Given the severity of the allegation the FA should have let Charlton know straight away and how series it was. Charlton should have immediately suspended Senda pending the completion of the investigation and hearing. Either the club or the FA have been negligent with this or perhaps both. It amounts to a safe guarding concern considering his position at the club and the level of trust that position would hold.
I think both have. The FA should have mentioned what it was, though maybe there is some sort of rule where they can’t whilst it’s under investigation?
And the club certainly should have asked what it was. Also considering he was sent home early from the course, did it not come to light to the club then (unless he didn’t tell them).
If the course was in June I’m not sure he would have been expected in.
Given the severity of the allegation the FA should have let Charlton know straight away and how series it was. Charlton should have immediately suspended Senda pending the completion of the investigation and hearing. Either the club or the FA have been negligent with this or perhaps both. It amounts to a safe guarding concern considering his position at the club and the level of trust that position would hold.
I think both have. The FA should have mentioned what it was, though maybe there is some sort of rule where they can’t whilst it’s under investigation?
And the club certainly should have asked what it was. Also considering he was sent home early from the course, did it not come to light to the club then (unless he didn’t tell them).
You may be right, but if this is the case it needs addressing. Imagine a social care provider sending a staff member on an NHS run training where this kind of incident was reported to the trainer. The NHS trust would be obliged to report it and the social care provider to act by suspending the staff member. I know football is a vastly different environment but surly after all the abuse scandals of recent years clubs and governing bodies should have procedures in place that you would expect in other areas.
Given the severity of the allegation the FA should have let Charlton know straight away and how series it was. Charlton should have immediately suspended Senda pending the completion of the investigation and hearing. Either the club or the FA have been negligent with this or perhaps both. It amounts to a safe guarding concern considering his position at the club and the level of trust that position would hold.
I think both have. The FA should have mentioned what it was, though maybe there is some sort of rule where they can’t whilst it’s under investigation?
And the club certainly should have asked what it was. Also considering he was sent home early from the course, did it not come to light to the club then (unless he didn’t tell them).
You may be right, but if this is the case it needs addressing. Imagine a social care provider sending a staff member on an NHS run training where this kind of incident was reported to the trainer. The NHS trust would be obliged to report it and the social care provider too act by suspending the staff member. I know football is a vastly different environment but surly after all the abuse scandals of recent years clubs and governing bodies should have procedures in place that you would expect in other areas.
This 100%.
There wasn't even any doubt that he'd sexually assulted both women. How the FA could think he didn't need to be suspended straight away boggles my mind.
Given the severity of the allegation the FA should have let Charlton know straight away and how series it was. Charlton should have immediately suspended Senda pending the completion of the investigation and hearing. Either the club or the FA have been negligent with this or perhaps both. It amounts to a safe guarding concern considering his position at the club and the level of trust that position would hold.
I think both have. The FA should have mentioned what it was, though maybe there is some sort of rule where they can’t whilst it’s under investigation?
And the club certainly should have asked what it was. Also considering he was sent home early from the course, did it not come to light to the club then (unless he didn’t tell them).
You may be right, but if this is the case it needs addressing. Imagine a social care provider sending a staff member on an NHS run training where this kind of incident was reported to the trainer. The NHS trust would be obliged to report it and the social care provider too act by suspending the staff member. I know football is a vastly different environment but surly after all the abuse scandals of recent years clubs and governing bodies should have procedures in place that you would expect in other areas.
This 100%.
There wasn't even any doubt that he'd sexually assulted both women. How the FA could think he didn't need to be suspended straight away boggles my mind.
Rodwell said that at no point were they made aware by the FA of what the charges related too and have been as surprised as anyone about this.
Given the severity of the allegation the FA should have let Charlton know straight away and how series it was. Charlton should have immediately suspended Senda pending the completion of the investigation and hearing. Either the club or the FA have been negligent with this or perhaps both. It amounts to a safe guarding concern considering his position at the club and the level of trust that position would hold.
I think both have. The FA should have mentioned what it was, though maybe there is some sort of rule where they can’t whilst it’s under investigation?
And the club certainly should have asked what it was. Also considering he was sent home early from the course, did it not come to light to the club then (unless he didn’t tell them).
