[Misnomer]

fursty-ferret, on 20 June 2016 - 11:05 PM, said:

well worth a listen

It wasn't....some Jock who sounds like he has his own axe to grind. Great advice from him; alas, how does one avoid drunk women on a night out? That's one bored New York firefighter......

What I find really interesting is the behaviour of both of the men. She's clearly in a state, fallen over, (to me, she'd appear to be very drunk); according to Clayton she said "I'm going with you", after just meeting him......Sorry, but my reaction wouldn't be: I'm going to take advantage of this situation and have sex with her...I'd think: she needs to be put in a taxi and taken home.

[ELTON 2020]

dim view, on 21 June 2016 - 05:30 AM, said:

..... it's an extension of the high risk policy to tap the pool of higher level players who can no longer get a contract at that level. It's not worked for Angel, SEB, or Herd. The policy has wasted money so far.

Back to basics - signing good quality L1 players - is too simple for our policy makers.

.....gary liddle?

[longeatonspireite]

moondog, on 21 June 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

I think there has to be a retrial given that the prosection, the Crown, has opposed the significance of the new evidence,

It could well be that the case exposes serious deficiencies within the CPS and/or Police and possibly the Court of Appeal, which is in the public interest to expose. Whilst not condoning his behaviour that night and certainly not rape, Evans could actually be doing the Country a favour for standing his ground over his conviction. The Criminal Cases Review Commision don't make such decisions lightly.

If town waited until after the retrial, they wouldn't have a chance of signing him.

There was no such furore when we signed Terrell Forbes and his alleged victim was underage.


http://news.bbc.co.u...don/4041953.stm


I'm happy to back our manager who knows him well on this one.

And me!

[dim view]

Bonnyman, on 21 June 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

Difference is Evans is not a crock like those 3, his body will be fine at 27 and there is no reason why he cannot be better than before,I doubt there is any evidence to prove his body or football will suffer, I hope his previous season starts now though.

Thanks Bonny. You have restored my optimism. It's his resolve that will be tested, not his fitness. Perhaps we have found the only practical way of effectively replacing Novak. I don't know sufficient about him to know whether he can play as a '1', but maybe he can even form an effective partnership with SEB. It might even be the case that his wages are so low that we can pay off SEB and be no worse off in terms of options. Interesting times, off the field and on. I think now there will only 2 more signings, Anderson and a reserve goalie.

[Spire-ite]

dim view, on 21 June 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

Thanks Bonny. You have restored my optimism. It's his resolve that will be tested, not his fitness. Perhaps we have found the only practical way of effectively replacing Novak. I don't know sufficient about him to know whether he can play as a '1', but maybe he can even form an effective partnership with SEB. It might even be the case that his wages are so low that we can pay off SEB and be no worse off in terms of options. Interesting times, off the field and on. I think now there will only 2 more signings, Anderson and a reserve goalie.

We need a right back, and cover for left back too, at least!

[stevie_b]

paulwardle, on 20 June 2016 - 10:49 PM, said:

This is a topic that is simply going to run and run and opinions will be divided.

The legal position seems fairly clear. The original conviction has been deemed unsafe due to new evidence and a retrial ordered. Evans has already spent time in prison for something that he now at this moment in time, is not guilty of. He seems to most to have to prove his innocence rather than the cps proving his guilt. There is no denial of his actions, rather than what appears to be a question of consent or not.

People say he should not be playing again until after the trial, but he's already been to prison, and why should he be denied the chance to work again? As for the role model bit, well some footballers are and can be that, others can't, it's the same in all walks of life!

Evans wanders around Alderley Edge in South Manchester regularly, yet I don't believe that people harass him in the street, ignore him or vilify him. Why therefore should we on this message board or within the media until he is found guilty or otherwise? Clearly new evidence has come to light and the courts have decided that he needs to be retried.

The consequences of Chesterfields decision to employ Evans will no doubt play out over the coming months. Whether it is a good or bad decision hinges on two main areas:

1. If he's found guilty at a retrial it will have proved to be a bad decision.
2. If he's lost his football ability it will again be seen as a gamble that hasn't paid off.

