Jump to content
IGNORED

Ched Evans

Real Red

By Real Red
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted

Crawley seems to be the rumour.  Makes sense as they're in a relegation battle and may feel the need to take a massive risk to preserve their status.

 

I can't see it being us - or indeed any of the other 3 teams at the heart of the promotion race.  For one thing, there's a risk of the media attention  and fan reaction destabilising whichever club he joined and all 4 of us will feel their odds are sufficient enough for the risk not being worthwhile.  What's more, in our case, I don't see it fitting with the pillars or club philosophy.  The club seem to be working hard to create a feelgood factor and to bring the team closer to the fans and a signing like Evans wouldn't fit in with that.  Furthermore Cotterill seems to want players with a certain mentality and maturity that'll be good for the club and I just can't see that Evans has what Cotterill would be looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JM91

JM91

Posted
Posted

On the one hand, I hope we don't sign him as we can do without the unnecessary attention.

On the other hand, there is something more important in my eyes.  The country has begun to be dominated by people who complain.  take Sheffield United, thousands of people, many of whom have nothing to do with the club or even football in general, signed a petition to ban him from playing.  

For me this invisible line of holding people to your own set of morals ignores the fact that everyone has multidimensional views.  Take for instance the numerous former patrons of Sheffield United who stepped down because of allowing Ched Evans to train, do these people also avoid any film starring Mark Wahlberg?  (NB Mark Wahlberg stabbed and blinded a man)

 

I can see both sides of the coin, so to summarise - if Cotterill (and more importantly in this instance Lansdowne) want him then that would be good enough for me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slartibartfast

slartibartfast

Posted
Posted

Crawley seems to be the rumour.  Makes sense as they're in a relegation battle and may feel the need to take a massive risk to preserve their status.

 

I can't see it being us - or indeed any of the other 3 teams at the heart of the promotion race.  For one thing, there's a risk of the media attention  and fan reaction destabilising whichever club he joined and all 4 of us will feel their odds are sufficient enough for the risk not being worthwhile.  What's more, in our case, I don't see it fitting with the pillars or club philosophy.  The club seem to be working hard to create a feelgood factor and to bring the team closer to the fans and a signing like Evans wouldn't fit in with that.  Furthermore Cotterill seems to want players with a certain mentality and maturity that'll be good for the club and I just can't see that Evans has what Cotterill would be looking for.

And one more.......how long would it take him to get fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
allyolly

allyolly

Posted
Posted
On the one hand, I hope we don't sign him as we can do without the unnecessary attention.

On the other hand, there is something more important in my eyes.  The country has begun to be dominated by people who complain.  take Sheffield United, thousands of people, many of whom have nothing to do with the club or even football in general, signed a petition to ban him from playing.  

For me this invisible line of holding people to your own set of morals ignores the fact that everyone has multidimensional views.  Take for instance the numerous former patrons of Sheffield United who stepped down because of allowing Ched Evans to train, do these people also avoid any film starring Mark Wahlberg?  (NB Mark Wahlberg stabbed and blinded a man)

 

I can see both sides of the coin, so to summarise - if Cotterill (and more importantly in this instance Lansdowne) want him then that would be good enough for me.

Who is this bloke lansdowne?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted

On the one hand, I hope we don't sign him as we can do without the unnecessary attention.

On the other hand, there is something more important in my eyes.  The country has begun to be dominated by people who complain.  take Sheffield United, thousands of people, many of whom have nothing to do with the club or even football in general, signed a petition to ban him from playing.  

For me this invisible line of holding people to your own set of morals ignores the fact that everyone has multidimensional views.  Take for instance the numerous former patrons of Sheffield United who stepped down because of allowing Ched Evans to train, do these people also avoid any film starring Mark Wahlberg?  (NB Mark Wahlberg stabbed and blinded a man)

 

I can see both sides of the coin, so to summarise - if Cotterill (and more importantly in this instance Lansdowne) want him then that would be good enough for me.  

 

Nobody signed a petition to ban him from playing.   I know that might seem like a small semantic thing but it is important as so many people have misrepresented the Ched Evans situation by claiming he's banned from signing for clubs or banned from playing football, which simply isn't the case.  As far as I am aware, nobody has seriously claimed he should be banned from playing and there's obviously no reason he should be.

 

What thousands of people did do was sign a petition asking Sheffield United not to sign him.  There are - and should be - serious PR implications for any club signing a player who has been convicted of a serious sexual offence and who has not only refused to express remorse or indeed show any understanding of the severity of his actions but has also created a website which further attacks the victim of his crime.  (Btw I do appreciate that he is not expressing remorse because he feels he is innocent and is appealing but two appeals have failed and, unless a third appeal succeeds, then he has to be perceived as guilty.)  And perhaps there is hypocrisy around Mark Wahlberg but I'd counter that by saying that Mark Wahlberg did work to reform himself and accepts what he did was wrong. If Evans did the same, I think there would be significantly less of a backlash.  I don't particularly want to see him out of work forever but  do think any club is sending an appalling message to the community it represents by signing someone straight out of prison for such a serious offence who has so publicly refused to take responsibility for their actions.

