Mumsnet & Ched Evans

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Robby Blade said:
NoFuckingRoomOnMyBroom

Those of you not seeing the issue, are you genuinely that fucking stupid or just being twattish for the sake of It??
The girl was utterly bollocksed, in this bollocksed state she agreed to sex with one man who then contacted Evans who then went to the hotel they were at & despite thinking he was doing something ok snuck into a fire exit rather than enter via the main entrance & then shagged said utterly bollocksed young woman-WHAT A FUCKING MAN, his mum must be so proud!!
Sheffield United proclaim to be a club for families yet despite Evans utterly abhorrent behaviour hand him their shirt & parade him in front of influential young people.

I bet her kids are proud of their mum for such a considered reply.
Click to expand...


How does the mother of the girl involved see the behaviour of her daughter.

How could she have 'agreed' to 'have sex' with one man yet not another if she was so bollocksed ?

I'm not condoning Ched's actions, he was a fool.

But 'guilty' of what, foolishness and stupidity.

I think most of us could cite our own examples of that.
 
Worksop II said:
Thats where you are going wrong dude .........

And lets go to the bottom line, Aquitted, but still did the time
Click to expand...

Where You're going wrong is confusing morals with the law. Two entirely different constructs . Acquitted means it wasn't legally rape, not that it was morally right. In many countries in the eyes of the law it can't be rape if it's your own wife, doesn't make it right though .
 
Worksop II said:
Aquitted means it wasn't anything
Click to expand...

As in it didn't happen?
That's really not what it means. It was something, just a grey area rather than rape. Its the difference between nicking cash from your employer and filing slightly dodgy expenses. Either way it's not right and you'd sack them and not re-employ them.... unless you are a Member of Parliament of course.
 
Can't see Ched cutting it in the championship any time soon. That time off has resulted in his body not being up to the rigours of professional football at this level. We can't carry passengers so I'd expect a football decision to be made and Ched released or loaned out to a team in the lower two divisions until his contract runs down.
 

Foody said:
As in it didn't happen?
That's really not what it means. It was something, just a grey area rather than rape. Its the difference between nicking cash from your employer and filing slightly dodgy expenses. Either way it's not right and you'd sack them and not re-employ them.... unless you are a Member of Parliament of course.
Click to expand...

It wasn't something, it wasn't a grey area, the jury found consensual sex took place as a result of new evidence presented to the Court. Based on your analogy employers would have to sack half their workforce on a Monday morning for the activities of their employees on a Friday night.

Ched Evans re employment has had little if any effect on the brand, no sponsors pulled the plug this time, why because he's a man wrongly convicted of a crime. He's not news anymore. I am proud that my club refused to listen to the small minded minority and gave him an opportunity to resurrect his career. At this stage from a footballing perspective its not looking a good decision but thats not the point.

The anti Ched brigade who can't get over the fact he was found not guilty is ever dwindling, they lost the argument the day justice was done and he was allowed to get on with his life. They are reduced now to sniping under chav like social media sites. You have to feel sorry for them, they have nothing better to do with their lives.

As for Evans himself if he does move on at the end of the season then good luck to him.
 
Linz said:
It is if the Mothers (parents) of the children the club are trying to attract as future fans are perpetuating some of the mistruths witnessed on there. The club's reputation comes in for quite a kicking with regards its supposed misogynistic approach.

I did mention at the time at it might be a good idea to put the existing female members of staff front and centre and ask whether any women had ever been approached to join the board...
Click to expand...

 
Addison said:
It wasn't something, it wasn't a grey area, the jury found consensual sex took place as a result of new evidence presented to the Court. Based on your analogy employers would have to sack half their workforce on a Monday morning for the activities of their employees on a Friday night.

Ched Evans re employment has had little if any effect on the brand, no sponsors pulled the plug this time, why because he's a man wrongly convicted of a crime. He's not news anymore. I am proud that my club refused to listen to the small minded minority and gave him an opportunity to resurrect his career. At this stage from a footballing perspective its not looking a good decision but thats not the point.

