Young footballer 'abused by Blackpool FC scout'

Blackpool FC denied the club was liable for the alleged assault

A young footballer was abused as a teen by a convicted paedophile who was "a well-known scout for Blackpool Football Club", the High Court has heard.

The man, referred to as DSN for legal reasons, is suing Blackpool FC over allegations he was sexually abused when he was 13 years old by Frank Roper.

He told the High Court in London he was on a youth tour in the 1980s when the sexual assault took place.

Blackpool FC denies it is liable for the alleged historical assault.

DSN alleges Roper, who died in 2005, sexually abused him and "many other young footballers" while working as a scout at the club.

His lawyers say Roper "played a key role" in recruiting players to the School of Excellence, which trained players who were too young to formally sign with the Seasiders.

The court heard DSN "finally went to the police in 2016", after two former players spoke publicly about "the abuse they had suffered at the hands of two paedophiles... Barry Bennell and Mr Roper".

'Key recruiting sergeant'

DSN's barrister, James Counsell QC, said: "Even if there were no contract of employment... Mr Roper had worked for the defendant for many years... and had established a position of considerable influence and trust at the club."

He said Roper ran a "feeder team" for Blackpool in south Manchester, and witnesses said he had "his own room at the club" and he had "the run of the place".

Blackpool FC was unaware at the time Roper "had four separate criminal convictions for indecently assaulting young males", Mr Counsell told the court.

Mr Counsell concluded the club was legally responsible for the alleged assault and DSN was entitled to damages because it was Mr Roper's "position of authority as the leader of the tour party and respected scout at the club, which enabled him to abuse the claimant".

In written submissions, Blackpool's barrister Michael Kent QC denied the club was liable for the alleged assault, and also argues that DSN's delay in bringing the legal action has caused it "significant prejudice" in defending the case.

The case continues.