A progress report on The Chedler...

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

I think he'll be back with us. I also think he'll get 100% fit and hit the headlines again - for the right reasons. He's mentally very tough and that's a very important part of his comeback so far. Many on here said he had no chance having been out of the game so long. He proved his worth as soon as he stepped back onto the field. Without him Chezzy would be in the bottom 3 for certain. With him, they will NOT go down to League 2. With him we WOULD have been promoted to the Championship for certain. That other lot would probably have been in the same position as us - 6 seasons in this league and desperate to get out. The value of Evans as a player seems lost on many who claim to understand their favourite sport. I'm not surprised because I read opinions on this forum expressing criticism of Billy Sharp.........

 

[andy m]

I really don't get all this sentimental nostagia for a player who didn't do much for us in our last season in the championship, only 9 goals in 35 appearances is not great and is part of the reason we were relegated. Defenders had him sussed at that level and the championship is probably an even higher standard now and Cheds a few years older and I hear a yard slower. I suspect we would all be disappointed with him next season if we go up. He had his chance to impress at that level and didn't take it. If it was just a deal until the end of the season maybe but historically we often give contracts of several years to has beens and then regret it later.

Shouldn't we be looking for someone who has a better chance of cutting it in the championship and for the team to finish above the relegation places and then build from there in seasons thereafter. Please lets move on and get someone better suited for where we want to go and not harp on about the past and lots of goals against far lesser opponents.

How many of our current strikers do you think would have a one in four strike rate in the championship?

 

[Pierre's PC]

It's been 11 hours, any further update?

 

[itsinyerblood]

You don't understand how or why the evidence was presented, yet you use it to criticise him and then embellish it with your moralistic viewpoint

Your post is arrogant, patronising, misinformed and inaccurate

Considering how many words you cram into your posts it's surprising how vacuous they tend to be

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.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I really don't get all this sentimental nostagia for a player who didn't do much for us in our last season in the championship, only 9 goals in 35 appearances is not great and is part of the reason we were relegated. Defenders had him sussed at that level and the championship is probably an even higher standard now and Cheds a few years older and I hear a yard slower. I suspect we would all be disappointed with him next season if we go up. He had his chance to impress at that level and didn't take it. If it was just a deal until the end of the season maybe but historically we often give contracts of several years to has beens and then regret it later.

Shouldn't we be looking for someone who has a better chance of cutting it in the championship and for the team to finish above the relegation places and then build from there in seasons thereafter. Please lets move on and get someone better suited for where we want to go and not harp on about the past and lots of goals against far lesser opponents.

I can only assume, and taking some clues from your posted location, that you didn't really see much of him during his time with us?

He was poor in his first two seasons to be totally fair. However, when Wilson came in and got on his case he was formidable. Mate, I've been watching since the late 1960's and remember (just) Mick Jones and all the centre-forwards that have followed since then, including my favourite, Billy Dearden. But I tell you now, Ched is the best number 9 I have ever seen in a United shirt, based on his last season with us. Whether that was a one-off no-one knows. But I have never seen a Sheffield United centre-forward so literally "unplayable" as he was that season.

That's why I'd love to see him get another chance. BTW - he did "cut it in the Championship" with Norwich and Man City. He is at least a Championship level player trapped in the wrong league. Does that make it clearer for you?

 

[andy m]

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.

I the act prevented such evidence being used it wouldn't have been used. Surely that is the definition of "prevents"

 

[bartman]

Yes I do understand why McCabe pulled the plug. It was because of the shitstorm that was blown up on social media by the Feminazi and the thing that upset McCabe most was the loss of sponsorship. In my view, and maybe this isn't yours ? this was a serious moral issue. A man had been judged by the Courts of this land to be free to be introduced back into to society and have the right to resume his employment, just like any other individual. McCabe offered him that, then took it away when it all became a bit uncomfortable. I don't know about you, but personally, I'm a man of my word. If I say I am going to do something I do it. McCabe didn't. He bottled it. Even worse, he obviously didn't even anticipate it in the first place! Which I find kind of strange! Like, really strange!! Just shows how forward-thinking he is doesn't it?