The anti Ched brigade who can't get over the fact he was found not guilty is ever dwindling, they lost the argument the day justice was done and he was allowed to get on with his life. They are reduced now to sniping under chav like social media sites. You have to feel sorry for them, they have nothing better to do with their lives.

As for Evans himself if he does move on at the end of the season then good luck to him.
Click to expand...

Do you truly believe he didn't do anything wrong? Is it behaviour you'd encourage from your sons or members of your family?

I'm not saying the guy is a rapist . I'm saying he made a very poor decision that dragged this great clubs name through mud. In terms of the brand it's about the perception of a family club, as a result I expect our representatives to be role models: true ambassadors . Clearly others have different expectations .

As for my analogy I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. The fact is it's a privilege to be a big earner in the public eye. That comes with an added weight of expectation. For the record I'm not a Ched basher, I don't think we should have singed him and I struggle to understand how anyone could see it as a good singing . If he'd never played for us before we'd unanimously write him off as shit. Nostalgia and rose tinted specs mean he'll come good at some point.
 
Danny04 said:
Thread deleted - what was the gist, anyone?
Click to expand...


[Paraphrasing]

Sheffield Utd are a shitty club for taking Ched back, and I wouldn’t want any representatives of a club with such poor moral judgement anywhere near my kids.
 
Foody said:
For what it's worth I sort of agree with your point.
Taking morality out of it and purely analysing the business decision I'm still confused by the Ched Evans signing .
I work in (very low level) management for a large multi-national. When making decision or dealing with incidents I have to ensure protect these things, in order: 1. People 2. The Brand 3. Assets 4. Profit. From a purely business point of view we've forgotten that Sheffield United is a 129 year old club, a brand, something that has more value than any footballer, manager or even whole squad.

Regardless of what people on here may believe about mum's net, the poster highlights the risk we ran. The potential damage to a great brand.
Click to expand...

I can see a salient argument for 4 and 3. We could get a potentially top asset at a snip, leading to profitability for the club.Any cost has been negligible, which Wilder has made very clear. 3 and 4 would outweigh all the others.
I could also come up with arguments for 1: the none Cheds were not really bothered anymore, whereas the Ched fundamentalists were very happy that he signed again.The damage to the brand has not really damaged matchday income, I'm not sure about other revenue streams.I think if we we had a large global footprint we'd have steered well clear.
 
Their kids might be shit, in which case I wouldn't want my club associating with them or the sperm recepticles who produced them. Cuts both ways.
 
nopigfansintown said:
I can see a salient argument for 4 and 3. We could get a potentially top asset at a snip, leading to profitability for the club.Any cost has been negligible, which Wilder has made very clear. 3 and 4 would outweigh all the others.
I could also come up with arguments for 1: the none Cheds were not really bothered anymore, whereas the Ched fundamentalists were very happy that he signed again.The damage to the brand has not really damaged matchday income, I'm not sure about other revenue streams.I think if we we had a large global footprint we'd have steered well clear.
Click to expand...

I'd agree, that the impact has been fairly minimal. But early invites to train with the club etc did kick up an unnecessary media storm. Certainly a gamble and whilst we've not lost much, it's one that hasn't paid off.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

UTB Blade
A Foot in Both Camps
Replies
8
Views
868
Houston_Blade
Houston_Blade
Kozzy_is_my_Dad
The psychology of managing the next few weeks
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Houston_Blade
Houston_Blade
Brother-Leech
Sick Children’s Trust - Baby Blade
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
HighfieldBlade
HighfieldBlade
Torrix1889
#wildersbrexitblades
2
Replies
58
Views
4K
ShorehamRevolution
ShorehamRevolution
Deadbat
Season Review / School Report 24/25: Part 2 - Board/Club/Management
Replies
6
Views
935
Deadbat
Deadbat

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom