[fursty-ferret]

Goku, on 21 June 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

Well there's different levels of drunk I guess. I'd wager most of us on here have had drunken sex but hopefully not many have gone back with someone only to find out they're basically paralytic and still gone through with it.

Well if you look at the evidence from the cctv footage of them walking into the hotel foyer , she certainly doesnt look paralytic at that point , if you take the evidence of the night porter who was listening at the hotel room door , she was certainly not paralytic then either. The amount of alcohol she consumed was stated as 2 and half times the drink drive limit , hardly enough to put you totally out of control , especially when according to her friends she regularly drunk that amount,wether more drink was given to her in the hotel room who knows , but surely Clayton McDonald would be as guilty as Ched Evans if this was the case .
Going on what evidence is (or was) out there on the internet then all im saying is its hard to understand how Ched Evans was found guilty yet Clayton MacDonald wasnt , how ever there may be evidence which isnt available on line which puts a different light on matters , i dont know , clearly he was found guilty at the time and the jury heard all the evidence available , but that verdict has been ruled as unsafe and has been quashed and he is now in the eyes of the law innocent

[Wooly]

fursty-ferret, on 21 June 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

So you've been out on the town , you've had a fair few drinks and you call for a kebab , an attractive girl who's drunk approaches you in the kebab shop and says to you "where you going ? I am coming with you... " you reply to her " not tonight because your clearly drunk , i will get you a taxi home ".. fair play to you if your being totally honest.
Unfortunately your probably in a minority , the vast majority of men of the nightclub attending age group , certainly in the 80s when i was doing the clubs around town , would see this as an opportunity too good to pass up , a combination of large amounts of alcohol and testostorone dont lead to the wisest of decisions being made.
If you believe the narrative of the " Jock with his own axe to grind " and most of what he says in the podcast is undisputed then its hard to see how Ched Evans was guilty , yet Clayton MacDonald wasnt , end of the day the truth will come out in October , clearly there is new evidence, of which we arent aware, otherwise they wouldnt be having a new trial

Exactly. He wasn't and still isn't guilty, i'd say good luck to the bloke who's life has been made a complete nightmare for the last four years. Some of you lot ought to be thinking of coming down a few feet from your saddleflaps and think how you're going to feel when he is fully vindicated in October. Which he will.

A very good signing for you, potentially astronomic in fact.

[Goku]

fursty-ferret, on 21 June 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Well if you look at the evidence from the cctv footage of them walking into the hotel foyer , she certainly doesnt look paralytic at that point , if you take the evidence of the night porter who was listening at the hotel room door , she was certainly not paralytic then either. The amount of alcohol she consumed was stated as 2 and half times the drink drive limit , hardly enough to put you totally out of control , especially when according to her friends she regularly drunk that amount,wether more drink was given to her in the hotel room who knows , but surely Clayton McDonald would be as guilty as Ched Evans if this was the case .
Going on what evidence is (or was) out there on the internet then all im saying is its hard to understand how Ched Evans was found guilty yet Clayton MacDonald wasnt , how ever there may be evidence which isnt available on line which puts a different light on matters , i dont know , clearly he was found guilty at the time and the jury heard all the evidence available , but that verdict has been ruled as unsafe and has been quashed and he is now in the eyes of the law innocent

Fair reply buddy. I'll be honest it's ages since I've been through the case notes and I've done it that many times that I've come to the conclusion my mind is a sieve and it's time to stop trying.

[longeatonspireite]

Wooly, on 21 June 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

Exactly. He wasn't and still isn't guilty, i'd say good luck to the bloke who's life has been made a complete nightmare for the last four years. Some of you lot ought to be thinking of coming down a few feet from your saddleflaps and think how you're going to feel when he is fully vindicated in October. Which he will.

A very good signing for you, potentially astronomic in fact.

I agree, time to let him get on with his life. When he is found "not guilty" what happens to the time in prison bit? who will pay for that?

