.

Edited 20 January, 2022 by alehouseboys

[SaintsLoyal]

Just now, CB Fry said:

Except, it's not. It's a considered piece with appropriate inputs from those involved and/or those representing those involved. The Athletic is no tabloid.

Yours is a tabloid trash reaction to it, though.

Its clickbait garbage that fans shouldnt have to pay for to read news thats been leaked to their journos.

[Sheaf Saint]

Pretty obvious which way this thread is headed already.

Get your bingo cards ready.

[LGTL]

2 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Its clickbait garbage that fans shouldnt have to pay for to read news thats been leaked to their journos.

If Daniel Taylor has his name to it, who is probably the best journalist in the country, then it certainly isn’t ‘clickbait garbage’. 

Edited 20 January, 2022 by LGTL

[saint1977]

18 minutes ago, Instant Classic said:

I think with what happened, everyone in a position of power (and therefore trust) at the club at the time needs to take some responsibility. I'm not saying remove the statue but let's be honest, the one and only person to come out of this horrible situation with any kind of credit is Dave Merrington (other than the victims obviously). Everyone else is discredited.

With that being said, is there any evidence that Bates ignored these allegations? If not, I don't agree with removing his legacy just because they happened to be associated with the club at that time.

Good, balanced post. Unless there is clear evidence from those still around at the time that Ted was well aware of allegations and ignored them then removing the statue is a bit strong. But acknowledging that there was shared responsibility amongst the club leadership as much as there was for the FA Cup win. Where I’m struggling is Lawrie - if he had known, I could only a big ex-Coldstream Guard kicking seven bails out of Higgins and chucking his bag out onto Milton Road. Yet he seemed to know at all levels and be the public face of the club in the halycon days mid-70s to 80s.

Trouble is that Higgins and his vile ilk are very manipulative with boys and parents in hinting at the first team dream and selecting victims that may/may not make it who are more likely to keep quiet. The prospects who were clearly making it to the first team and the top, and/or were more headstrong eg Moran, Shearer, MLT, Maddison or Franny were probably deemed too risky for someone like Higgins.

Makes my skin crawl.

[CB Fry]

4 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Its clickbait garbage that fans shouldnt have to pay for to read news thats been leaked to their journos.

Except, obviously, it is nothing of the sort. Calm down.

[SaintsLoyal]

1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

Except, obviously, it is nothing of the sort. Calm down.

Got you paying then LOL

[Matthew Le God]

13 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Its clickbait garbage

How have you come to that conclusion about this story? Would be a very strange one to just make up. It is very different from making up a transfer rumour.

[iansums]

Was he a slave trader?

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, saint1977 said:

Good, balanced post. Unless there is clear evidence from those still around at the time that Ted was well aware of allegations and ignored them then removing the statue is a bit strong. But acknowledging that there was shared responsibility amongst the club leadership as much as there was for the FA Cup win. Where I’m struggling is Lawrie - if he had known, I could only a big ex-Coldstream Guard kicking seven bails out of Higgins and chucking his bag out onto Milton Road. Yet he seemed to know at all levels and be the public face of the club in the halycon days mid-70s to 80s.

Trouble is that Higgins and his vile ilk are very manipulative with boys and parents in hinting at the first team dream and selecting victims that may/may not make it who are more likely to keep quiet. The prospects who were clearly making it to the first team and the top, and/or were more headstrong eg Moran, Shearer, MLT, Maddison or Franny were probably deemed too risky for someone like Higgins.

Makes my skin crawl.

When you say knew though what exactly did they know? I'm around the same age as these lads, i was around the youth football system at that time and actually only lived a few minutes from Higgins house, he used to come to our school a bit. i remember the graffiti on his house when the allegations first arouse in the early 90s. But also i remember it was all a bit of a joke amongst us, i remember it well, things said like "dont go to Higgins football schools he'll touch you up", "wonder if Higgins will be here today dont go near the showers" when we had a match. No one really believed any of it but it didn't stop us talking about it. Around that time every school had a PE teacher that was meant to be a peado, other teachers used to supposedly go out and get pissed every lunch time, others fancied the pupils. If the headteacher heard all the stuff that was said all the teachers would be suspended and under investigation constantly.the world was a very different place back then. Whilst it's easy to say 30 years on everyone at the club at the time should take responsibility, did they actually know what was going on, or did they just hear rumours like pretty much every headteacher at every comprehensive school in the country would have?  I'm not for one minute making light of what these lads went through but could it be the case that what those at the club did know was more along these sort of lines?

