A progress report on The Chedler...

[BushBlade]

There won't be a shitstorm, he's not guilty. The mainstream media won't run with a non-story of 'Blades sign bloke not guilty of owt'.

 

[The Crab]

Ooh Superfood salad, that will do it.

Sounds delicious (scuttles off to eat yet another Mince Pie)

 

[itsinyerblood]

Okay maybe I made an assumption with this. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the following question. " Once a conviction has been quashed and the defendant found not guilty in the retrial, can the CPS retry the case again?" Your knowledge of the criminal justice system appears comprehensive so I await your response with great anticipation.

That I'm unsure of. My understanding is that there's a finite number of times you can appeal. The only thing that might be justification for a retrial is the weight of new evidence presented, and then, dependent on the severity of the case in question, it would probably have to go before the Secretary for State at The Home Office (but not entirely sure about that) to have any chance of a re-trial.

 

[BLADES1988]

Fair enough, I can relate to that point of view. I don't share it though. I think he's shown enough to suggest he's be an improvement on all our strikers except Sharp and could make a good partner for him. Then there's always the chance he could hit that old form in which case he'd be an unbelievably valuable asset (and could be for a promotion rival if we don't sing him). But based on what I've seen this year, I think he'd be like a better version of Matty Done which would suit our needs. As I say, I'd be equally pleased if we signed one of Bogle, Taylor, Akinde etc. I just think Evans will be more affordable than them.

Think Bogle is off the menu for us. Some scab that I know said Forest are going to/have bid 1.3Mil for him or summat!

 

[Sean Thornton]

There won't be a shitstorm, he's not guilty. The mainstream media won't run with a non-story of 'Blades sign bloke not guilty of owt'.

"Club who defrauded beloved West Ham United and with worst fans in country sign bloke who was once thought to have done something wrong"

Plus the Toby and Rawmarsh Mick radio show aka "Paint and Drying.

 

[BushBlade]

"Club who defrauded beloved West Ham United and with worst fans in country sign bloke who was once thought to have done something wrong"

Plus the Toby and Rawmarsh Mick radio show aka "Paint and Drying.

That's not a shitstorm, it's just a twatwhinge.

 

[blade too long]

That I'm unsure of. My understanding is that there's a finite number of times you can appeal. The only thing that might be justification for a retrial is the weight of new evidence presented, and then, dependent on the severity of the case in question, it would probably have to go before the Secretary for State at The Home Office (but not entirely sure about that) to have any chance of a re-trial.

Think the fact he appealed after he'd done his time and then won enforces his claim he was convinced of his innocence and was prepared to go the whole nine yards to prove it .
This meant spending a bundle on better council than he originally did ,when he probably thought any old lawyer would do as he thought hed get off with ease

The second council covered every detail , and won the day

hes cleared now , thats all that matters

 

[Billyblade]

Can we never, ever refer to him as "The Chedler" ever again?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Can we never, ever refer to him as "The Chedler" ever again?

Ched McChedface?

 

[itsinyerblood]

Think the fact he appealed after he'd done his time and then won enforces his claim he was convinced of his innocence and was prepared to go the whole nine yards to prove it .
This meant spending a bundle on better council than he originally did ,when he probably thought any old lawyer would do as he thought hed get off with ease

The second council covered every detail , and won the day

hes cleared now , thats all that matters

Some interesting observations there. Whatever path Evans chose at the outset, it's clear he convinced those closest to him that he hadn't committed the crime he was accused of. Regarding whether we sign him or not, it's Chris Wilder's decision, and if he gave a thumb's up then so be it. You don't need to like a player to support them if they wear the red and white stripes. As per signing him, my concern is two-fold (a) would we see anything close to the Evans of old, and (b) would he be able to play alongside Sharp. There's no way that can be answered other than to put them in the same team. Billy's importance top the team is currently something we're dependent on, and at times he looks a cut above compared to most in this division

At the moment there's no indication that Wilder is considering Evans or anyone else, but no doubt he's keeping his own counsel where that's concerned. Such is my faith in Wilder's choice of player that I'll support whoever he decides is right to play for this club. It's really Wilder's platform to lose, until now he's done a sterling job, so Chris has set high standards, something I know we're all happy about.