 

However Sheffield United, or any club, could have ignored that PR backlash and signed him.  As could Hartlepool or Barnsley or Crawley or any other club in the UK (he can't move abroad but nor can any other sex offender on parole so that's not really a ban due to a backlash either).  Whilst I accept there is some truth in what you say about the fact that clubs and businesses can be too quick to  allow people who complain to get what they want to save on a PR backlash, there is an equally frustrating issue that far too often people confuse being criticised with an infringement on their rights.  The people who signed the petition against Evans, and the patrons of Sheffield United, merely stated a view and, in the case of some of the patrons, made a personal decision not to be involved in the club if Evans signed.  Sheffield United have ultimately decided the PR backlash is too great to justify signing Evans, as presumably have several other clubs and I certainly hope Bristol City are included in those.  But nobody has banned Evans from playing and nobody has told clubs they can't sign him and I think it's dangerous to confuse people opposing something with something being banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
B-Rizzle

B-Rizzle

Posted
Posted

Meanwhile his victim has had to change her identity for the FIFTH time, and couldn't spend christmas with her family. . . . .

I'd be appalled if I thought anyone at our club was even remotely interested in him.

Is that true? Why has she had to change identity so many times? That's awful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ciderup

ciderup

Posted
Posted

Is that true? Why has she had to change identity so many times? That's awful!

 

Widely reported as such Robbo. I believe Jessica Ennis took some abuse for not wanting to be associated with him as well. Her name is on one of the stands at Bramall lane IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marina's Rolls Royce

Marina's Rolls Royce

Posted
Posted

This has got Swindon written all over it. If it is us though I'll be disappointed 

 

Personally- I'd be really disappointed if it's not Swindon.

 

I'd bet my house and kids that SL and SC would never ever ever sign the guy unless he was proved utterly innocent. Even then then Matt Smith will probably be more match fit.  :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JM91

JM91

Posted
Posted

Nobody signed a petition to ban him from playing.   I know that might seem like a small semantic thing but it is important as so many people have misrepresented the Ched Evans situation by claiming he's banned from signing for clubs or banned from playing football, which simply isn't the case.  As far as I am aware, nobody has seriously claimed he should be banned from playing and there's obviously no reason he should be.

 

What thousands of people did do was sign a petition asking Sheffield United not to sign him.  There are - and should be - serious PR implications for any club signing a player who has been convicted of a serious sexual offence and who has not only refused to express remorse or indeed show any understanding of the severity of his actions but has also created a website which further attacks the victim of his crime.  (Btw I do appreciate that he is not expressing remorse because he feels he is innocent and is appealing but two appeals have failed and, unless a third appeal succeeds, then he has to be perceived as guilty.)  And perhaps there is hypocrisy around Mark Wahlberg but I'd counter that by saying that Mark Wahlberg did work to reform himself and accepts what he did was wrong. If Evans did the same, I think there would be significantly less of a backlash.  I don't particularly want to see him out of work forever but  do think any club is sending an appalling message to the community it represents by signing someone straight out of prison for such a serious offence who has so publicly refused to take responsibility for their actions.

 

However Sheffield United, or any club, could have ignored that PR backlash and signed him.  As could Hartlepool or Barnsley or Crawley or any other club in the UK (he can't move abroad but nor can any other sex offender on parole so that's not really a ban due to a backlash either).  Whilst I accept there is some truth in what you say about the fact that clubs and businesses can be too quick to  allow people who complain to get what they want to save on a PR backlash, there is an equally frustrating issue that far too often people confuse being criticised with an infringement on their rights.  The people who signed the petition against Evans, and the patrons of Sheffield United, merely stated a view and, in the case of some of the patrons, made a personal decision not to be involved in the club if Evans signed.  Sheffield United have ultimately decided the PR backlash is too great to justify signing Evans, as presumably have several other clubs and I certainly hope Bristol City are included in those.  But nobody has banned Evans from playing and nobody has told clubs they can't sign him and I think it's dangerous to confuse people opposing something with something being banned.

I think it is a semantics issue you've brought up because in reality the 150,000 signatures haven't signed to specifically prevent him from playing for Sheffield United (although I fully appreciate that you are correct in both the wording of the petition itself and who it was addressed to).  Clearly the issue for the vast majority of those 150,000 is with Ched Evans returning to football at all, not just to Sheffield United.  

Regarding Mark Wahlberg, it was more an evidence of how different people will have different views rather than a direct comparison, I take your point about repentance, although feel it should be noted that in Wahlberg's case this was done a long time after the crime (and his career taking off).  Not only that but due to the nature of the crime rape is the only crime in which you can be convicted based on one person's testimony.  I'm not going to debate whether innocent/guilty, but I would pose the hypothetical:  would you take responsibility and apologise if you were wrongfully accused of rape?

The rest I think we're more or less in agreement, although block may have been a more appropriate word than ban on my part.  while you're right that nobody has banned him from playing there is clearly a distinction to be made between theory and practice.  In practice these complaints make it very difficult for any club to make a positive case to sign Ched Evans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fordy62

Fordy62

Posted
Posted

Not only that but due to the nature of the crime rape is the only crime in which you can be convicted based on one person's testimony.

Wow. I'm not sure where to start on this...

In all my time on OTIB I'm not sure I've ever read something quite so incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...