Jump to content

If Evans is now found not guilty at retrial would you be ok with us signing him?

HarryBosch
 Share

If Evans is found not guilty would you now sign him?  

174 members have voted

  1. 1. If Evans is found not guilty would you now be OK with us signing him?

    • I would and I would have done last time round
      65
    • I was against it last time round but would be OK with us signing him now if not guilty
      32
    • I was against it last time and I still wouldn't want us to sign him
      71
    • I was for it last time but wouldn't want to sign him if now (you never know?)
      6

Recommended Posts

singe John Sheridan

singe

Posted
Posted

Because journalist never spin the story..... He knew simple as, but we don't know never will. LJ as an innocent doesn't stack up. One of most calculating people in football. He would dump Bristol City tomorrow for a bigger fish.

 

I wouldn't sign Evans now as recent weeks put the Latics feel back in club. Shez actually has signed Royle type players point to prove types. Main, Holloway, Palmer. Success rate high.

Agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

palmer1 David Eyres

palmer1

Posted
Posted

But they will still happen. Even if he is Innocent.

There is no amount of money that would be worth all that :censored: again.

The difference being that a petition for an innocent man is worth nothing.

 

A press circus for an innocent man starting his life again is not the same as when he was considered guilty & with the right spun Latics don't have to look bad.

 

Hate for an innocent man? Haters gonna hate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nzlatic Rick Holden

nzlatic

Posted
Posted

He hasn't played football for 4 years and will be going through a trial again. There's also be the accompanying media spotlight.

 

From a physical and mental point of view, with our limited budget, how anyone can think he'd be a good signing is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
peanuts Rick Holden

peanuts

Posted
Posted

Can't imagine Sheridan would be too against it. This is the guy that signed Lee Hughes and made Luke McCormack his captain at Plymouth...

and has possibley learned his lesson with Hughes alegedgedley being a disruptive influence near the end

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Crusoe Rick Holden

Crusoe

Posted
Posted

He hasn't played football for 4 years and will be going through a trial again. There's also be the accompanying media spotlight.

 

From a physical and mental point of view, with our limited budget, how anyone can think he'd be a good signing is beyond me.

Leaving aside any other consideration, this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
24hoursfromtulsehill David Eyres

24hoursfromtulsehill

Posted
Posted

He hasn't played football for 4 years and will be going through a trial again. There's also be the accompanying media spotlight.

 

From a physical and mental point of view, with our limited budget, how anyone can think he'd be a good signing is beyond me.

Yep. ^That.

 

How long to organise another trial? Six months? A year? I'm quite happy for Ched's professional football career to be effectively timed out by legal action. What league are Chester City in these days? How about Stockport or Tranmere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
singe John Sheridan

singe

Posted
Posted

The thing some are forgetting, claiming he is innocent, is the there is a retrial in preparation. So if the situation was that he was our player currently, and probably preparing to go tocourt, he would almost certainly would have been suspended. Nearly all clubs would do the same in that scenario. Look at the grief Sunderland got because they continued to play him whilst waiting for trial (and how long was that).

So he is someone preparing to defend himself in court, and the normal term is "concentrating on proving his innocence" or some suchlike, but suspended. Of course, he could still be convicted.

 

So he will have player, who has had a 5 year playing career so far, will have been out of the game for longer than that, around 6 years at trial, and will be approaching 30. His career will amount to 100 games in 10 years by the time it comes to trial or is dropped.

 

As I have said previously and others say above, he is not worth it on football and employment grounds alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wozzer Earl Barrett

Wozzer

Posted
Posted

The thing some are forgetting, claiming he is innocent, is the there is a retrial in preparation. So if the situation was that he was our player currently, and probably preparing to go tocourt, he would almost certainly would have been suspended. Nearly all clubs would do the same in that scenario. Look at the grief Sunderland got because they continued to play him whilst waiting for trial (and how long was that).

So he is someone preparing to defend himself in court, and the normal term is "concentrating on proving his innocence" or some suchlike, but suspended. Of course, he could still be convicted.

 

So he will have player, who has had a 5 year playing career so far, will have been out of the game for longer than that, around 6 years at trial, and will be approaching 30. His career will amount to 100 games in 10 years by the time it comes to trial or is dropped.

 

As I have said previously and others say above, he is not worth it on football and employment grounds alone.

Some are also forgetting that he has yet to be recharged. The clock is ticking......

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buckshawlatic Earl Barrett

Buckshawlatic

Posted
Posted (edited)

Some are also forgetting that he has yet to be recharged. The clock is ticking......

There's no time limit on charging indictable offences only summary ones,

 

EDIT - I stand corrected it has to be done within 2 months for retrials according to CPS guide lines website. Not sure how long it's been so far

Edited by JWhite101
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stagger Lee Earl Barrett

Stagger Lee

Posted
Posted

For his sake I hope it goes to a retrial because as this thread shows even though he is, as of now, an innocent man with no convictions so many people think he is still guilty at least in some way. Look at the title of this thread FFS!

 

His career is never going to reach the levels it may well have done and his whole life is still in front of him - so if I was him I would say bring on the retrial and let everyone have a look at this new evidence.

 

Rape is such a horrible crime and women need our support and understanding to help take on the task of bringing the guilty to trial, It is not helped by having trials that have not had the full facts exposed to the searing light of the justice system.

 

I personally suspect she will avoid a retrial by claiming she just wants to get on with her life ..... something this thread proves Ched can't.

 

Bear in mind being outside of the UK we perhaps have more access to 'previous claims and previous history - allegedly' of the involved that is not printable in blighty and we don't want to get this website in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
24hoursfromtulsehill David Eyres

24hoursfromtulsehill

Posted
Posted

For his sake I hope it goes to a retrial because as this thread shows even though he is, as of now, an innocent man with no convictions so many people think he is still guilty at least in some way. Look at the title of this thread FFS!

 

His career is never going to reach the levels it may well have done and his whole life is still in front of him - so if I was him I would say bring on the retrial and let everyone have a look at this new evidence.

 

Rape is such a horrible crime and women need our support and understanding to help take on the task of bringing the guilty to trial, It is not helped by having trials that have not had the full facts exposed to the searing light of the justice system.

 

I personally suspect she will avoid a retrial by claiming she just wants to get on with her life ..... something this thread proves Ched can't.

 

Bear in mind being outside of the UK we perhaps have more access to 'previous claims and previous history - allegedly' of the involved that is not printable in blighty and we don't want to get this website in trouble.

 

"Previous sexual history" is an interesting concept in rape trials. If you're prone to breaking your electrical goods through misuse, does that mean you're not wronged when they're taken in a burglary? A very crass analogy, but it's all I've got time for.

 

The posh Gloucester farmer student rape trial ended when it was established that the victim had previously been involved in group sex. Apparently down there in the countryside, if you're up for group sex once with one group of men, you're up for group sex at all times, with whoever. Really? Is Ched's defence that this woman has previously behaved in X way, and therefore can no longer claim to have been raped? I'm just not buying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...