News of Ex Players

[diggerdestroyer]

There's hundreds and thousands of reasons why a case like this doesn't go to trial.

They need a smoking gun confirming he was aware of her age at the time.

None of this changes the fact that he never denied what he did, just what he knew at the time and that's a much harder barrier to pass than simply proving he did something.

how do you know he never denied what he supposedly did (or didnt do as the inquiry lead to) ? genuine question

 

[4737carlin]

Who's gutted he hasn't been found guilty?

I see people discussing the difference between being innocent by law and actual innocence, which are different things. I haven't seen anyone celebrating or being disgusted by the fact there hasn't been a charge brought.

Unless I've missed a few posts, with my eyes these days is likely.

Come on, if he had been found guility of this some would of slaughtered him, not because of the crime, but because he was an Everton player, but now he is an innocent man they cant accept it

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

how do you know he never denied what he supposedly did (or didnt do as the inquiry lead to) ? genuine question

If there was not enough evidence to bring a charge then how can anyone say he was guilty of the charges (there aren't any)

 

[everton1953]

I guess the main concern on here is that our club was placed in a difficult situation and have lost out financially on what he might have been sold for.

 

[Efcjake]

how do you know he never denied what he supposedly did (or didnt do as the inquiry lead to) ? genuine question

You're right, I don't know for certain.

It's what the rumours out of Iceland were.

 

[mightymoyes]

yes, possibly.

this was discussed here at the time but you can be sacked If the allegation has a direct effect on the employee's work – for example a player under investigation for child sex offences would find it difficult to work at the club due to safety concerns as he will come into direct contact with young people, thereby making his continued employment impossible. an employer may consider taking disciplinary action up to, and including, dismissal in that case.

He wasn't sacked

 

[blulouie]

He was arrested, for suspicion of whatever offence he was alleged to have committed, interviewed and then bailed on police bail, whilst the police conduct their enquires, who at the end of their enquiries, present their findIngs to the CPS, who then decide if their is enough evidence for a realistic chance of a conviction or not.

This can and does sometimes take a long time.

Defamation etc are civil matters not criminal.

If the complaint was found to
be vexatious or malicious, the complainant could then be arrested for perverting the course of justice etc.

The defamation would have been from the player of course.

The rest , the club have made massive losses through all of this , I'm sure they will be looking for recompense.

 

[Pabbers]

So if someone doesn't go down for the crime then the crime never happened?

Innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, it doesn't retroactively reverse what he's done and admitted to I will add.

Facts as we know them are the girl was underage and he confessed sleeping with her. The law is concerned over whether he knew or not but the facts remain that he's not innocent.

Erm, maybe the crime was done by someone else ?? Maybe the "crime" didnt even happen !!??!!

 

[davek]

I guess the main concern on here is that our club was placed in a difficult situation and have lost out financially on what he might have been sold for.

It's hugely affected us. If he was playing at the beginning of the Benitez season do we then go and get ourselves in a mess by january that the club spend £40M which started the grasses at Leeds and Burnley pissing their pants? I dont think so.

 

[blulouie]

He was arrested and then bailed until now.

Firstly obviously not enough evidence doesn't mean that he didn't do it. Do you really want to live in a society where people who are criminally accused of things can sue the would be victim because there isn't enough evidence even though it might have happened?

Well that certainly is not the type of society I want to live in where I could be accused of something even though I hadn't.

"Doesn't mean that he didn't do it "
Doesn't wash with me mate , that's a minds made up before any evidence society.
No thanks.

Salem witchh hunt springs to mind , if you had a cat & a broom you are guilty of being a witch.
 

 

[Lee Smith]

Facts as we know them are the girl was underage and he confessed sleeping with her.

how do you know he never denied what he supposedly did (or didnt do as the inquiry lead to) ? genuine question

You're right, I don't know for certain.

It's what the rumours out of Iceland were.

So they weren’t “facts” at all then? It was just stuff you read on the internet. You know just as much about this case as everyone else here, which is basically nothing. This is why we have courts of law and an evidence based legal process.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

how do you know he never denied what he supposedly did (or didnt do as the inquiry lead to) ? genuine question

The inquiry absolutely has not said he didn’t do it. Nor has it said he did.

However the wording is telling. “Didn’t reach the CPS threshold” is almost always a very carefully chosen way of saying “we’re pretty sure he did it, but we’re not being allowed to move forward”

 

[Azza]

People actually think someone would have bought him and for a decent wedge of money that it would have solved our current P&S / FFP issues.


You're bloody mental. lol lol lol

 

[Wizard]

From a P&S perspective there are two things we can definitely address for the 21/22 accounts:

- £5.2m on wages (supposedly on £100,000 a week)

- £8m in amortisation (£40m transfer fee, 5 year contract)

Then it gets trickier I imagine. We can say we would have tried to sell him but coming to a figure for that is tough. A 32 year old entering the last year of his contract isn’t going for a big fee. If you looked into a load of similar transfers you could probably get a “fair value” price. Complete guess but I imagine it would be hard to argue that would be more than £5m.

We didn’t really buy a replacement but I guess we could argue Demarai Gray was an attacking replacement of sorts so could try and claim his fee (£1.7m) and wages (can’t find a reliable figure for this but seems to be around £40k a week). We could also try and argue we brought in Dele Alli as a replacement so then you could add 6 months wages from him (£2.6m).

So if the commission agree with the above that comes to roughly £20m excess costs associated with his case (not including any theoretical fee we might have got for Sigurdsson had we sold him.)

 

[everton1953]

People actually think someone would have bought him and for a decent wedge of money that it would have solved our current P&S / FFP issues.


You're bloody mental. lol lol lol

No. Not solved, but definitely a contribution to the assets side of the equation.