Cue meltdown

[Esablade]

And if the pigs go up, spending all that money on Fletcher, Hooper, Rhodes etc won't look so stupid.

They are gambling, we've been there (Robson etc), done that and failed...

 

[BushBlade]

They are gambling, we've been there (Robson etc), done that and failed...

Some gambles you win, some you lose. You can mitigate it by employing a manager with some ability to actually manage a club. We didn't. We got a drunk, then a coach. We didn't just gamble, we took everything we had and put it on a long shot. Then KM gambled some more money that he didn't want to lose. If the chancer is happy to lose the money and go again next season they won't have a problem, we're just assuming he'll panic like KM did and make a series of appalling decisions. That's by no means guaranteed.

 

[Revolution]

Some gambles you win, some you lose. You can mitigate it by employing a manager with some ability to actually manage a club. We didn't. We got a drunk, then a coach. We didn't just gamble, we took everything we had and put it on a long shot. Then KM gambled some more money that he didn't want to lose. If the chancer is happy to lose the money and go again next season they won't have a problem, we're just assuming he'll panic like KM did and make a series of appalling decisions. That's by no means guaranteed.

100% right. Everyone judges the guy who owns the Pigs by McCabe's standards. He's shown so far he operates differently.

McCabe sold his best players after losing playoff finals, and scaled back investment in the playing squad. Their guy's response was to strengthen.

 

[Ginger Gnome]

or said she couldnt , who knows
surely its like a penalty
unless your 100 per cent certain , you shouldnt give one

you should not convict unless there's absolutely no doubt at all

isnt that why we stopped the death penalty
but in this case it was conviction by conjecture

Conviction rates for everything would be much lower if you needed 100% proof, nobody could ever be convicted for murder cases where the body is never found. With your form of law, anyone who knowingly raped a drunk, unconscious lass would probably get away with it as they could just claim she was awake and consented earlier, without proof that that didn't happen that tiny element of doubt would be enough to let them off. Obviously with Evans there was a much bigger element of doubt which is why he was found guilty originally, then cleared.

 

[Sean Thornton]

100% right. Everyone judges the guy who owns the Pigs by McCabe's standards. He's shown so far he operates differently.

McCabe sold his best players after losing playoff finals, and scaled back investment in the playing squad. Their guy's response was to strengthen.

As McCabe did after PL relegation.

 

[Revolution]

As McCabe did after PL relegation.

He did. Shame about the manager he appointed.

 

[Sean Thornton]

He did. Shame about the manager he appointed.

True. But you didn't mention it in your comparison.

Personally I don't judge Chansiri by McCabes "standards" or anyone else's for that matter, so that's not everyone. He's clearly his own man. I do hope he fails miserably though. Like a few on here hope McCabe does yet again.

 

[Revolution]

True. But you didn't mention it in your comparison.

Personally I don't judge Chansiri by McCabes "standards" or anyone else's for that matter, so that's not everyone. He's clearly his own man. I do hope he fails miserably though. Like a few on here hope McCabe does yet again.

Chansiri hasn't been relegated yet, so there was nothing to compare against. Hopefully we will find out sooner or later.

I'm sure no Blades fan wants McCabe to fail. I certainly don't.

Changing the subject slightly, Sean, do you think McCabe is driving the Evans signing? The whole thing really puzzles me and it seems the most obvious explanation.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Chansiri hasn't been relegated yet, so there was nothing to compare against. Hopefully we will find out sooner or later.

I'm sure no Blades fan wants McCabe to fail. I certainly don't.

Changing the subject slightly, Sean, do you think McCabe is driving the Evans signing? The whole thing really puzzles me and it seems the most obvious explanation.

Being totally honest I have no idea. I fully understand those who believe he is because of his apparent closeness to Evans in the past. That makes more sense than the "suing us" claim (that Pinchy has rubbished) But it seems a gamble based on his fitness. As for the £500k is nothing for a championship striker argument well he isn't one as of now. I was dead set against Beattie returning based on what he'd done just beforehand but there were plenty wanting him back based on the past. That went well.

