Ched Evans

[BensGrandad]

His father in law offered to cover any sponsorship shortfall. Wouldnt it be ironic if his father in law bought Oldham or another club or became a major shareholder, I am not sure of his actual wealth.

 

[BensGrandad]

Whichever club decides to employ him, assuming one does, they will need to run it past their sponsors first. Clubs seems to have a huge number of different sponsors

And why have I got a thumbs down for the Portsmouth Dockyard League post, you got something against amateur football too!?

Nothing to do with me I didnt apply it.

 

[Springal]

Do sponsors not have some sort of contract with whoever they are sponsoring? Surely they can only pull out without having to pay themselves out if the sponsored party break one of the terms of the sponsorship? If this is the case (and if it is not then why is it not like this?) then the clubs would know what sponsors would pull out and leave a funding void.

Will usually have a clause around brand being brought into disrepute etc... I think you could successfully argue that employing Evans would do that

 

[Triggaaar]

Nothing to do with me I didnt apply it.

Er, yes you did, post #1974. And you've made it look like you're quoting SAC, but you're quoting Bold Seagull.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Nothing to do with me I didnt apply it.

Yes, you did.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Do sponsors not have some sort of contract with whoever they are sponsoring? Surely they can only pull out without having to pay themselves out if the sponsored party break one of the terms of the sponsorship? If this is the case (and if it is not then why is it not like this?) then the clubs would know what sponsors would pull out and leave a funding void.

There will definitely be a contract. The specific terms will be unique to each one, though, when I've done sponsorship I've always insisted on a clause tht allows me to pull out if the other party brings themselves into disrepute. I would anticipate that it would be this clause that a sponsor would rely on in an Oldham-type situation.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Apologies if this has already been covered....but I just found this BIZARRE

"Oldham pulled out of plans to sign the player on Thursday, citing threats made to staff and their families had the deal gone ahead.

A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead"

So someone was SO ANGRY that Oldham may sign convicted RAPIST Ched Evans....they threatened rape?

That's like me being so upset at pro-gun laws that I go and shoot a load of people.

 

[BensGrandad]

If I did it was an unknown error as I do not know how to apply it.

 

[Triggaaar]

If I did it was an unknown error as I do not know how to apply it.

Bless you

 

[Triggaaar]

"Oldham pulled out of plans to sign the player on Thursday, citing threats made to staff and their families had the deal gone ahead.

A club director told BBC sports editor Dan Roan that a staff member was informed a named relative would be raped if the deal went ahead"

So someone was SO ANGRY that Oldham may sign convicted RAPIST Ched Evans....they threatened rape?

There was more than one threat, it wasn't just someONE.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

There was more than one threat, it wasn't just someONE.

That's not really my point. I'm not highlighting the threat as not being serious. It really is, obviously.

It's more, if you were so upset about your club signing a RAPIST.....would you threaten RAPE?

Bizarre.

 

[Triggaaar]

That's not really my point. I'm not highlighting the threat as not being serious. It really is, obviously.

It's more, if you were so upset about your club signing a RAPIST.....would you threaten RAPE?

Bizarre.

Well yes, I don't think that's lost on anyone.

 

[Steve.S]

If a club wanted to get rid of its sponsors for maybe a better deal, might be an idea to think about signing Evans. The sponsors break the contract, leaving a club free to get a better deal. Now that Oldham have said that the deal is off, will the sponsors come back or will other sponsors come in

 

[Goldstone1976]

If a club wanted to get rid of its sponsors for maybe a better deal, might be an idea to think about signing Evans. The sponsors break the contract, leaving a club free to get a better deal. Now that Oldham have said that the deal is off, will the sponsors come back or will other sponsors come in

Well, yes I guess so. It would be an extremely high risk strategy though, to say the least. But, not completely impossible, I suppose!

 

[drew]

I've yet to see anyone in favour of 'mob rule' myself.

Nobody is in favour of mob rule it's just that that is the effect with s lot of these online petitions.

Her memory of events has no bearing on the case had no bearing on consent as far as I'm aware. In that, her not remembering events, didn't neccessarily bar her from having given consent.

But you're right - as someone who suffers from this memory failure, I can well imagine giving consent, meaning to give consent and then subsequently forgetting it. Someone in your position would find that very hard to believe, I reckon you'd be inclined to think if I couldn't remember I'd be in no position to give consent. I would imagine though that this and the legal implications were covered thoroughly at trial.

