Search results

He was found guilty of rape, by a civil court. Yes - not a criminal conviction but certainly not innocent.

Does it matter? Why don't you ask the Clyde fans / womens team / sponsors etc.

Why? I am speaking generally. You're criticising Palace for 'signing' him after he had been arrested, but not enough evidence for the police to bring a criminal case. But clubs have continued to play a player who is on bail or under investigation for serious sexual offences. Is there any difference?

Genuine question - what's the difference between this and then continuing to play a player who is on bail for sexual assault offences?