[Sammy Spireite]

Zytok, on 22 June 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Just as a thought, if he is found guilty at the retrial, wont he have done his time anyway or will he be prohibited from certain occupations as a registered sex offender? What im saying is would he be automatically sacked if found guilty?

that depends on what the club have agreed with him/his team.

[Lincs Spireite]

Zytok, on 22 June 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Just as a thought, if he is found guilty at the retrial, wont he have done his time anyway or will he be prohibited from certain occupations as a registered sex offender? What im saying is would he be automatically sacked if found guilty?

As I understand it there is a clause in his contract that says exactly that. If found guilty he goes. Facts are they both have made errors of judgement.

[Guest_freelander2_*]

CFC91, on 22 June 2016 - 12:28 PM, said:

Seen on twitter someone saying the club has agreed to refund 3 season tickets for him and his 2 young children. Any others jumping ship?

That's too many.

[brianclose]

Goku, on 22 June 2016 - 11:54 AM, said:

Gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette mate

Or a few 'chicken periods'.

[Zytok]

mr. smith, on 22 June 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

mother Teresa? evil woman

More bothered about getting folks to turn catholic than actually treating them from some reports. Received millions of dollars from sponsors as well that was never accounted for. Ran a filthy hospice and any claims that she cured tumours to get her sainthood have never been substantiated.

[brianclose]

Zytok, on 22 June 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

More bothered about getting folks to turn catholic than actually treating them from some reports. Received millions of dollars from sponsors as well that was never accounted for. Ran a filthy hospice and any claims that she cured tumours to get her sainthood have never been substantiated.

Anyone who has actually done good all their life?

[Goku]

brianclose, on 22 June 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

Or a few 'chicken periods'.

No need to put inverted commas around those words chum, say what you see

Was considering putting "(or a vegan alternative)" but couldn't be bothered with the lol bacon and im having lamb for tea tonight replies.

[Toddhopper.]

Zytok, on 22 June 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

More bothered about getting folks to turn catholic than actually treating them from some reports. Received millions of dollars from sponsors as well that was never accounted for. Ran a filthy hospice and any claims that she cured tumours to get her sainthood have never been substantiated.

Your post is all factual but the last sentence was stating the B****Y obvious wasn't it?!😁

[cfc_scott]

LuSiVe, on 22 June 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

If she had only just stopped drinking though the last bit of alcohol wouldn't have made it into her system yet though? So she might have still been drunker than she appeared.

Your clutching at straws!

[firedodger]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 22 June 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

I don't wan to offer a defence for Ched but let's not try and make mother Theresa out of what is an absolute slapper.

All entitled to opinions and all that but does being an 'absolute slapper' mean you are deserving of being raped? Or sexually assaulted?

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

mr. smith, on 22 June 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

lets not try to make 'our ched' out to be Ghandi either.

I'm trying hard not to make Ched out to be anything Mr S.

My own take on it, if it had been the average bloke on the street who had done the same thing, it may bot have got to court as it wouldn't have been as high profile. I've been involved with a few at work and some appear to have had more evidence than this and they never went forward.

Having got to court and being found guilty, I think the sentence he got was probably more than the average bloke on the street would have got.

The average bloke wouldn't however have got the conviction quashed and/or a retrial, they would just have been guilty and served out the sentence, whatever new evidence came into play. It's only because of who he is and the money he/his father in law has that has got him to this point.

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

freelander2, on 22 June 2016 - 12:58 PM, said:

That's too many.

Are you saying we shouldn't have signed him or shouldn't have refunded?

[Middle East]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 22 June 2016 - 07:04 PM, said:

I'm trying hard not to make Ched out to be anything Mr S.

My own take on it, if it had been the average bloke on the street who had done the same thing, it may bot have got to court as it wouldn't have been as high profile. I've been involved with a few at work and some appear to have had more evidence than this and they never went forward.

Having got to court and being found guilty, I think the sentence he got was probably more than the average bloke on the street would have got.

The average bloke wouldn't however have got the conviction quashed and/or a retrial, they would just have been guilty and served out the sentence, whatever new evidence came into play. It's only because of who he is and the money he/his father in law has that has got him to this point.