[Matthew Le God]

18 minutes ago, alehouseboys said:

The world's gone mad if this were to happen. That statue is honouring a fantastic service to this football club by, many people have said it, a good, honourable man.

Where does all this stuff end? Will all statues and monuments to the Queen and royalty be removed if Andrew turns out to be a paedophile, guilty by association?

And an insult to Leon Crouch who (along with bunging in money to save the club in its hour of need) replaced the 'Mandaric' one out of his own pocket.

It is a big 'if' true. None of us know. Doing some good things doesn't remove the bad.

Your comparison to Prince Andrew and the Queen is nonsense and flawed. The issue isn't 'guilty by association', it is an accusation of knowing about it but not acting. That hasn't been the case for your example.

It isn't an insult to Leon Crouch.

[Nolan]

27 minutes ago, SaintsLoyal said:

Its clickbait garbage that fans shouldnt have to pay for to read news thats been leaked to their journos.

a clickbait headline would read "Legend could be about to Leave Saint Marys" 

The clue that its not clickbait is that the headline tells you exactly what the story is about.

[alehouseboys]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Your comparison to Prince Andrew and the Queen is nonsense and flawed. The issue isn't 'guilty by association', it is an accusation of knowing about it but not acting. That hasn't been the case for your example.

There's plenty who feel there's been a cover up from Buckingham Palace over this. They're well aware of his association with a known paedophile for many years and it's  been said it's the Queen who bankrolled his defence. 'If' he's convicted, then surely (like as some are suggesting with Ted Bates) the buck stops with her.

[AlexLaw76]

Can't we have some sort of halfway house, and out the old statue back up for a while?

[Dorchester Saint]

1 hour ago, JRM said:

I haven't been able to read past the first couple of paragraphs but Ted died a Saints legend and isn't around to defend himself against any allegations now, 

To be fair, neither was Jimmy Savile. 

[Dorchester Saint]

Absolutely ridiculous if this happens, what next, disassociate with anyone who may have suspected Higgins or heard a rumour but didn’t say anything at the time? 
Higgins was the criminal and he’s where he belongs. 

[macca155]

The club is in a difficult position. They are guilty of harbouring a paedophile. As such they failed in a duty of care to those young lads. No way of dressing that up as anything else.

It was a very different time. I was a kid in the 70s and there were some very dodgy characters in scouts, choir, and sports clubs. You either became a victim, or stayed well away from them. Usually in a group of mates.

Those in power ignored it, looked the other way or just accepted it as part of the culture. Watch a 'Carry on...' film from the 70s or most sit coms. You'll see what I mean.

Ted would have been a product of his generation. Chose to look the other way,  or refused to contemplate it. Remember they were totally repressed on such matters.

Removing the statue on one hand will be a very public recognition of the club's failings. On the other it will dump all the blame on Ted, which would be manifestly unfair. It will also cause an unholy row, and achieve precisely the opposite of what is intended.

I guess they need to find another way of addressing the errors of the past. I don't envy them that job.

[once_bitterne]

We can't keep judging people in the past by today's standards.  The world was a completely different place in the 50s and 60s.  Any allegations of that sort would be taken very seriously now, back then they were not but that was 100% down to the how things were at that time.

Bates' actions, or non actions, were a product of the time he lived in.  You can't penalise his legacy for that.

 

Ran out of posts for the day so to @Matthew Le God  Ok, so it was the 80s.  What role did Bates have then that he is being blamed?  He wasn't the manager, he wasn't the Chairman.  Surely 'President' is pretty much just an honourary role and he had little to do with the day to day running of the club.

 

Edited 20 January, 2022 by once_bitterne

[miserableoldgit]

18 minutes ago, Dorchester Saint said:

Absolutely ridiculous if this happens, what next, disassociate with anyone who may have suspected Higgins or heard a rumour but didn’t say anything at the time? 
Higgins was the criminal and he’s where he belongs. 

Indeed, and habitual criminals are invariably very good at covering up their crimes. If there "may" have been an issue with Ted Bates knowledge or otherwise of Higgins misdemeanours, why not take a vote amongst fans as to whether the statue stays or goes, rather than taking a knee-jerk reaction that may alienate more than it appeases?