If it is McCabe and it causes a rift with Wilder, he'll need to find a buyer quickly, because no one will forgive him that. Let's hope that won't happen.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Of course you have the right to an opinion but like most fans we don't know the full facts to of the transfer.You either trust Wilder or not which camp are you in ?
No way are we paying 500k for a player who has yet to prove his fitness.
Can't you see the positives in this,if chef gets fit we have a quality striker for peanuts ,if grant reach the levels required we lose whatever we put up front.O,viciously wilder and the club feel hits a chance worth taking

Whilst I’m OK with this signing, I don’t agree with the mantra that if you trust Wilder you have to be pleased with evert single decision. Managers make loads of decisions every day and NONE of them get all of them right. The ones who are successful are the ones that get a lot more right than wrong and Wilder fits into that bracket. Thought he got it wrong v Gillingham and Fleetwood giving McNulty game time over Lavery for example but fortunately, he didn’t stick with it. I have absolutely no idea whether Ched is capable of getting near his old levels or indeed staying fit for a good run of games even. If he is then great. I just hope Wilder wants him and it’s not just a case of McCabe honouring the earlier agreement now he has the funds from being promoted. If Wilder wants him and his body can get into the swing of professional football, it could just turn out to be a very decent signing. Big IF though.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

and just to add... I made a point about "the line" in these situations.

Ched was very well paid, as a professional footballer, with a media profile, to not walk too close to the line.

He definitely did that, and it's hard to welcome him back when it cost us so much.

It cost him a hell of a lot more.

 

[BushBlade]

Whilst I’m OK with this signing, I don’t agree with the mantra that if you trust Wilder you have to be pleased with evert single decision. Managers make loads of decisions every day and NONE of them get all of them right. The ones who are successful are the ones that get a lot more right than wrong and Wilder fits into that bracket. Thought he got it wrong v Gillingham and Fleetwood giving McNulty game time over Lavery for example but fortunately, he didn’t stick with it. I have absolutely no idea whether Ched is capable of getting near his old levels or indeed staying fit for a good run of games even. If he is then great. I just hope Wilder wants him and it’s not just a case of McCabe honouring the earlier agreement now he has the funds from being promoted. If Wilder wants him and his body can get into the swing of professional football, it could just turn out to be a very decent signing. Big IF though.

You don't have to be pleased with every decision. Just have enough respect for him not to start criticising his decisions before they even have a chance to be proven to be bad ones. He could be wrong, he could be very wrong on this one but I still value his opinion over anyone on here. Nothing wrong with discussing things.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

There are some very sheltered people with old fashioned values on this forum who haven't seen much life.

They don't realise that many young men and women get paralyticlllay drunk then have sex with whoever they can. Then one or both can't remember anything the next day. Also loads of young adults have threesomes, group sex etc. There are male, and believe it or not female sexual predators out every weekend but some men refuse to believe that some women love sex and will sleep with anyone because they love sex. But I suppose some of the old fashioned types would call them slags because in their mind women aren't allowed to enjoy and want sex more than men.

One of the big issues is the sexualisatiion and drink culture within society. Times are so different to when the rape laws were writtten. Technically speaking rape probably occurs 1000's of times a week but those women and men wouldn't even class it as rape.

Thats the reason Ched was found not guilty on trial because very similar events have happened regularly to the girl. Remember she never accused Ched of rape because she couldn't remember, that's the difference. It's weird but surely it must be a relief to the girl to realise she wasn't raped after all but so many people want to be offended and assume she didn't want a threesome, simply because in their morals they refuse to believe any girl could ever want a threesome

None of the situations you mention fit the situation Evans placed himself in. The idea that rape laws are out of date, implying that men knowingly taking advantage of drunk women without having a reasonable belief that she's consented, should be allowed to get away scot free is outrageous. How much do you think the world has changed since 2003?
The fact that there are female sexual predators is irrelevant, as they cannot legally rape a man. Predatory men, however, who target and hunt down drunk women to deliberately take advantage of their condition is a scourge on society and actually infringe on a woman's right to go out and get drunk without fear of waking up in a stranger's bed she never intended.
And you have no idea why Ched was found not guilty, nor whether the "new evidence" introduced at the 2nd trial played any role at all. I have no doubt she has her own views on what happened to her and doesn't need to rely on a jury to tell her whether she was raped or not. The idea that people are judging the complexities of this case on whether they can believe a girl would want a threesome is ridiculous.
By all means stick up for the rights of Ched Evans to sign for a club, any club, and for SUFC to sign him without being vilified, but keep the nonsense about the law and other people's moral standpoint out of it if you don't want to look daft.