Must admit, whether Evans has a second chance at this club or not, it's not long before we discover if this is something that'll happen or whether we move on and look at someone new.

 

[LenTednTony]

One main worry is I have a feeling someone like Scunny or Bradford could sign him

But it will only really matter when we play them as they are winning already. Making a win 3-1 instead of 2-1 only affects goal difference which, hopefully, won't come into play (touches wood, crossed fingers and picks a lucky ).

 

[Snowman]

Think the fact he appealed after he'd done his time and then won enforces his claim he was convinced of his innocence and was prepared to go the whole nine yards to prove it .
This meant spending a bundle on better council than he originally did ,when he probably thought any old lawyer would do as he thought hed get off with ease

The second council covered every detail , and won the day

hes cleared now , thats all that matters

Please.I am sorry to be pedantic and a pain in the arse but it is one of those things that pains me. Indeed I feel as though a knife has been inserted into my innards whenever I see it. It is "Counsel" not "Council". I don't think his original Queen's Counsel would take too kindly to being called "any old lawyer", though I'm not arguing with the assessment.

 

[Snowman]

That I'm unsure of. My understanding is that there's a finite number of times you can appeal. The only thing that might be justification for a retrial is the weight of new evidence presented, and then, dependent on the severity of the case in question, it would probably have to go before the Secretary for State at The Home Office (but not entirely sure about that) to have any chance of a re-trial.

Ask Pinchy. He will be able to give you a learned dissertation on the changes to autrefois acquit and the hurdles and hoops required. However as we seem to be talking of a state of mind with this case I can't see anything further coming up.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Really ? Must have seen a different game. He was ok but that was it

I’d say he was very good for the first 20 minutes. After that, Chessy were on the back foot meaning he saw little of the ball. Generally did fairly well when it came his way but was starved of any real service.


For what it’s worth, talking to a Chessy fan today and he said


“You can have Ariyibi. Idle fucker does nowt. Plenty of talent but can’t be arsed. We need to keep Evans though. He works his socks off for the team”

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Yes you must have been at a different game to me as well fella, as i was shitting it every time he got the ball. He was their only threat but a bloody big one and i was chuffed to bits when he went off...and at the time it was only 1 - 1. Perhaps when he went off the defence who had been given a bit of a runaround probably pushed up and the goals then came.

Your entitled to your view but i cant agree that he wasnt a serious pain in the arse football wise on the day. He looked a very good div 1 player to me that day.

Around the time he went off, we took Jake Wright off for Leon Clarke and went for it. Don’t know if that would have been such an option if Evans had stayed on the pitch.

 

[The Crab]

Can we never, ever refer to him as "The Chedler" ever again?

Sounds like a really shite Batman villan.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

This whole thread is the reason why we shouldn't sign him. Because half the support would end up bickering with the other half.

Can't be arsed with the extra baggage.

We’ve spent the last 2 years not signing him and that’s happened anyway. Maybe people would stop arguing if he actually signed as we’d find out one way or the other whether he was a success?

 

[1danewhitehouse]

To be fair Rodley it would save it being something else, because it always is. We can't even be 2nd in the table without people deliberately trying to set one half of the support base against the other with a thread that is akin to pouring petrol on an already lit fire.

It’s funny. The forum and social media is full of people complaining about threads about Ched Evans. Yet these threads get the most traffic. It shows people are interested. Even (or should I say especially) those who protest their disinterest so vehemently.