[once_bitterne]

Just now, macca155 said:

The club is in a difficult position. They are guilty of harbouring a paedophile. As such they failed in a duty of care to those young lads. No way of dressing that up as anything else.

 

It's difficult though.  Who is 'they'?  Obviously no one involved is still with the club, but more than that, the 'Southampton Football Club' that existed then doesn't even exist anymore.  It was sold many times, went out of business and the new owners bought the remains from administration.  I'm not sure what they can do other than pay lip service to what happened under previous ownership.

[Wurzel]

For those that can't read the article I'll quote the final paragraph here
 

Quote

In part of its response to the Barnardo’s report, Southampton admitted institutional failings and said: “Regrettably, we have to conclude that it was because it was simply easier not to see the signs of potential abuse, not to listen to the children who were abused, not to properly challenge Higgins and not to stand up against his disgraceful behaviour.

“Too many people at the club and in other organisations knew or should have known what was going on. They all failed to act.”

Firstly I would say that I hate the current woke and cancel culture so this may affect my judgement.

If, and I mean if , Bates was aware of what Higgins was up to, or even suspected it, he should have acted. . For all we know he may have done so, but Higgins convinced him it was nothing but salicious gossip. Taking it further would have been the right thing to do, but failing to act doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

No-one else involved ( or potentially involved) has a statue. Removing it would cast aspersions of a much bigger involvement in the affair by Bates, treating him as a scapegoat and putting him, in the likely view of public opinion, as an instigator at the same level of wrongdoing as Higgins himself. Any one else involved, to whatever degree, would continue to remain publically unknown

That club statement indicates that many people both inside and outside the club failed to act. If that's the case why remove one individual's statue? - the only logic I can find for doing so  is it acts as a reminder every time the victims see it - whilst the club continues to exist. If they truly believe a tribute to a great man should be "cancelled" due to possible involvement in this affair then surely, by association, the whole club should be "cancelled". That of course will never happen, nor would I want it to.

Higgins has been punished under the law. The club has investigated themselves, found fault in their system at the time and taken steps to ensure that such a thing can never happen again under their watch.  For me - and I accept the victims may feel differently - that should be the end of the matter.

[Manuel]

From what I read (echo) it seems that Bates had the wool pulled over his eyes somewhat.  He didn't take the rumours seriously, saw them as malicious. 

Obviously these days there will be systems in place to investigate allegations of this nature, but back then it would have been a different story.  On that basis it seems unfair to judge him as if the events took place today, with all the safeguarding that exists now.  

Unless more evidence comes out, for me, the statue stays.  

[Matthew Le God]

45 minutes ago, once_bitterne said:

We can't keep judging people in the past by today's standards.  The world was a completely different place in the 50s and 60s. 

 

This isn't about the 50s and 60s.

Edited 20 January, 2022 by Matthew Le God

[CAH61]

Paedophiles are notoriously devious and clever in hiding their actions, maybe he fooled Ted Bates who may well have investigated the allegations and concluded there was nothing to answer for. Or maybe another board member investigated, Ted wasn't running the entire club alone.

Edited 20 January, 2022 by CAH61

[derry]

Firstly, Ted Bates gave his life to this club. Without his vision and success we would still be pinging around the lower divisions like a well known club we all know. The statue is recognising his contribution. 

Secondly, I was around local football at the time and the rumours about him and a few others were out there. Nobody knew anything definite and there wasn't any evidence or accusations levelled at any of those suspected. It was all hearsay.

It was really a failing in Higgin's case of those in and around the Saints youth set up. I expect Ted was far removed from the youth set up and working with the first team and reserves. I doubt that anybody involved presented any real evidence to allow action to be taken. 

Personally I think the tragedy was the ruined lives and the fact nobody had the guts to confront Higgins. 

Edited 20 January, 2022 by derry

[Miltonaggro]

Guilt by association aimed at a person who is unable to corroborate or defend is never a good approach.  I would assume that this story, is simply that. 

However, if the powers that be decide to haul down Ted and throw him off Shamrock Quay, we need a public vote on a replacement. Les Reed or Lee Todd would be popular choices I expect.