Of course her memory of events has a bearing. If she genuinely can't remember then there isn't much testimony she can give however, if the jury felt that she didn't have memory loss then that would mean she knew whether she gave consent and wasn't saying! The judge can't tell the jury she did or did not have memory loss or even that she was so intoxicated that she couldn't give consent, that is for the jury to deliberate on the evidence presented. Evidence presented at trial apparently stated that whilst you might have memory loss after the event, it is still possible, despite being drunk, to give consent and be aware of that at the time.

I personally believe her, that she couldn't remember. I expect the Jury believed her too. And I expect that their belief that she was so drunk that she couldn't remember anything, had a bearing on their opinion on her ability to give consent.

No, I wouldn't think that, as I know we're all very different. For me personally, regardless of memory, there's no way I could have the ability to walk, and not have the ability to give consent. That's just how my body is. While I do realise that other people are different, that would affect my judgement if I had been on the jury, as surely all of us are affected by our personal experiences.

Have to say that I am intrigued as to how you can say you believe her. Shot in the dark here but I assume you don't know the girl in question. If not, then based on the fact that she hasn't given interviews, remains anonymous, doesn't have a website putting her side of the story and you weren't in court to hear her testimony, what is it that makes believe her? Just to clarify, I don't know either of the parties involved so I wouldn't necessarily say one over the other however, it was suggested she gave false testimony under oath relating to her drug use! Obviously, if it was rape, then so to did Evans.

All those who have petitioned against his re-employment are partaking in mob rule in my book.

I wouldn't say all as I'm sure there are plenty who signed the petition with good intentions and knowledge of the events etc. But there are plenty who would receive an email that says don't let a rapist play football and sign up. That's the trouble with social media, far too many people do things without thinking and that undermines those that have a serious message.

So Ched would 'like to apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl has had on many people, not least the woman concerned'.

It's a start, and very welcome, but he seems to have missed out the words 'my actions on', before the 'that night' part. It's an apology, but it still fails to accept RESPONSIBILTY.

(The stuff about the social media is very welcome)

Unbelievable! Perhaps there should be an online petition for a variety of wordings to see which would be the most acceptable!

To be fair to Evans (and as accurately speculated on by many on here) I think that is about as far as the lawyers will let him go without destroying his own attempts to get the verdict overturned.

Though why he couldn't have said this when he got out is another matter.

I think your first sentence answers your second. Lawyers.

She said she had 2 large glasses of wine = two thirds of a bottle, then home, shower etc, back to town and 4 double vodka/ lemonade drinks and a shot of Sambuca. Her friend made a comment about how drunk she was / wasn't (can't remember the exact quote).

I believe she gave evidence herself that she would normally drink more than she did that night.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

It was from what she said she had, that an expert speculated she'd be about 2.5 times the limit. How can you think it's tipsy if you don't drink? For me, the limit is about 2 pints or less (I wouldn't drive on more than 1), so 2.5 times that is 4.5 pints. I'd be pretty drunk on that, as I'm a lightweight. Still not bad enough that I'd even kiss someone I didn't want to though.

Well I assumed that the driving limit on alcohol would rightfully be fairly low, so two and a half times that would not be a significant amount. Given that you have said that it equates to four and a half pints I rather feel I was right.

Certainly doesn't seem enough to cause memory loss?

Think you'll find 2.5 times the limit isn't the amount you have drunk over an evening its the amount present in your blood at that moment in time so in your example it would be the same as you having 4.5 pints in one go directly into your blood without any metabolism of the alcohol. When you drink 4.5 pints you would do so over 3-4 hours i'd guess and your body would be processing and removing that all the time

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Makes you think that if Ched E was just an ordinary left/right back would clubs be willing to sign him...because he was an international striker clubs are willing to lower their morals...He was given a 5 year sentence...he has actually served half of that...he is still guilty in the eyes of the law for the next 2. 1/2 years

 

[spring hall convert]

international striker

Come on, Wales doesn't count does it?

 

[drew]

Think you'll find 2.5 times the limit isn't the amount you have drunk over an evening its the amount present in your blood at that moment in time so in your example it would be the same as you having 4.5 pints in one go directly into your blood without any metabolism of the alcohol. When you drink 4.5 pints you would do so over 3-4 hours i'd guess and your body would be processing and removing that all the time

I believe the expert witness for the defence suggested that, based on what she had drunk, at 4am her blood alcohol lever was 2½ times the driving limit and that wasn't challenged by the prosecution.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Unbelievable! Perhaps there should be an online petition for a variety of wordings to see which would be the most acceptable!

You honestly don't appreciate that there is a very fundamental difference between these two statements;

'I'd like to apologise for the effects that night in Rhyl, have had on many people'

'I'd like to apologise for the effects my behaviour that night in Rhyl, have had on many people'