You may be right, but if this is the case it needs addressing. Imagine a social care provider sending a staff member on an NHS run training where this kind of incident was reported to the trainer. The NHS trust would be obliged to report it and the social care provider too act by suspending the staff member. I know football is a vastly different environment but surly after all the abuse scandals of recent years clubs and governing bodies should have procedures in place that you would expect in other areas.
This 100%.
There wasn't even any doubt that he'd sexually assulted both women. How the FA could think he didn't need to be suspended straight away boggles my mind.
Rodwell said that at no point were they made aware by the FA of what the charges related too and have been as surprised as anyone about this.
Given the severity of the allegation the FA should have let Charlton know straight away and how series it was. Charlton should have immediately suspended Senda pending the completion of the investigation and hearing. Either the club or the FA have been negligent with this or perhaps both. It amounts to a safe guarding concern considering his position at the club and the level of trust that position would hold.
I think both have. The FA should have mentioned what it was, though maybe there is some sort of rule where they can’t whilst it’s under investigation?
And the club certainly should have asked what it was. Also considering he was sent home early from the course, did it not come to light to the club then (unless he didn’t tell them).
You may be right, but if this is the case it needs addressing. Imagine a social care provider sending a staff member on an NHS run training where this kind of incident was reported to the trainer. The NHS trust would be obliged to report it and the social care provider too act by suspending the staff member. I know football is a vastly different environment but surly after all the abuse scandals of recent years clubs and governing bodies should have procedures in place that you would expect in other areas.
This 100%.
There wasn't even any doubt that he'd sexually assulted both women. How the FA could think he didn't need to be suspended straight away boggles my mind.
Rodwell said that at no point were they made aware by the FA of what the charges related too and have been as surprised as anyone about this.
So nobody thought to ask? Ffs, absolute garbage.
Exactly. What does being as surprised as anyone about this say about their management? Total bollox. Either they are terminally stupid or liars who potentially put female staff at our club at risk.
I can only go on experiences at grassroots level, but I find it very hard to believe the club wouldn’t have known the nature of the allegation via the FA.
We learned yesterday that Rodwell is a liar when he reported on the Bromley meeting. It stretches credibility that he didn’t know the nature of the Senda allegations before Tuesday when the punishment was announced. Why should we believe stuff he says? So he can keep his job?
Rodwell said last night, that the assaults didn’t happen whilst Senda was on Charlton duty.
FFS.
Oh well. Thats alright then.
Fecking eejit. Even more angry.
That wasn't the context as I heard it.
I listened to that as only saying he wasn't away with / in context of a Charlton related event and therefore no direct involvement. I only interpreted that as further explanation that the club were apparently unaware of the nature of the issue and nothing fed back to them directly.
If others heard this in a different context so be it but I think it dangerous to over analyse every word when not read from a pre prepared statement.
Don't we need the FA to confirm what they told / did not tell Charlton and what protocol should be followed in such circumstances?
The follow on question wasn't really posed as to what they did on getting notice from the FA.
Right. You're on a course, supplied by an outside agency, with your employers knowledge even though its not technically in 'term time' say. You're on the course & you get sent home early. You have two choices. You don't tell your employers hoping that the 'apology' is the end of it & that those running the course don't tell your employers. Or you fess up and await the outcome.
I'm guessing Senda made the second choice if Rodwell is to be believed and the first the club knew of it was a copied in email with no details.
Again, I'm supposed to believe the club went, 'well we're getting rid anyway so no need to find out what yer man did to warrant getting charged by the FA for breach of conduct'. Nothing else to see here.
Right. You're on a course, supplied by an outside agency, with your employers knowledge even though its not technically in 'term time' say. You're on the course & you get sent home early. You have two choices. You don't tell your employers hoping that the 'apology' is the end of it & that those running the course don't tell your employers. Or you fess up and await the outcome.
I'm guessing Senda made the second choice if Rodwell is to be believed and the first the club knew of it was a copied in email with no details.
Again, I'm supposed to believe the club went, 'well we're getting rid anyway so no need to find out what yer man did to warrant getting charged by the FA for breach of conduct'. Nothing else to see here.