[Manuel]

1 minute ago, Miltonaggro said:

Guilt by association aimed at a person who is unable to corroborate or defend is never a good approach.  I would assume that this story, is simply that. 

However, if the powers that be decide to haul down Ted and throw him off Shamrock Quay, we need a public vote on a replacement. Les Reed or Lee Todd would be popular choices I expect.

Can we rule out Michael Jackson from the start.

[kwsaint]

1 hour ago, Wurzel said:

For those that can't read the article I'll quote the final paragraph here
 

Firstly I would say that I hate the current woke and cancel culture so this may affect my judgement.

If, and I mean if , Bates was aware of what Higgins was up to, or even suspected it, he should have acted. . For all we know he may have done so, but Higgins convinced him it was nothing but salicious gossip. Taking it further would have been the right thing to do, but failing to act doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

No-one else involved ( or potentially involved) has a statue. Removing it would cast aspersions of a much bigger involvement in the affair by Bates, treating him as a scapegoat and putting him, in the likely view of public opinion, as an instigator at the same level of wrongdoing as Higgins himself. Any one else involved, to whatever degree, would continue to remain publically unknown

That club statement indicates that many people both inside and outside the club failed to act. If that's the case why remove one individual's statue? - the only logic I can find for doing so  is it acts as a reminder every time the victims see it - whilst the club continues to exist. If they truly believe a tribute to a great man should be "cancelled" due to possible involvement in this affair then surely, by association, the whole club should be "cancelled". That of course will never happen, nor would I want it to.

Higgins has been punished under the law. The club has investigated themselves, found fault in their system at the time and taken steps to ensure that such a thing can never happen again under their watch.  For me - and I accept the victims may feel differently - that should be the end of the matter.

This.  With one caveat.  Did any of the victims go to Ted with concerns?  Ted stepped down as manager in 1973 so my guess is that he would have been less involved in day-to-day matters.  There are others in control of the club in late seventies/early eighties who may be far more culpable

[mickn]

32 minutes ago, derry said:

Firstly, Ted Bates gave his life to this club. Without his vision and success we would still be pinging around the lower divisions like a well known club we all know. The statue is recognising his contribution. 

Secondly, I was around local football at the time and the rumours about him and a few others were out there. Nobody knew anything definite and there wasn't any evidence or accusations levelled at any of those suspected. It was all hearsay.

It was really a failing in Higgin's case of those in and around the Saints youth set up. I expect Ted was far removed from the youth set up and working with the first team and reserves. I doubt that anybody involved presented any real evidence to allow action to be taken. 

Personally I think the tragedy was the ruined lives and the fact nobody had the guts to confront Higgins. 

In 1973/74ish Saints youth team came to our school on a Wednesday afternoon to play our first eleven and Ted was there watching so I would imagine he was not that far removed.  Btw I'm not trying to imply anything.

 

Edited 20 January, 2022 by mickn
Posted too soon

[JRM]

35 minutes ago, derry said:

Firstly, Ted Bates gave his life to this club. Without his vision and success we would still be pinging around the lower divisions like a well known club we all know. The statue is recognising his contribution. 

Secondly, I was around local football at the time and the rumours about him and a few others were out there. Nobody knew anything definite and there wasn't any evidence or accusations levelled at any of those suspected. It was all hearsay.

It was really a failing in Higgin's case of those in and around the Saints youth set up. I expect Ted was far removed from the youth set up and working with the first team and reserves. I doubt that anybody involved presented any real evidence to allow action to be taken. 

Personally I think the tragedy was the ruined lives and the fact nobody had the guts to confront Higgins. 

It was mid to late 80s wasn't it when Higgins was at the club? What was Bates role then? Don't think he was in any real management position 

[santolijador]

I would imagine the club know a lot more about the situation than we do.

If they do take the statue down, this would have to be because Bates had more of a role than we know about (in a bad way), or was indeed guilty of not acting whilst in a position of considerable influence. 

For me, the key here is 'speaking to the victims' - at least in this case the club is showing respect for the victims of abuse in and around the club and listening to them. After all, they are the ones directly affected and have every right to express an opinion directly to the club on the matter.

3 minutes ago, kwsaint said:

This.  With one caveat.  Did any of the victims go to Ted with concerns?  Ted stepped down as manager in 1973 so my guess is that he would have been less involved in day-to-day matters.  There are others in control of the club in late seventies/early eighties who may be far more culpable

It is mentioned in this article that Bates disregarded the concerns of at least one individual. I cannot speak for the accuracy of this report of course. 