I'm sorry for the sarcasm btw - (it is a fault of mine) but I just found it incredible that you needed to ask a question like "Not be allowed by who - and on what belief is this based?" because you must have been living down a cave if the events of the previous years had passed you by - and you didn't know that McCabe had blocked his move

In terms of goals I like what I have seen of Lavery the last couple of day and I hope he will get us 10 goals and goals are coming from round the team now. With regards to Ched, he has been out of the game a long time and I am worried about his fitness. We can always bring McNulty back. Not a preference option but he has shown he can score goals for us. I am worried we will be exposed at RWB if Freeman gets injured and there will be a lack of a plan B if we don't get a winger. I am also concerned about a lack of cover if two of our midfield 3 get long term injuries.

Obviously if Chessie are happy to take McNulty off our hands I would take Ched ( if he would come). The final decision , I hope, will be made by Wilder and then ultimately Evans.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

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?

 

[PeteBlade]

I'd sign him purely on the basis that it would cause a shitstorm

Fuck other clubs
Fuck the media
Fuck the fans of other clubs
Fuck the FA
Fuck Jean
Fuck the women's groups

And fuck everyone else

I'd hope the people that make the decisions here are a little bit more grown up.

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

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.

A prime example of what I am talking about

You have filled the post with words again.

The post is inaccurate again

 

[INTAKE BLADE]

Because it's typical Bladey inferiority complex cap-doffing. If you lose 4-1 at home not one of your players has "run the show". It's axiomatic. Try saying it of one of our players next time we get battered at home by three goals.

Was it 4.1 when he went off, no it was 1.1
You come across as axiomatic, forums are about peoples opinions weather you agree or not, 1.1 was the score when he went off and in MY opinion he ran our defence ragged to which others disagree, which is their perogative.

 

[coolhandluke]

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?

" 400 K , the deal is done "

 

[Jonboy60]

Wayne Rooney? Great player but it's a no for me coz he cheated on fucking Coleen

Surely f***ing a grannie evens it up.

 

[Bullet73]

Striker lined up not Ched

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

Striker lined up not Ched

Were u herd dis pal?

 

[bornablade]

Goodness me darling. Calm down. Bad period pains? Ah bless.
For the record PC is the worst thing to have happened to this country since The Rubettes. As for Chubby Brown I've only seen about 15 minutes of his garbage so I'll bow to your vastly superior knowledge,you obviously being a big fan and all.
Anyway,I'm sure you're busy writing letters of complaint and being all offended on other peoples behalf.
Again. Sorry you're having a bad case of PMT.

I tell you SBT you're well out of order there.

As a protest to your comment I'm having a 1970's individual tribute night. The vinyls are out, I've put on an old pair of flares (for some unknown reason there's a big stain down the back of one of the legs!) and it's a night of listening to Sugar Baby Love. Long live the Rubettes.

 

[Blend-it-like-Harris]

Some might argue that he failed to make much of an impact in the Championship, but he was carrying an injury when he came to the club, and though not fully fit by some margin, he still had an impact. The following season in League 1 he was unplayable. In 60 years at the lane I have to say he looked to me to be quite possibly the best striker we've had in that time. I have to accept that it was only one season, and that it was in the 3rd tier of football. However, the Premiership is an International League as far as I'm concerned, and bears little resemblance to the old Division 1. Likewise, the old Div 3 was a sorry standard compared to League 1 now. I watched Deano play in Div 3, and watched Edwards play in Div 4, and I knew then and now the value of both as players with the Blades. Billy Dearden was a nobody when he came to us; he was a fantastic No. 9 and certainly a key figure in getting us promoted to the top tier.
As for Mick Jones, I saw his first game in the 1st team as a 17 year-old, and remember an old guy stood at the Bramall Lane end (no segregation of fans back then folks) who called him a donkey. I turned round to him and had the audacity to tell him that Mick would one day play for England; the old feller (and his mates) just laughed at me. As for TC - well that was an easy call for anyone who saw his debut home game against Spurs, and he was only 17 years old too. I can well remember an old-timer in the same team making a monkey out of Jimmy Greaves too! No prizes for guessing who that was............

 

[itsinyerblood]

I the act prevented such evidence being used it wouldn't have been used. Surely that is the definition of "prevents"

Evans defence argued for the restriction of Section 41 to be lifted in this case, claiming there was a thread of commonality in Evans' victims' sexual when she'd had too much to drink. Their appeal hung on the notion that sexual encounters with two different men had been "too similar to be coincidence". It is for this reason that two new witnesses were allowed to give evidence at this appeal. Thus the definition of 'prevents' was turned on it's head in this case.

 

[itsinyerblood]

A prime example of what I am talking about

You have filled the post with words again.