Seriously? 😳
Feasible assumption but we dont know.
But to your 2nd point - getting rid anyway- I'm not sure that was the logic as the question was not asked ' did you ask for details of the issue?'
Slimeballs all over the club. More people knew than let on as a story like that would travel fast, especially in football.
I wouldn't be too surprised if even Dean Holden knew, as surely he knows the ongoings of a member of his coaching staff? Otherwise there's question marks all over our integrity and who we allow in the day to day actions of this club. The whole thing stinks and it was firmly swept under the carpet.
Well done @LouisMend for highlighting this and keeping it firmly in the light.
Right. You're on a course, supplied by an outside agency, with your employers knowledge even though its not technically in 'term time' say. You're on the course & you get sent home early. You have two choices. You don't tell your employers hoping that the 'apology' is the end of it & that those running the course don't tell your employers. Or you fess up and await the outcome.
I'm guessing Senda made the second choice if Rodwell is to be believed and the first the club knew of it was a copied in email with no details.
Again, I'm supposed to believe the club went, 'well we're getting rid anyway so no need to find out what yer man did to warrant getting charged by the FA for breach of conduct'. Nothing else to see here.
Seriously? 😳
Feasible assumption but we dont know.
But to your 2nd point - getting rid anyway- I'm not sure that was the logic as the question was not asked ' did you ask for details of the issue?'
Well they said the club wasn’t provided with the details of the offence by the FA. So it’s either, Senda didn’t tell them & they never asked…….so as they were getting rid anyway never bothered to pursue. Or the club were told by Senda & now they’re blatantly lying.
Right. You're on a course, supplied by an outside agency, with your employers knowledge even though its not technically in 'term time' say. You're on the course & you get sent home early. You have two choices. You don't tell your employers hoping that the 'apology' is the end of it & that those running the course don't tell your employers. Or you fess up and await the outcome.
I'm guessing Senda made the second choice if Rodwell is to be believed and the first the club knew of it was a copied in email with no details.
Again, I'm supposed to believe the club went, 'well we're getting rid anyway so no need to find out what yer man did to warrant getting charged by the FA for breach of conduct'. Nothing else to see here.
Seriously? 😳
Feasible assumption but we dont know.
But to your 2nd point - getting rid anyway- I'm not sure that was the logic as the question was not asked ' did you ask for details of the issue?'
Well they said the club wasn’t provided with the details of the offence by the FA. So it’s either, Senda didn’t tell them & they never asked…….so as they were getting rid anyway never bothered to pursue. Or the club were told by Senda & now they’re blatantly lying.
Either way? Its pretty fecking nauseous.
Of course its bad.
The cub may have been told (if they asked - we don't know) a far more sanitised / more trivial version by our employee.
But, as I said, in the absence of similar questions to the FA we don't know what process should have been followed / was followed.
I found the whole piece around Senda wholly unsatisfactory yesterday.
The idea that the Chairman received an email from the FA stating that our Assistant Manager to the First Team was under investigation, and he didn’t ask why?, doesn’t sit well.
Every single person on this forum, if running a business, would want more details to see if there was a risk, especially so close to the start of the season.
I don’t buy that the email was ignored. I’d speculate it was never read in the first place.
For all the good communication about identifying problems and target solutions that I thought came out of last night, this was something that really troubled me.
We're told the communication from the FA came out around the exact time that the takeover was going through. Thomas had one and a half feet out the door & GFP had half a foot in the door so it seemingly "slipped through the cracks". Something as serious as disciplinary proceedings shouldn't be allowed to slip through the cracks.
Wherever the internal communications breakdown happened needs to be addressed immediately - perhaps the FA could have provided more info up front BUT it's totally reasonable to think that they wouldn't and it's not on the FA to send follow ups to make sure the club received the original memo.
Firstly, the main culprit is Senda. Disgusting behaviour that has rightly been punished, albeit too lightly in opinion, but the public announcement is welcome and it warns off both other clubs from employing him and sends out a signal to other predators/abusers.