If he is found to be innocent and scores the goals clearly he has been capable of in the past, then it will be a great piece of business. That said I am more concerned that we have the right players around him to make sure he gets the ball!!

At 27 he ought to be a good signing, but we will only know sometime in October, until then he needs to get his head down and repay the faith shown in him by Chesterfield in giving him what is likely to be his last chance.

This is an inherently sensible post. Thank you.

[Spireite-Karl]

Spire-ite, on 21 June 2016 - 08:49 AM, said:

We need a right back, and cover for left back too, at least!

And the midfield is about as creative as England's.

[shaun1866]

Please please please no one start that chant "ched Evans s***s who he wants" at any of the games for gods sake.

[bifocart]

moondog, on 21 June 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

I think there has to be a retrial given that the prosecution, the Crown, has opposed the significance of the new evidence,

It could well be that the case exposes serious deficiencies within the CPS and/or Police and possibly the Court of Appeal, which is in the public interest to expose. Whilst not condoning his behaviour that night and certainly not rape, Evans could actually be doing the Country a favour for standing his ground over his conviction. The Criminal Cases Review Commision don't make such decisions lightly.

If town waited until after the retrial, they wouldn't have a chance of signing him.

There was no such furore when we signed Terrell Forbes and his alleged victim was underage.


http://news.bbc.co.u...don/4041953.stm


I'm happy to back our manager who knows him well on this one.

Yes,something good might somehow come out of all this....certainly any deficiencies within the CPS should be highlighted and dealt with, including their effect on witnesses.

Hadn't known much about the Forbes case, so thanks for the link...reading it through it seems he was acquitted and certainly wasnt up for retrial at the time of our interest, so a very different set of circumstances.
And we might question wether Wilson's previous working relationship with Evans is undermining his objectivity. Thier former employers are still keeping quiet to the best of my knowledge.

[Search & Destroy]

shaun1866, on 21 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Please please please no one start that chant "ched Evans s***s who he wants" at any of the games for gods sake.

If he's our player and if there are abusive chants from the opposition then there will be abusive chants back from ours.

Thats football.

If he's found to be innocent, then " 5 years, and he did **** all" should suffice

[Nerima Spireite]

What really sticks in my craw in all of this is not the actual signing of Ched Evans; it does make me feel uncomfortable having someone still with a question mark above his morality signing for the club I have cherished all my life, and I do think it is a risk based on the possibility of a guilty verdict in the retrial and the fact that he may have lost whatever prowess as a footballer he may have possessed before all these shenanigans began. The first case far outstrips the second in terms of the fact that if found again guilty, the name of our beloved club is darkened by those in power. What irks me is that despite the fact there'd be obvious reservations and even hostile opposition from supporters who've cheered on our team through the darkest days, especially those with kids searching for role models to identify with - the powers that be have deemed it alright to employ this man without even a token act of acknowledgment for those reservations. They show NO recognition of the feelings of us fans who hold Chesterfield F.C. dearly in our hearts and are generally sticking two fingers up to anyone who cares about where this club is going. They hold us in contempt. That's what I'm so mad about.

[Sammy Spireite]

paulwardle, on 20 June 2016 - 10:49 PM, said:

This is a topic that is simply going to run and run and opinions will be divided.

The legal position seems fairly clear. The original conviction has been deemed unsafe due to new evidence and a retrial ordered. Evans has already spent time in prison for something that he now at this moment in time, is not guilty of. He seems to most to have to prove his innocence rather than the cps proving his guilt. There is no denial of his actions, rather than what appears to be a question of consent or not.

People say he should not be playing again until after the trial, but he's already been to prison, and why should he be denied the chance to work again? As for the role model bit, well some footballers are and can be that, others can't, it's the same in all walks of life!

Evans wanders around Alderley Edge in South Manchester regularly, yet I don't believe that people harass him in the street, ignore him or vilify him. Why therefore should we on this message board or within the media until he is found guilty or otherwise? Clearly new evidence has come to light and the courts have decided that he needs to be retried.