The post is inaccurate again

It's as if saying what I write is inaccurate makes it so in your eyes. You obviously entitled to suggest whatever comes into your head, but without being able to say anything beyond the fact that you feel I'm inaccurate, it's impossible to comment given you've not established how I'm inaccurate?

As for what you describe as "filled a post with words again", it kind of defeats the point of a forum's existence not to write thoughtfully I'd have thought. Unless you think razor-rusty, pithy responses are the way to go? Perhaps you haven't seen the need for explanatory notes in a legal context before, and before you comment that this isn't a legal forum, no, you're quite right, it isn't, but we are discussing a legal framework and that requires an explanation about the legal context. Whether you agree or not is neither here nor there. Apologies for the use of words.

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

It's as if saying what I write is inaccurate makes it so in your eyes. You obviously entitled to suggest whatever comes into your head, but without being able to say anything beyond the fact that you feel I'm inaccurate, it's impossible to comment given you've not established how I'm inaccurate?

As for what you describe as "filled a post with words again", it kind of defeats the point of a forum's existence not to write thoughtfully I'd have thought. Unless you think razor-rusty, pithy responses are the way to go? Perhaps you haven't seen the need for explanatory notes in a legal context before, and before you comment that this isn't a legal forum, no, you're quite right, it isn't, but we are discussing a legal framework and that requires an explanation about the legal context. Whether you agree or not is neither here nor there. Apologies for the use of words.

You explained the legal frame work in unnecessary length and completely wrongly which is my point

You have then gone on to part way explain why you are wrong in your post to Andy m in a post that is ironically quite succinct

 

[1889]

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want Utd to sign Ched? He's a hard working aggressive striker that would fit right into our high pressing style of play and has more motivation to succeed at Bramall Lane than any other potential signing.

I wonder if some still think even now, that he let us down, but the fact of the matter is it was the judicial system that let everyone down, no one more than Ched himself.
There is no way there would be any media outcry at his re-signing, how could there be, he has been exonerated and is free to play for any one who wishes to employ him.
I think we'd struggle to find a striker of his ability for similar sort of money.

Yes he's played for us before, but he left in pretty unique circumstances that neither party wanted. Yes, he cheated on his girlfriend, but were honour a criteria for entry to Bramall Lane I wager we'd be getting considerably smaller crowds

 

[andy m]

Evans defence argued for the restriction of Section 41 to be lifted in this case, claiming there was a thread of commonality in Evans' victims' sexual when she'd had too much to drink. Their appeal hung on the notion that sexual encounters with two different men had been "too similar to be coincidence". It is for this reason that two new witnesses were allowed to give evidence at this appeal. Thus the definition of 'prevents' was turned on it's head in this case.

So 3 judges I believe took a month studying the case before coming to the conclusion that these witnesses should be allowed to give evidence. Are you saying that they were wrong to do so, and if so what qualifies you to make this judgement? Not being argumentative just interested in your superior legal qualifications and knowledge of the law in comparison to the judges.

 

[beatific blade]

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

 

[South Bucks]

I can only assume, and taking some clues from your posted location, that you didn't really see much of him during his time with us?

He was poor in his first two seasons to be totally fair. However, when Wilson came in and got on his case he was formidable. Mate, I've been watching since the late 1960's and remember (just) Mick Jones and all the centre-forwards that have followed since then, including my favourite, Billy Dearden. But I tell you now, Ched is the best number 9 I have ever seen in a United shirt, based on his last season with us. Whether that was a one-off no-one knows. But I have never seen a Sheffield United centre-forward so literally "unplayable" as he was that season.

That's why I'd love to see him get another chance. BTW - he did "cut it in the Championship" with Norwich and Man City. He is at least a Championship level player trapped in the wrong league. Does that make it clearer for you?

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.

 

[Champagneblade]

I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want Utd to sign Ched? He's a hard working aggressive striker that would fit right into our high pressing style of play and has more motivation to succeed at Bramall Lane than any other potential signing.

I wonder if some still think even now, that he let us down, but the fact of the matter is it was the judicial system that let everyone down, no one more than Ched himself.
There is no way there would be any media outcry at his re-signing, how could there be, he has been exonerated and is free to play for any one who wishes to employ him.
I think we'd struggle to find a striker of his ability for similar sort of money.

Yes he's played for us before, but he left in pretty unique circumstances that neither party wanted. Yes, he cheated on his girlfriend, but were honour a criteria for entry to Bramall Lane I wager we'd be getting considerably smaller crowds

It seems we have the Dolorean stuck at 2011.