 

[blade too long]

Conviction rates for everything would be much lower if you needed 100% proof, nobody could ever be convicted for murder cases where the body is never found. With your form of law, anyone who knowingly raped a drunk, unconscious lass would probably get away with it as they could just claim she was awake and consented earlier, without proof that that didn't happen that tiny element of doubt would be enough to let them off. Obviously with Evans there was a much bigger element of doubt which is why he was found guilty originally, then cleared.

but this case wasnt near 60 per cent certain
macdonald got away completely as he got first dibs
if she didnt remember anything hows that possible
it turns into complete guesswork

and dont say its reasonable summarization , it certainly isnt

 

[United Aren't Back.]

I talk regularly with an ex employee of us and Chesterfield, who could not speak highly enough of ched, his work ethic and how he is one of the lads, will talk to him when walking the dog to find out if he knows any thing else as they are in regular contact

Morgan or Saunders? Wilson?

 

[Sheffsteel]

None of the situations you mention fit the situation Evans placed himself in. The idea that rape laws are out of date, implying that men knowingly taking advantage of drunk women without having a reasonable belief that she's consented, should be allowed to get away scot free is outrageous. How much do you think the world has changed since 2003?
The fact that there are female sexual predators is irrelevant, as they cannot legally rape a man. Predatory men, however, who target and hunt down drunk women to deliberately take advantage of their condition is a scourge on society and actually infringe on a woman's right to go out and get drunk without fear of waking up in a stranger's bed she never intended.
And you have no idea why Ched was found not guilty, nor whether the "new evidence" introduced at the 2nd trial played any role at all. I have no doubt she has her own views on what happened to her and doesn't need to rely on a jury to tell her whether she was raped or not. The idea that people are judging the complexities of this case on whether they can believe a girl would want a threesome is ridiculous.
By all means stick up for the rights of Ched Evans to sign for a club, any club, and for SUFC to sign him without being vilified, but keep the nonsense about the law and other people's moral standpoint out of it if you don't want to look daft.

After I wrote my post I thought it ill advised, hence why I apologied after I read it back.

There are so many strands to this arguement it's really difficult to explain in writing on a forum, you lose context and may perceive something I don't mean.

When I read opinions regards Ched I agree with some of the finer points and disagree with other finer points BUT I may be perceiving it wrong.

I've learnt it's best to stay away from the detail regarding anything Ched base, sometimes easier said than done tho.

 

[United Aren't Back.]

Not football related per se, but it saddens me deeply how many "Blades" on various social media are using this as an excuse to slag off Jess Ennis-Hill, and attack her directly, as well as peddling their tired old neanderthal line about some mythical "Gold-Digger" that set out to ruin his career.

When Jess made the comments she did, he was, in the eyes of the law, a rapist, and she was well within her right to hold the opinion she did. I may be wrong, but I don't remember her ever attacking him directly. It seems utterly moronic to me that the same fans shouting about him now being not guilty in the eyes of the law, and using that to justify their opinion, forget this so quickly

Why do we have to endure this shitstorm a week before the most glorious day in our recent history?

Because it's Sheffield United. Able and willing to piss on their own chips....whatever the occasion.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

After I wrote my post I thought it ill advised, hence why I apologied after I read it back.

There are so many strands to this arguement it's really difficult to explain in writing on a forum, you lose context and may perceive something I don't mean.

When I read opinions regards Ched I agree with some of the finer points and disagree with other finer points BUT I may be perceiving it wrong.

I've learnt it's best to stay away from the detail regarding anything Ched base, sometimes easier said than done tho.

