Regarding the clubs response to one of or former players...


Status
Not open for further replies.
He lied to the club and everyone to buy himself so time to get himself out of the shit. He shouldn't have but I can imagine it was a desperate situation for him and he knew he would be be in a lot of trouble in the end. I don't condone what he did in anyway but I can understand why he lied.
 
He should have been suspended and remained suspended until after the trial had reached the full conclusion. Unsuspending and playing him then sacking him on day one of the trial does nobody any favours
The club were stuck 2 weeks is the maximum he could be suspended. They either had to play him or sack him and as his brief would argue he wouldn't get a fair if they sacked him they couldn't do much else
 
Do you think we can expect a longer more detailed statement from them, once proceedings are finished? Or do you think they will just shut up and close shop?

Oh and mods, please give the thread a chance, no one has been named, this is more about the club... Pretty Pleeeeeeeease!
What else is to be said?
 
Do you think we can expect a longer more detailed statement from them, once proceedings are finished? Or do you think they will just shut up and close shop?

Oh and mods, please give the thread a chance, no one has been named, this is more about the club... Pretty Pleeeeeeeease!
I think the club have behaved perfectly and no more comment is needed. This could be Mags finest hour (not saying much)
 
the twitter feed from 2 journos suggests all along that he'd be found guilty

I'm not disputing that. But you could have two possibilities, one in which he wanted to keep playing and so lied to the club. The other in which he knew he was going to be plead, and the club were aware of this (or at least the the evidence was damning) and a tacit agreement was made between him and the club that he would keep playing til he pleaded and in return would be paid (thud benefitting both the club and him). I don't know how we could say one is more true than the other atm. But if the journos knew months ago he was guilty of the two offences he pleaded to as you say, then why would the club not be aware? The club have just as much right to sit in on court proceedings as any journos I would have thought... and they could have required him to show them his deps I would have thought (there's certainly no law against it that I'm aware of...). I really think everyone should hold judgement, at this stage it's unclear if he has misled the club and they've acted perfectly or the club has gone along with him until the point they had no choice but to sack him. We might never know which but it certainly won't be clear until the end of the case...
 
I'm not disputing that. But you could have two possibilities, one in which he wanted to keep playing and so lied to the club. The other in which he knew he was going to be plead, and the club were aware of this (or at least the the evidence was damning) and a tacit agreement was made between him and the club that he would keep playing til he pleaded and in return would be paid (thud benefitting both the club and him). I don't know how we could say one is more true than the other atm. But if the journos knew months ago he was guilty of the two offences he pleaded to as you say, then why would the club not be aware? The club have just as much right to sit in on court proceedings as any journos I would have thought... and they could have required him to show them his deps I would have thought (there's certainly no law against it that I'm aware of...). I really think everyone should hold judgement, at this stage it's unclear if he has misled the club and they've acted perfectly or the club has gone along with him until the point they had no choice but to sack him. We might never know which but it certainly won't be clear until the end of the case...

the journos didn't know months ago as they've only been tweeting as the evidence came out today and been openly reported - he's misled the club big time

i'll even post the link from sky news that details all the evidence presented if i knew it wouldn't get the thread pulled
 
Does anyone know when his defence team will have found out about the text messages read in court today? When he was charged or later?

Sometimes evidence is put to defendents at the point of interview eg. 'Look at this message, it says X and Y, why was that sent' but also getting forensics from a phone can take weeks +. After the interviews with the police (if charged) the CPS will send an indictment with all the evidence in, such as interviews, forensics, witness statements etc. If additional evidence comes to light they will then send to the defence an 'additional evidence' folder with what has come to light since the indictment. I think the answer is that in any case text messages could come at any point between the initial interview and about a month or two before the trial. Obviously we can't speculate on this case because the trial hasnt finished and we have no reason to suppose it came at the beginning or towards the end, but it would be surprising if it was any less than 2 month ago, based on the norm. I would certainly be incredibly unlikely such evidence only came to light in trial. Hope this helps...
 
the journos didn't know months ago as they've only been tweeting as the evidence came out today and been openly reported - he's misled the club big time

i'll even post the link from sky news that details all the evidence presented if i knew it wouldn't get the thread pulled

I think I've found the link - the bit where two Sky journos are updating from court?

Can you quote the bit where they suggest he lied to the club (I might be missing it, I only scan read it)... If not on here, then by PM?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top