[moondog]

longeatonspireite, on 21 June 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

I agree, time to let him get on with his life. When he is found "not guilty" what happens to the time in prison bit? who will pay for that?

Ultimately the tax payer, along with the cost of both trials

[longeatonspireite]

moondog, on 21 June 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

Ultimately the tax payer, along with the cost of both trials

Ched could pay Dave Allen for giving him a chance. A bit more off of the deficit

[Search & Destroy]

Wooly, on 21 June 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

Exactly. He wasn't and still isn't guilty, i'd say good luck to the bloke who's life has been made a complete nightmare for the last four years. Some of you lot ought to be thinking of coming down a few feet from your saddleflaps and think how you're going to feel when he is fully vindicated in October. Which he will.

A very good signing for you, potentially astronomic in fact.

Exactly where I am on this one.

[Stoptalkingbol]

moondog, on 21 June 2016 - 03:11 PM, said:

Ultimately the tax payer, along with the cost of both trials

We could always have a whip round to help pay cheds future father in law his money back if the retrial did happen to fail.

[bifocart]

Benno Spire, on 21 June 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

I have given plenty of thought about this signing before giving a knee-jerk comment. These are my own personal thoughts.

Ched Evans is a high profile media case as shown in previous attempts by him to sign for a football club. This will have many positive and negative effects on Chesterfield FC. Everything we do do will now be under public scrutiny. The first public pre season friendly will see a media frenzy in attendance and many of the games up till his trial will probably see a mix of supporting fans, unsupportive fans, potential political activists and feminist groups. We may even see anger towards Chesterfield fans from opposition fans. In a sadistic sort of way, it may increase attendances due to people attending just to vent anger.

As it stands today, legally Ched Evans is not guilty for the alleged crime and potentially just guilty of stupidity and as such should be allowed to ply his trade, however morally and until proven not guilty in a court is potentially damaged goods and any agreement should have been delayed until after his trial.

However, CFC have taken a very, very brave gamble by offering a contract now because potentially from a football point of view he is an excellent signing probably on the cheap for what we are getting, because if he is found not guilty in October he would have had many more high paid offers on the table. if he is found not guilty and performs very well I would imagine he would be sold in January as other clubs with bigger budgets would feel the heat is off, he is potentially scoring for fun so it may prove a nice windfall from a player sale from nothing. Unfortunately, none of us have a crystal ball to see into the future.

I personally welcome Ched to the club as it stands at the moment purely from a football point of view, and a big town fan as I hope he can make a positive impact on our performances next season. He will get my full support as will every other Chesterfield player when they cross that white line as I feel being negative during a match will be detrimental towards my team.

However I will expect his behaviour off the pitch to be impeccable as he has lots of browny points to redeem.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions on Ched Evans and I fully understand that.

If however he is found guilty of rape in his trial in October then Chesterfield FC will be left in a mess, as another player will not be able to be signed, we would look foolish for giving a convicted rapist a platform and it may take a long time for fans of other clubs to forgive.

However if he scores goals that provide success and he is found not guilty, then the club may have just pulled off a masterstroke.

I hope the Directors have fully looked into the details of his trial and are aware of the new evidence to be sure that they have made the right decision.

as someone else has posted, the club may benefit from additional early season televised games and with it additional income.

many celebrities have said before, negative publicity is as good as positive publicity as it keeps them in the limelight.

an interesting few months ahead as a Chesterfield fan.

You say: "In a sadistic sort of way, it may increase attendances due to people attending just to vent anger....
as someone else has posted, the club may benefit from additional early season televised games and with it additional income...many celebrities have said before, negative publicity is as good as positive publicity as it keeps them in the limelight."

If this is the case, and if our board are thinking this as well, then we've really hit rock bottom, and we should take our place alongside the freak circusses, the jeremy kyle show and the other tawdry spectacles where tragedy and human failings are converted into hard cash. The thought of this club scratching around in the muck for publicity and dirty money in this way is beyond painful. And before anyone trots out the "this is the real world, get real" line, i'd point out that if it is the real world its because we stand by and allow it to be so.