Whilst ever a situation exists whereby we could possibly sign him and he could possibly improve us people will discuss the possibility. If we bite the bullet and do it, 1 of 2 things will happen:-


1. He doesn’t make an impact and the naysayers can say I told you so, he will be moved on and play in the lower leagues and nobody will care about him one way or the other


or


2. He adds to the firepower we have making us even more formidable and scores the goals to help ensure we end our stay in this god forsaken league.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

A lot of this discussion assumes that Evans is sniffing for opportunities and that SUFC could simply waltz in and whisk him away should it be their desire.
Maybe, just maybe, the player in question might show some scruples and just want to stay where he is regardless of whether others want to buy his services, thereby respecting and repaying the faith shown in him by CFC to offer him a way back into his profession.
Maybe, just maybe, the young man will show some humility and integrity and give CFC his full effort for the duration of his contract.
On the other hand he might just be a mercenary and take the biggest offer anyone will make for him.

Alternatively, Chesterfield may be desperate to sell anyone they can get a fee for to keep the wolves from the door regardless of whether Evans was willing to honour his contract or not.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Let's see if this gets rid of your view that there's a vacuum?

There is a section of the Youth and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 that is supposed to challenge the (sexist) notion that 'unchaste' women are more likely to consent to sex and such women are less worthy of belief when reporting rape. Essentially, it prevents defence lawyers from trawling through women's sexual history to use it against them in court. The point of this part of the law is to highlight that having sex with someone in a certain way at one time does not provide evidence for the consent of any other separate sexual encounter i.e. the only thing that is relevant to a rape trial is that specific incident - a woman's character, clothing, sexual tastes and preferences or previous sexual encounters should have nothing to do with it. This case has now set a precedent for the future - what is to stop any defence lawyer in a rape case from using Evans' appeal as a case study to argue that Section 41 should not be applied to their client? Are we to regress to a time when being considered a 'slag' would be enough to mean you couldn't possibly be raped?

There's far, far more that underpins this assertion, but to claim that this is vacuous in to reveal how easily, even willingly, you've chosen to accept the skeletal framework that was at the base of Evans' case. And yes, I do, and did, understand how the evidence was presented, and I'm using it knowingly.

Then you’ll know that particular piece of legislation also contains exceptions, circumstances where past behaviour will be deemed admissible. Evan’s case was adjudged to fulfil the criteria for such an exception. This case doesn’t repeal statute which supersedes case law. It is merely an example of such legislation being applied by the judiciary.


I agree that the grey area is a little worrying in terms of how it can be applied. But what concerns me more is our sexist societal view that perpetuates promiscuous women as “slags” or “trollopes” and men as “studs”, “players” or “a bit of a lad” etc. If we didn’t so negatively perceive women who exercise their right to enjoy sexual pleasure on a casual basis, then the “trawling” through their history (in the limited circumstances in which this can be done) would be less of an issue.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

According to 'sources'

'Mcabe doesn't want him'
'Mcabe wants him but his father in law doesn't want him to join us'
'It's a done deal'
'It could be a done deal'
'Mcabe paid Chesterfields wage bill
Last month as down payment '
'It was agreed as a Done deal in the summer provided Ched proved his fitness '

Have I missed anything?

Ched won’t come because he’s suing us for breach of contract


Wilder doesn’t want him


Charlie Webster says we’re not allowed to sign him and if we do, she will tell her cousin Byron not to sign for us leaving us fucked when Wolves recall EEL.


Karl Massey is paying the transfer fee to allow us to sign him


Ched would crawl over broken glass to play for us


Billy doesn’t like Ched and will sulk if we sign him


Ched will sign but won’t be invited to the swinging parties that the rest of the squad go to with their partners.


Ched won’t sign because it would upset Matt Done


Ched was going to sign but Wilder doesn’t want him because he heard a rumour that he wears a jumper draped over his shoulders. It’s OK though, once he finds out that it was in fact McNulty, a swap deal will be back on.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

As it stands, signing Marlon King was more morally-reprehensible than signing Ched would be.