I also hope it encourages other victims to come forward, difficult thought that is. Unfortunately, that has been undermined by the staged apology and that it is only a four year ban but at least it wasn't put down to "banter" (sic) or other "can't you make a pass at the women these days" such nonsense as might have been the case in the past (and still will be by some). Thankfully, I've not seen any nonsense from fans justifying or minimising what happened which is perhaps a sign of just how far the majority have come on these issues.
Beyond that is whether the FA and the Club followed proper safeguarding procedures and acted in good time and good faith when they heard the news.
I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions without hearing the whole story but there do appear to be a number of unanswered questions.
Did the FA disclose the nature of the offence or at least flag it up as a potential safeguarding issue? If not, why not?
Which member of staff was informed by the FA and who did they share that information with?
Did the club ask for more detail from the FA and, if it was the case that the FA wouldn't give more details, at least ask if there was any risk to the club or staff? It is possible that the investigation could have been about, for example, gambling on football, which would not have been an immediate safeguarding issue but that is why the question needed to be asked.
What did Senda say when questioned on the matter by the club, assuming that someone did ask him.
If the club did not question Senda about the investigation, then why not.
As far as I can see, whilst obviously the majority of the blame has to be on Senda himself we can say that the FA has definitely mishandled the situation and it seems very likely that at least one person at Charlton has too.
If it really wasn't disclosed then whoever it was who decided to just shrug it off instead of asking questions needs to be held accountable.
All the while there are two completely innocent women who have had their lives turned upside down and will always have this in the back of their minds whenever they apply for a job in football.
Right. You're on a course, supplied by an outside agency, with your employers knowledge even though its not technically in 'term time' say. You're on the course & you get sent home early. You have two choices. You don't tell your employers hoping that the 'apology' is the end of it & that those running the course don't tell your employers. Or you fess up and await the outcome.
I'm guessing Senda made the second choice if Rodwell is to be believed and the first the club knew of it was a copied in email with no details.
Again, I'm supposed to believe the club went, 'well we're getting rid anyway so no need to find out what yer man did to warrant getting charged by the FA for breach of conduct'. Nothing else to see here.
Seriously? 😳
Feasible assumption but we dont know.
But to your 2nd point - getting rid anyway- I'm not sure that was the logic as the question was not asked ' did you ask for details of the issue?'
Well they said the club wasn’t provided with the details of the offence by the FA. So it’s either, Senda didn’t tell them & they never asked…….so as they were getting rid anyway never bothered to pursue. Or the club were told by Senda & now they’re blatantly lying.
Either way? Itpretty fecking nauseous.
Rodwell said he was told on July 24th. Senda was sacked on August 27th. So I don’t think that interpretation works.
All the while there are two completely innocent women who have had their lives turned upside down and will always have this in the back of their minds whenever they apply for a job in football.
I really hope they are ok, I really do.
4 fecking years.
Absolute joke.
Interestingly the RC panel comprised 2 women and 1 man and who determined the length of the ban - reading again it says they don't have prescribed levels of penalty.
I guess its a minefield to have guidelines / scales for such matters and each is treated on its on merits/circumstances.
I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
I'm not saying this as a defence of Rodwell and Co., purely to try and work out who should have done what, but would it be the Club Secretary's job to have asked more questions when notified or would he be expected to raise it with the likes of Rodwell etc for them to take further?
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
We don't definitively know that though do we?
If nothing was shared and nothing was gleaned from the employee directly why would they know its a safeguarding issue?
I think it says more about the FA process that it isn't shared unless of course our club are being economical with the truth on what was shared - but yesterday it was said by JR in the meeting they only knew when it was made public to all.
Comments
Ffs, absolute garbage.
It stretches credibility that he didn’t know the nature of the Senda allegations before Tuesday when the punishment was announced.
Why should we believe stuff he says? So he can keep his job?
Thats alright then.
Fecking eejit.
Even more angry.
I listened to that as only saying he wasn't away with / in context of a Charlton related event and therefore no direct involvement. I only interpreted that as further explanation that the club were apparently unaware of the nature of the issue and nothing fed back to them directly.
If others heard this in a different context so be it but I think it dangerous to over analyse every word when not read from a pre prepared statement.