This post has been edited by bifocart: 21 June 2016 - 03:36 PM

[bifocart]

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.

i agree, the club are treating us like idiots while indulging in the worst excesses of boy's club boardroom power outside the crass plutocracy of the premier league.

[longeatonspireite]

bifocart, on 21 June 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

You say: "In a sadistic sort of way, it may increase attendances due to people attending just to vent anger....
as someone else has posted, the club may benefit from additional early season televised games and with it additional income...many celebrities have said before, negative publicity is as good as positive publicity as it keeps them in the limelight."

If this is the case, and if our board are thinking this as well, then we've really hit rock bottom, and we should take our place alongside the freak circusses, the jeremy kyle show and the other tawdry spectacles where tragedy and human failings are converted into hard cash. The thought of this club scratching around in the muck for publicity and dirty money in this way is beyond painful. And before anyone trots out the "this is the real world, get real" line, i'd point out that if it is the real world its because we stand by and allow it to be so.

I think the Board have got more important worries than plan a transfer hoping that it will create publicity. All they want is for it to work. They have taken a massive gamble but I personally think it will work.

[Lincs Spireite]

bifocart, on 21 June 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

You say: "In a sadistic sort of way, it may increase attendances due to people attending just to vent anger....
as someone else has posted, the club may benefit from additional early season televised games and with it additional income...many celebrities have said before, negative publicity is as good as positive publicity as it keeps them in the limelight."

If this is the case, and if our board are thinking this as well, then we've really hit rock bottom, and we should take our place alongside the freak circusses, the jeremy kyle show and the other tawdry spectacles where tragedy and human failings are converted into hard cash. The thought of this club scratching around in the muck for publicity and dirty money in this way is beyond painful. And before anyone trots out the "this is the real world, get real" line, i'd point out that if it is the real world its because we stand by and allow it to be so.

I don't believe they've thought that deep into it. Probably mates doing mates a favour. We will help you back into the game, you get us up league table.

[Elmer Fudd's Thick Lip]

Wooly, on 21 June 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

Exactly. He wasn't and still isn't guilty, i'd say good luck to the bloke who's life has been made a complete nightmare for the last four years. Some of you lot ought to be thinking of coming down a few feet from your saddleflaps and think how you're going to feel when he is fully vindicated in October. Which he will.

A very good signing for you, potentially astronomic in fact.

A great post, from a Stag as well!!

[Misnomer]

Wooly, on 21 June 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

Exactly. He wasn't and still isn't guilty, i'd say good luck to the bloke who's life has been made a complete nightmare for the last four years. Some of you lot ought to be thinking of coming down a few feet from your saddleflaps and think how you're going to feel when he is fully vindicated in October. Which he will.

A very good signing for you, potentially astronomic in fact.

I'll tell you exactly how I'll feel: i couldn't give a flying fk, pal....innocent or guilty (again). He's a footballer, nothing more; some egotistical pr1ck who thinks because he can kick a ball a bit better than some other ball kicking person, that he's somehow immune to moral conduct.

At the end of the day, most footballers are mercenaries, in it for the money and nothing else. Ched Evans won't think twice about chesterfield fc once he's back in the limelight, scoring goals and looking for something bigger and better; likewise, i won't think about him or any other modern footballer who plays for us.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

bifocart, on 21 June 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

You say: "In a sadistic sort of way, it may increase attendances due to people attending just to vent anger....
as someone else has posted, the club may benefit from additional early season televised games and with it additional income...many celebrities have said before, negative publicity is as good as positive publicity as it keeps them in the limelight."

If this is the case, and if our board are thinking this as well, then we've really hit rock bottom, and we should take our place alongside the freak circusses, the jeremy kyle show and the other tawdry spectacles where tragedy and human failings are converted into hard cash. The thought of this club scratching around in the muck for publicity and dirty money in this way is beyond painful. And before anyone trots out the "this is the real world, get real" line, i'd point out that if it is the real world its because we stand by and allow it to be so.