I’ve always thought it was based more than anything on King’s complete disinterest in ever being rehabilitated. In my opinion, in this country, we are far too lenient on repeat offenders.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Yes, you are right I probably only average about 10 to 12 games a season so have utter respect for season ticket holders but saw Ched many times in that era so have an opinion if not as well substantiated. In Ched's 4 seasons in the championship and higher he averaged about 6 goals in about 30 games a season, not great. True in league 1 from what I saw he was unplayable but even my mum could dribble round a coupe of traffic cones and score.
I don't know who else and no one should be asking me, please ask Wilder our saviour, but I would cast our minds back to the Deane and Agana era where we bought a few with potential from our league and below on the hope half of them would come good and they did. I would rather do this is as its much more exciting and likely to succeed than to go for has beens or re signings which have rarely done much good for our club in the long run. Thanks for making it clearer but I've seen it all before and know how it usually shakes out.

The only players I can ever recall us going back to re-sign whilst they were still the right side of 30 were Brian Deane and Billy Sharp (or was he just 30?) . Both worked out pretty well.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

I went to burton v newcastle yesterday where brayford was really good and the talk was burton are after ched evans.How true only time will tell

If we don’t sign him, I’d rather Burton do. I said in 2012, I’d love us to sign O Grady to play alongside Evans. Then in 2014 we signed O Grady as Evans was released and I relished the prospect of that partnership. Unfortunately, it didn’t come to pass. Perhaps it will happen at Burton instead. I’ve always thought they would make a very good pairing. It would also mean that he wasn’t signing for a promotion rival which is my main concern.

 

[Bladesway]

It’s funny. The forum and social media is full of people complaining about threads about Ched Evans. Yet these threads get the most traffic. It shows people are interested. Even (or should I say especially) those who protest their disinterest so vehemently.


Whilst ever a situation exists whereby we could possibly sign him and he could possibly improve us people will discuss the possibility. If we bite the bullet and do it, 1 of 2 things will happen:-


1. He doesn’t make an impact and the naysayers can say I told you so, he will be moved on and play in the lower leagues and nobody will care about him one way or the other


or


2. He adds to the firepower we have making us even more formidable and scores the goals to help ensure we end our stay in this god forsaken league.

And if you read further back you would see I said if Wilder says he is the man we should get him. It won't leave any moral issue in my mind because the bloke was proven innocent. I'm just not sure (on footballing grounds) he is the man. Now had I said that about any other player I don't think I would receive comments about being "special needs" do you?

 

[Bladesway]

If we don’t sign him, I’d rather Burton do. I said in 2012, I’d love us to sign O Grady to play alongside Evans. Then in 2014 we signed O Grady as Evans was released and I relished the prospect of that partnership. Unfortunately, it didn’t come to pass. Perhaps it will happen at Burton instead. I’ve always thought they would make a very good pairing. It would also mean that he wasn’t signing for a promotion rival which is my main concern.

A decent footballing answer.

 

[Sean Thornton]

IF he doesn't sign, no doubt the entire blame will be laid at McCabes door without any consideration to Wilders view, whatever that is.

Then all this can be revisited!

 

[Revolution]

The only players I can ever recall us going back to re-sign whilst they were still the right side of 30 were Brian Deane and Billy Sharp (or was he just 30?) . Both worked out pretty well.

Keith Edwards is probably the best example.

 

[itsinyerblood]

Ask Pinchy. He will be able to give you a learned dissertation on the changes to autrefois acquit and the hurdles and hoops required. However as we seem to be talking of a state of mind with this case I can't see anything further coming up.

Agree Snowman. As it stands, this is something that will remain in the statute book, but as you may have determined, I'm not someone who is necessarily swayed by the decisions taken in law. It doesn't mean I think the law is necessarily wrong, but it can, as has been described elsewhere, be a complete ass at times. Often when a decision is reached all it does is confirm the prejudice that existed in the first place, and then what's trotted out is the tired refrain of, "it must be right, the law says so". I know of Pinchy's experience in the legal profession, and very good he is too, so any opinion offered by m'learned friend would of course be welcomed.

 

[1889]

I fail to see how, after signing Leon Clarke, Wilder could possibly not be interested in signing Ched Evans?