I would have thought he has grown up considerably in the intervening years and is now happily married family man as opposed to slightly dopey, naive young man.

Wilder has not dismissed him when the possibility was raised. If he had absolutely zero interest then he needn't play the "we're interested in many players" card. Why keep the option open if your interest is nil?

So, Ched feels let down? He now has a shortened career available to him. If he thinks United under Wilder is the best move available, he'd take it. He'd get more patience under our fans than anyone.

To Silent's point, we sign him if CW wants him. If he doesn't, we don't.

But if CW does want him and he is affordable, nobody else at the club should interfere.

 

[Weasel]

I know it's football, and the supporters religion that shall never be questioned etc, etc, but this blind loyalty to a player who, through vast amounts of money thrown at his legal case, managed to find a way of using someone's past to undermine their worth as a human being. Evans was (may still be?) a predatory, self-serving narcissist who managed to weasel his way to the point where he could overwhelm his way to some type of legal victory. I know it goes against the grain to say as much, but the way some on here (and football supporters in general no doubt) seem to have no clue about the difference between a legal victory and a moral defeat is astounding. I guess club before commonsense is taken as read in most circumstances.

I don't care about him or the path his life takes him. If he should return to United I'll still support the Blades, after a couple of years he'll be gone and this will have been the peak of anything that could be regarded as a football career. No doubt those with massive mouths will reply in the way they no best, but if there's a lack of civility the 'ignore' button will be pushed with gleeful abandon, that's a promise UTB

I saw from a poster above the following quote - "If these players are playing well they can do what they like off the pitch" - a perfect summary of what I wrote above.

'Blind loyalty to a player'....not sure where your coming from on that one, many on here were debating whether Ched Evans would be a good potential signing for sufc, not whether we hero worshipped the lad or not.

'managed to find a way of using someone's past to undermine their worth as a human being'... did he? I thought that all evidence deemed relevent by the court was heard in his appeal nothing more nothing less.

'Evans was (may still be?) a predatory, self-serving narcissist'....really...u know that do you? I agree he may have acted like a silly lad on the night in question but he has been found not guilty. You seem to have a very personal view of him with those words.

'No doubt those with massive mouths will reply in the way they no best, but if there's a lack of civility the 'ignore' button will be pushed with gleeful abandon, that's a promise'... oh no...what will we do if the great IIYB decides to put another poster on ignore...i dont know about other posters but im shitting it at the sheer thought of it. How would i go on with life....dear me.

Actually do me a favour and press the button. Your far too egotistical for me and to be quite frank with you your posts usually send me to sleep. I have to set the alarm clock before i start reading most of your posts as there's the chance i might drop off half way through.

The thread was supposed to be about football and whether a certain footballer would improve us. Invarioubly some posters just cant seem to get their head around talking about Ched Evans the footballer without bringing out all the ghosts of yesterday.

 

[JJBlade]

And you know this because ......?

Ok, he'd rather stay at Chesterfield on a third of the wages and maybe become unemployed at the end of the season when his contract expires.

Are you happy now

 

[Bartyblade]

Evans defence argued for the restriction of Section 41 to be lifted in this case, claiming there was a thread of commonality in Evans' victims' sexual when she'd had too much to drink. Their appeal hung on the notion that sexual encounters with two different men had been "too similar to be coincidence". It is for this reason that two new witnesses were allowed to give evidence at this appeal. Thus the definition of 'prevents' was turned on it's head in this case.

Yes, because Section 41 is not sufficient reason to prevent the court hearing about the thread of commonality.
If her sexual encounters had not shown commonality, then Section 41 would have prevailed.

 

[bartman]

Ok, he'd rather stay at Chesterfield on a third of the wages and maybe become unemployed at the end of the season when his contract expires.

Are you happy now

Chessie have a year option on his contract. If Ched does well he will still have a job.

How do you know he'd wants to join us especially if he feels let down by McCabe ?Also if he is playing well.and scoring teams in the league above will want him.

Most footballers will go to the highest bidder. Ched will be no different and will have no loyalty to us in my opinion.

 

[JJBlade]

I'd hope the people that make the decisions here are a little bit more grown up.

Yes it was stupid and silly, I should have included "Fuck some of our own fans" as well.
Especially the ones that are so grown up that they want to take any comment made literally, however stupid and outrageous it might be, just so that they can cause arguments