It was absolutely done to death at the time - both times - and it was an eye opener for me. It's not worth going over it all again and I'm sure no one wants to restart the whole saga, but there is still a lot of misconception about what the law is and what did/didn't happen during the trials. Personally I think both trials could have gone either way and were on a knife edge. I think the first jury got it right, but fully understand why the second jury would aquit (and I wouldn't describe it as "wrong"). It still doesn't mean he's innocent, but importantly it means he's innocent in the eyes of the law and whatever anyone thinks, me included, he is free to ply his trade as a footballer without the stigma of a rape conviction.
Also, so far, people have only considered whether it is a good move for the club, but is it a good move for Evans? It's possibly his only offer from a Championship club, but does he really want to come back to the place where it all began - he's not going to get away from it easily as a SUFC player.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

again its been decided in a court of law he didnt rape her

yes very poor behaviour but see far worse here in Benidorm a thousand times every night
mostly women on the pull. theres some frightened me

all those being prudish about it should get a grip on real life and what goes in on every day of the week by millions of people

lets not forget the biggest use of the internet is still for sexual reasons
anyone who denies that is well deluded

So you come on here looking for a shag?

 

[SteveBlade]

It's almost like I've read these arguments 3710 times before.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

This thread is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here.

Football players aren't all role models look at some of the scum bags that have played professional football - cheats, murderers, thugs, wife beaters, druggies, alcoholics, addicts just off the top of my head.

If you are complaining about Cheds football ability fine, if you're still banging on about a conviction that's been overturned I suggest you find another hobby.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

as they cannot legally rape a man.

Not sure if it helps the debate, but no one can "legally rape" anybody.

But technically, women can illegally rape men. I will spare the details, but changes in the definition of rape does allow for circumstances including a woman raping another person.

 

[lingsbord]

It's almost like I've read these arguments 3710 times before.

Tell me about it mate. Same old replies to the same old shite. All done to death and its regurgitation achieves the square root of fuck all.

A thick Welsh fella on a night out in Rhyl had sloppy seconds with a drunk pizza-juggler. I'd wager it's happened hundreds of times before and since. Let's cut the faux indignation and the amateur legal expertise and move the fuck on.

 

[SteveBlade]

Tell me about it mate. Same old replies to the same old shite. All done to death and its regurgitation achieves the square root of fuck all.

A thick Welsh fella on a night out in Rhyl had sloppy seconds with a drunk pizza-juggler. I'd wager it's happened hundreds of times before and since. Let's cut the faux indignation and the amateur legal expertise and move the fuck on.

It was a cuntish thing to get into (and that is literally all it is). Everyone just so happens to be aware of it.

If we were aware of the cuntyist thing every player has done we'd never sign anyone.

Most people have been a cunt at some point, get over it.

 

[blade too long]

So you come on here looking for a shag?

Rather read a good book

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

After I wrote my post I thought it ill advised, hence why I apologied after I read it back.

There are so many strands to this arguement it's really difficult to explain in writing on a forum, you lose context and may perceive something I don't mean.

When I read opinions regards Ched I agree with some of the finer points and disagree with other finer points BUT I may be perceiving it wrong.

I've learnt it's best to stay away from the detail regarding anything Ched base, sometimes easier said than done tho.

Perhaps we should have a thread on it so we discuss the merits?

 

[Sheffsteel]

Perhaps we should have a thread on it so we discuss the merits?

That's the post to end all threads.

I've had some right battles on other forums discussing the Ched case.... it wasn't worth the effort because it's an emotional subject so some posters were prone to anger and emotional irrational outbursts.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Not sure if it helps the debate, but no one can "legally rape" anybody.

But technically, women can illegally rape men. I will spare the details, but changes in the definition of rape does allow for circumstances including a woman raping another person.

Ok, ok, they cannot "in law" rape a man. Re a change in the law, are you sure? I thought it was "assault by penetration", part of the same Act but not rape.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Ok, ok, they cannot "in law" rape a man. Re a change in the law, are you sure? I thought it was "assault by penetration", part of the same Act but not rape.

I'm not sure actually

Now you put it that way, I think the "assault by penetration" was introduced to cover those circumstances where actions were tantamount to rape but not involving a willy.

A woman can be charged with rape if she is a conspirator, an aider or an abettor I believe.

But I stand corrected (not for the first time)

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

Perhaps we should have a thread on it so we discuss the merits?

Trying to workout on here who are the Bormann Brothers and who are the Krauss Brothers . I already know who is Erich Mielke .