A great term, the real world.

If you take what is known about Evans and what he's faced with later this year, and apply that to any candidate in the real world, how many businesses would employ that person? Perhaps I live a sheltered life, but I suspect the vast majority would move on to the next candidate without any hesitation.

I wonder how many employees at A&S Leisure, DCJ Insurance & Ideal Cleaning have similar backgrounds to Evans?

I think the biggest disappointment in all of this is how desperate we appear to be.

[Misnomer]

fursty-ferret, on 21 June 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

So you've been out on the town , you've had a fair few drinks and you call for a kebab , an attractive girl who's drunk approaches you in the kebab shop and says to you "where you going ? I am coming with you... " you reply to her " not tonight because your clearly drunk , i will get you a taxi home ".. fair play to you if your being totally honest.
Unfortunately your probably in a minority , the vast majority of men of the nightclub attending age group , certainly in the 80s when i was doing the clubs around town , would see this as an opportunity too good to pass up , a combination of large amounts of alcohol and testostorone dont lead to the wisest of decisions being made.
If you believe the narrative of the " Jock with his own axe to grind " and most of what he says in the podcast is undisputed then its hard to see how Ched Evans was guilty , yet Clayton MacDonald wasnt , end of the day the truth will come out in October , clearly there is new evidence, of which we arent aware, otherwise they wouldnt be having a new trial

Yes, mate, I'm being honest; I've done it a couple of times. I remember being in Faliraki (?) back in '97...me and a few mates were sat having a drink, late one evening; some lass over the street stumbled along, clearly smashed, and eventually laid down on the floor, star shaped. Some random scumbag was walking past, noted she was out cold, then preceded to pull down her jeans and slide his hand into her knickers. I was disgusted and we let him know it....if memory serves me right he told us to fk off. If we wouldn't have been there, i think he would have raped her. Personally, I think you have serious issues if you are willing to take advantage of a drunken woman, no matter what the circumstances; why does morality go out of the window just because you've had a few....

[Spireite61]

Must admit today at work has been a bit of an eye opener. I work in a large office in Sheffield and am fairly open about being a Town fan. Generally the reaction is positive even when we have played and beaten United or Wednesday.

However today I have faced all day having to try and either defend the decision or admit that I would not have appointed Evans and hope we have a clause to get rid if he is found guilty - even to colleagues who are not really football fans.

Amongst non CFC fans this has not done our reputation any good at all, at least in the short term, and really hope it pays off.

Also should Evans be found guilty then I assume he will have deemed to have served his sentence so would still be able to play. In those circumstances would we want to keep him or get rid even if he's scoring regularly? Personally I think we'd have to let him go, despite the problems that would then cause up to the January window.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

longeatonspireite, on 21 June 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

I think the Board have got more important worries than plan a transfer hoping that it will create publicity. All they want is for it to work. They have taken a massive gamble but I personally think it will work.

I would guess there is something written into the contract whereby it can be terminated if he was found to be guilty which is extremely unlikely. Having taken the decision we should have given him 2 years so we actually make money out of him

[moondog]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 21 June 2016 - 06:29 PM, said:

I would guess there is something written into the contract whereby it can be terminated if he was found to be guilty which is extremely unlikely. Having taken the decision we should have given him 2 years so we actually make money out of him

I'm guessing the option of a second year is in our favour like it was with Jimmy Ryan

[Tips M'Gee]

A cynic might put an hypothetical argument this way, three people who don't really care about a club or its reputation sign a player that potentially the club is going to take a lot of flack for. Season goes on, said player (who is earning substantially lower than his potential market value) bangs in a load of goals and suddenly in the fickle world of football is offered out to clubs with wads of cash looking for a striker. Said three men sell said player and earn a wad of cash. Manager of club gets none of the money to re-invest and club still makes a huge loss.

That could never happen...