The average bloke wouldn't have just been given a second chance before a re-trial at £2k per week either....

This post has been edited by Middle East: 22 June 2016 - 07:20 PM

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Middle East, on 22 June 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

The average bloke wouldn't have just been given a second chance before a re-trial at £2k per week either....

It's perhaps just a shame the chance wasn't elsewhere

[Middle East]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 22 June 2016 - 07:21 PM, said:

It's perhaps just a shame the chance wasn't elsewhere

Obviously other chairmen have given it a great deal of thought and arrived at a different conclusion.....

[Ernie Ernie Ernie]

Middle East, on 22 June 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

Obviously other chairmen have given it a great deal of thought and arrived at a different conclusion.....

Might be Wilson/Morgan that pushed it?

The rights and wrongs of it can be argued all day. If you can ignore all the off field stuff, if that's at all possible, we have Ched for 2kpw and we could have had paid 5k plus per week for Novak. One hammers the budget, one doesn't. If he can come back from having 4 years out the game and get back to anywhere near his previous level, he could be a bargain. If he wasn't carrying excessive baggage we wouldn't be anywhere near him signing for us. We might get a short term goalscorer before he moves on but we have the media circus that goes with it.It's probably a short term fix for both club and player.

I think because of him, we are almost a certainty to get a sky game, which would probably just about cover his wages for the year, if he stays that long.

It's a very brave decision the club have taken, I wouldn't have touched him with a barge pole, but having taken the decision I can't for the life of me see why it wasn't 2 years.

This post has been edited by Ernie Ernie Ernie: 22 June 2016 - 07:45 PM

[moondog]

Middle East, on 22 June 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

The average bloke wouldn't have just been given a second chance before a re-trial at £2k per week either....

Or been unable to pursue his trade for nearly two years since release from prison because of public opinion and probably forever without the conviction being quashed

[Middle East]

Ernie Ernie Ernie, on 22 June 2016 - 07:36 PM, said:

Might be Wilson/Morgan that pushed it?

I think the conversation went along the lines of....

Is he still any good?

Maybe

How much does he want?

£2k

How much do other good strikers want?

£4k or more

So we save money?

Probably but then again he's still a bit toxic

Bollux to toxic we can save money......tell the press we gave it deep thought!

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

Or been unable to pursue his trade for nearly two years since release from prison because of public opinion and probably forever without the conviction being quashed

Then MD for me you wait for the conviction to be quashed! In most professions I know if you stand charged or are suspected of serious wrongdoing you would be suspended from work (admittedly with pay)

This post has been edited by Middle East: 22 June 2016 - 07:48 PM

[Cartman]

moondog, on 22 June 2016 - 07:39 PM, said:

Or been unable to pursue his trade for nearly two years since release from prison because of public opinion

that's the thing

for rehabilitation to work people have got to be allowed to continue their career after serving their time, outside of professions that require a DBS check this should be true and it shouldn't make a difference what wages are on offer - comments like, it's ok for him to return to work, but in a warehouse or similar are just silly

however, the other side of rehabilitation is admitting your guilt and being remorseful which Ched obviously hasn't done (as he strongly believes his innocence)

at the moment he is an innocent man awaiting trial, but this is a huge gamble on the clubs part due to the media circus that will surround it

I am comfortable with him getting a second chance if innocent and I hope that if he is found guilty again he is sacked on the spot - but the club are taking a risk and we will not know the full effects of this signing for some weeks

[moondog]

Middle East, on 22 June 2016 - 07:44 PM, said:

I think the conversation went along the lines of....

Is he still any good?

Maybe

How much does he want?

£2k

How much do other good strikers want?

£4k or more

So we save money?

Probably but then again he's still a bit toxic

Bollux to toxic we can save money......tell the press we gave it deep thought!


Then MD for me you wait for the conviction to be quashed! In most professions I know if you stand charged or are suspected of serious wrongdoing you would be suspended from work (admittedly with pay)

We have waited for the conviction to be quashed, not sensible to suspend over an incident five years ago whilst employed with someone else and where we have a strong indication if he's guilty or not