In any case, I would let the club sort this one - I don't think they would take any decision to remove the statue lightly. There is a reason Bates was named in the reports and I am sure there are legitimate reasons for this review of his statue. 

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, mickn said:

In 1973/74ish Saints youth team came to our school on a Wednesday afternoon to play our first eleven and Ted was there watching so I would imagine he was not that far removed.  Btw I'm not trying to imply anything.

 

Thats was nearly 20 years before the Higgins stuff and he would have just stepped down as manager, i cant even remember what his role as in the 90s, he wasn't chairman that was Woodford and then Askham, he may have been a director i cant remember but certainly not the first person you think of who should have the finger pointed at for not doing anything,

[bpsaint]

1 hour ago, Miltonaggro said:

Guilt by association aimed at a person who is unable to corroborate or defend is never a good approach.  I would assume that this story, is simply that. 

However, if the powers that be decide to haul down Ted and throw him off Shamrock Quay, we need a public vote on a replacement. Les Reed or Lee Todd would be popular choices I expect.

I say we put the original one back there, just for shits and giggles.

 

In all seriousness though if the club are considering something so drastic you can only assume they are privy to something we’re not about everyone that was involved, or knew about it. 
 

I’d like to think that as a family man Ted wouldn’t have tried brushed things under the carpet, but as others have said it was a very different world in the 70s and 80s.

[S-Clarke]

Too much of this cancel culture at the moment. There's not enough evidence to say either way if there was any wrong-doing on his part, so as it stands this is a non-story.

The guilty party of the horrific acts in this has been put to account and been jailed. The club have put their hands up and admitted failings, these failings were in the past and under ownership and management who aren't around anymore. Ted would have been part of that, but to tarnish him with the same brush is incredibly harsh because none of the other people who were at the club will be treated in the same way. It's just the visibility I guess, but that shouldn't make it the reason alone.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, Wurzel said:

For those that can't read the article I'll quote the final paragraph here
 

Firstly I would say that I hate the current woke and cancel culture so this may affect my judgement.

If, and I mean if , Bates was aware of what Higgins was up to, or even suspected it, he should have acted. . For all we know he may have done so, but Higgins convinced him it was nothing but salicious gossip. Taking it further would have been the right thing to do, but failing to act doesn't necessarily make him wrong.

No-one else involved ( or potentially involved) has a statue. Removing it would cast aspersions of a much bigger involvement in the affair by Bates, treating him as a scapegoat and putting him, in the likely view of public opinion, as an instigator at the same level of wrongdoing as Higgins himself. Any one else involved, to whatever degree, would continue to remain publically unknown

That club statement indicates that many people both inside and outside the club failed to act. If that's the case why remove one individual's statue? - the only logic I can find for doing so  is it acts as a reminder every time the victims see it - whilst the club continues to exist. If they truly believe a tribute to a great man should be "cancelled" due to possible involvement in this affair then surely, by association, the whole club should be "cancelled". That of course will never happen, nor would I want it to.

Higgins has been punished under the law. The club has investigated themselves, found fault in their system at the time and taken steps to ensure that such a thing can never happen again under their watch.  For me - and I accept the victims may feel differently - that should be the end of the matter.

Another point would be everything you see and read about those involved in the club then says they were decent, honourable people. I really struggle to believe that if they genuinely thought there was a rampant peadophile in the club they would turn a blind eye to it. Whilst it was a different era the fact remains that this is a vile crime and no one in their right mind would let it go on. Which is why i full believe that the extent of the clubs knowledge of this was along the lines of unfounded rumours and gossip which were the case in every single school in the country at the time, teachers were peados, gays (yes i know that will upset some of you) drunkards etc apparently every school had loads of them! When we used to go to Southampton schoolboys football weekends i remember at least two of the coaches were meant to be gay peadophiles or so the U15 rumour mill told us!  Its easy to look back now and say they didn't do enough, need to take responsibility etc, but if you were around at that time it's perhaps easier to understand why they didn't.

Edited 20 January, 2022 by Turkish

[Singapore Saint]

Let's cancel cancel culture.