The consequences of Chesterfields decision to employ Evans will no doubt play out over the coming months. Whether it is a good or bad decision hinges on two main areas:

1. If he's found guilty at a retrial it will have proved to be a bad decision.
2. If he's lost his football ability it will again be seen as a gamble that hasn't paid off.

If he is found to be innocent and scores the goals clearly he has been capable of in the past, then it will be a great piece of business. That said I am more concerned that we have the right players around him to make sure he gets the ball!!

At 27 he ought to be a good signing, but we will only know sometime in October, until then he needs to get his head down and repay the faith shown in him by Chesterfield in giving him what is likely to be his last chance.

Fantastic post

[Search & Destroy]

Nerima Spireite, on 21 June 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

What really sticks in my craw in all of this is not the actual signing of Ched Evans; it does make me feel uncomfortable having someone still with a question mark above his morality signing for the club I have cherished all my life, and I do think it is a risk based on the possibility of a guilty verdict in the retrial and the fact that he may have lost whatever prowess as a footballer he may have possessed before all these shenanigans began. The first case far outstrips the second in terms of the fact that if found again guilty, the name of our beloved club is darkened by those in power. What irks me is that despite the fact there'd be obvious reservations and even hostile opposition from supporters who've cheered on our team through the darkest days, especially those with kids searching for role models to identify with - the powers that be have deemed it alright to employ this man without even a token act of acknowledgment for those reservations. They show NO recognition of the feelings of us fans who hold Chesterfield F.C. dearly in our hearts and are generally sticking two fingers up to anyone who cares about where this club is going. They hold us in contempt. That's what I'm so mad about.

http://www.skysports...-on-rape-charge

Did you have the same concerns here?

[Lincs Spireite]

Some footballers take advantage of females. That is fact like it or not, he is not the first and certainly won't be the last. Some very high profile players are included in that list. It is also true that some females want to ' pull ' a footballer for many reasons, one of them being access to fame and money. Rumour has it that the woman in Ched Evans case was well aware of what was happening to the point of texting the fact to her mates. This puts a totally different slant on the case.

[Nerima Spireite]

Search and Destroy, on 21 June 2016 - 10:07 AM, said:

http://www.skysports...-on-rape-charge

Did you have the same concerns here?

Yes, initially. But there were differences in the circumstances.

This post has been edited by Nerima Spireite: 21 June 2016 - 10:31 AM

[Search & Destroy]

Nerima Spireite, on 21 June 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

Yes.

I don't recall the same outcry though, far worse what Forbes was accused off

[Johnnyspireite7]

Search and Destroy, on 21 June 2016 - 10:29 AM, said:

I don't recall the same outcry though, far worse what Forbes was accused off

Agreed but Forbes had been through the court systems a decade before he joined us, Evans's case is still ongoing.

[Westbars Spireite]

shaun1866, on 21 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

Please please please no one start that chant "ched Evans s***s who he wants" at any of the games for gods sake.

Witless and unfunny.

[moondog]

bifocart, on 21 June 2016 - 09:47 AM, said:

Yes,something good might somehow come out of all this....certainly any deficiencies within the CPS should be highlighted and dealt with, including their effect on witnesses.

Hadn't known much about the Forbes case, so thanks for the link...reading it through it seems he was acquitted and certainly wasnt up for retrial at the time of our interest, so a very different set of circumstances.
And we might question wether Wilson's previous working relationship with Evans is undermining his objectivity. Thier former employers are still keeping quiet to the best of my knowledge.

As stated he's only up for re-trial l as I understand it because of the CPS stance, they got it wrong in the Forbes case and the proceedings avoided a miscarriage of justice.

My point is less about this but more to do with the fact Forbes behaviour with was arguably worse than Evans, if he's found innocent.

I'd say Danny knows enough to judge this as a gamble well worth taking, fair play to him I say for having the courage to make such a decision

[moondog]

Johnnyspireite7, on 21 June 2016 - 10:37 AM, said:

Agreed but Forbes had been through the court systems a decade before he joined us, Evans's case is still ongoing.

Yes and Evans behaviour was over 5 years ago, it's not Evans fault the case is still within the court system and public eye, as anyone who beleived they were innocent and had the resources to challenge a career ruining decision would surely do the same