Don't we need the FA to confirm what they told / did not tell Charlton and what protocol should be followed in such circumstances?
The follow on question wasn't really posed as to what they did on getting notice from the FA.
You're on a course, supplied by an outside agency, with your employers knowledge even though its not technically in 'term time' say.
You're on the course & you get sent home early.
You have two choices. You don't tell your employers hoping that the 'apology' is the end of it & that those running the course don't tell your employers.
Or you fess up and await the outcome.
I'm guessing Senda made the second choice if Rodwell is to be believed and the first the club knew of it was a copied in email with no details.
Again, I'm supposed to believe the club went, 'well we're getting rid anyway so no need to find out what yer man did to warrant getting charged by the FA for breach of conduct'. Nothing else to see here.
Seriously? 😳
But to your 2nd point - getting rid anyway- I'm not sure that was the logic as the question was not asked ' did you ask for details of the issue?'
I wouldn't be too surprised if even Dean Holden knew, as surely he knows the ongoings of a member of his coaching staff? Otherwise there's question marks all over our integrity and who we allow in the day to day actions of this club. The whole thing stinks and it was firmly swept under the carpet.
Well done @LouisMend for highlighting this and keeping it firmly in the light.
So it’s either, Senda didn’t tell them & they never asked…….so as they were getting rid anyway never bothered to pursue.
Or the club were told by Senda & now they’re blatantly lying.
Either way?
Its pretty fecking nauseous.
Safeguarding was not a consideration seemingly.
The cub may have been told (if they asked - we don't know) a far more sanitised / more trivial version by our employee.
But, as I said, in the absence of similar questions to the FA we don't know what process should have been followed / was followed.
The idea that the Chairman received an email from the FA stating that our Assistant Manager to the First Team was under investigation, and he didn’t ask why?, doesn’t sit well.
Every single person on this forum, if running a business, would want more details to see if there was a risk, especially so close to the start of the season.
I don’t buy that the email was ignored. I’d speculate it was never read in the first place.
I also hope it encourages other victims to come forward, difficult thought that is. Unfortunately, that has been undermined by the staged apology and that it is only a four year ban but at least it wasn't put down to "banter" (sic) or other "can't you make a pass at the women these days" such nonsense as might have been the case in the past (and still will be by some). Thankfully, I've not seen any nonsense from fans justifying or minimising what happened which is perhaps a sign of just how far the majority have come on these issues.
Beyond that is whether the FA and the Club followed proper safeguarding procedures and acted in good time and good faith when they heard the news.
I'm reluctant to jump to conclusions without hearing the whole story but there do appear to be a number of unanswered questions.
Did the FA disclose the nature of the offence or at least flag it up as a potential safeguarding issue? If not, why not?
Which member of staff was informed by the FA and who did they share that information with?
Did the club ask for more detail from the FA and, if it was the case that the FA wouldn't give more details, at least ask if there was any risk to the club or staff? It is possible that the investigation could have been about, for example, gambling on football, which would not have been an immediate safeguarding issue but that is why the question needed to be asked.
What did Senda say when questioned on the matter by the club, assuming that someone did ask him.
If the club did not question Senda about the investigation, then why not.
If it really wasn't disclosed then whoever it was who decided to just shrug it off instead of asking questions needs to be held accountable.
I really hope they are ok, I really do.
4 fecking years.
Absolute joke.
Rodwell said he was told on July 24th. Senda was sacked on August 27th. So I don’t think that interpretation works.
I guess its a minefield to have guidelines / scales for such matters and each is treated on its on merits/circumstances.
I fully acknowledge that AT LEAST one person at Charlton has made a complete balls up regarding safeguarding but it's possible that the execs were told (falsely) that the matter was dealt with then it's possible that they genuinely didn't realise what had happened.
Again, not to excuse anyone, at the very least it's bad organisation and extreme complacency but I'm trying to work out how it could have happened.
We don't definitively know that though do we?
If nothing was shared and nothing was gleaned from the employee directly why would they know its a safeguarding issue?
I think it says more about the FA process that it isn't shared unless of course our club are being economical with the truth on what was shared - but yesterday it was said by JR in the meeting they only knew when it was made public to all.