[Singapore Saint]

2 hours ago, derry said:

Firstly, Ted Bates gave his life to this club. Without his vision and success we would still be pinging around the lower divisions like a well known club we all know. The statue is recognising his contribution. 

Secondly, I was around local football at the time and the rumours about him and a few others were out there. Nobody knew anything definite and there wasn't any evidence or accusations levelled at any of those suspected. It was all hearsay.

It was really a failing in Higgin's case of those in and around the Saints youth set up. I expect Ted was far removed from the youth set up and working with the first team and reserves. I doubt that anybody involved presented any real evidence to allow action to be taken. 

Personally I think the tragedy was the ruined lives and the fact nobody had the guts to confront Higgins. 

Amen and amen, can't agree enough with this post.

[VectisSaint]

If there is any truth in this then it cannot be allowed. Ted was one of the most honourable people around and to try to taint his memory with something to do with that disgusting man would be a travesty. I can't imagine the effect it would have on his daughter(s) (who incidentally are my cousins, but I don't actually know them). The world has gone mad and no one should support such an action. 

Edited 20 January, 2022 by VectisSaint

[Singapore Saint]

Supposing, just supposing, Ted Bates was negligent as charged, so bloody what? Does it negate all the good he's done for Saints? "He that hath not sinned, let him cast the first stone." Leave the statue alone!

Edited 20 January, 2022 by Singapore Saint

[macca155]

3 hours ago, once_bitterne said:

It's difficult though.  Who is 'they'?  Obviously no one involved is still with the club, but more than that, the 'Southampton Football Club' that existed then doesn't even exist anymore.  It was sold many times, went out of business and the new owners bought the remains from administration.  I'm not sure what they can do other than pay lip service to what happened under previous ownership.

I've been thinking about this a lot this morning. Tearing down statues is all very well but what do you do in it's place. As a symbolic gesture it hits the mark and then ....

The club looked the other way and as such are culpable. I don't care what guise they were in they allowed it to happen. Rather than targeting individuals who cannot defend themselves do something positive. Fund a charity that protects children today, because sadly it still goes on. Provide the victims with a decent lump sum, if the club can pay £20 million for a centre forward, it can certainly afford to pay compensation to those it failed to look after. 

However having said that I also don't think the club can forever walk under an apologetic cloud. Learn and move forward.

[SonicBoom]

There is a link to the independent report on this thread on the Ugly. 

The report states that a Headmaster had raised concerns about the behaviour of Higgins directly to Bates. No action was taken. The report says that this might have been in order to protect the clubs reputation and not Higgins. Either way nothing was done. 

The report also says it is unrealistic to imagine Bates didn't discuss this at board level although there are no records if it ever being discussed. 

So basically the conclusion was that concerns were reported to the club through Bates but that no action was taken. 

[Bad Wolf]

2 hours ago, derry said:

Firstly, Ted Bates gave his life to this club. Without his vision and success we would still be pinging around the lower divisions like a well known club we all know. The statue is recognising his contribution. 

Secondly, I was around local football at the time and the rumours about him and a few others were out there. Nobody knew anything definite and there wasn't any evidence or accusations levelled at any of those suspected. It was all hearsay.

It was really a failing in Higgin's case of those in and around the Saints youth set up. I expect Ted was far removed from the youth set up and working with the first team and reserves. I doubt that anybody involved presented any real evidence to allow action to be taken. 

Personally I think the tragedy was the ruined lives and the fact nobody had the guts to confront Higgins. 

Apart from Dave Merrington, who confronted him, spoke up and did everything he possibly could to prevent/stop the abuse and that's backed up by some of the victims and other youth players at the time. As I said above, he's the only person who comes out of this looking good.

[miserableoldgit]

24 minutes ago, SonicBoom said:

There is a link to the independent report on this thread on the Ugly. 

The report states that a Headmaster had raised concerns about the behaviour of Higgins directly to Bates. No action was taken. The report says that this might have been in order to protect the clubs reputation and not Higgins. Either way nothing was done. 

The report also says it is unrealistic to imagine Bates didn't discuss this at board level although there are no records if it ever being discussed. 

So basically the conclusion was that concerns were reported to the club through Bates but that no action was taken. 

So if Bates DID report them to the Board and the Board did nothing, is that still Bates' fault? Would that justify his statue being removed? Will we ever know exactly what went went on?