Next Seasons Confirmed Squad/Transfer Rumours (3 Viewers)

Magwitch

Well-Known Member
Not the hardest rumour to post is it, I’ll post one Bayliss to West Brom, and that’s come from the Albion end.
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
He's been paid out though for wrongful conviction hasn't he? Would you take him? Gets glowing references from Fleetwood fans.

I think he's a good player but not sure if I would want him here tbh. The reason he won an appeal is because they decided to put the victim on trial.
 

better days

Well-Known Member
Pete O'Rourke on twitter reporting a few clubs have enquired about Bayliss. I get the impression he is being touted out by the club. Possibly why Robins is favouring Shipley in the pre seasons.
Sky Sports saying Huddersfield are one of the clubs interested
They are selling Phillip Billing to Bournemouth today for £15m
He plays in a similar position to Bayliss
May be just coincidence of course
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Is that deal possible

giphy.gif
 

ccfchoi87

Well-Known Member
I’d 100% have Evans. He would be able to lead the line on his own. Decent height and mobility etc. I don’t think he suits Robins’ recruitment policy though. I remember him playing for chesterfield at the Ricoh and constantly giving grief to the rest of the team despite not playing well himself. Robins also seems to prefer players under 25.
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
I think he's a good player but not sure if I would want him here tbh. The reason he won an appeal is because they decided to put the victim on trial.
Right so when he’s guilty it doesn’t matter that there was no real evidence etc he’s just guilty because a court said so and that’s that...when it gets overturned though different story...
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Right so when he’s guilty it doesn’t matter that there was no real evidence etc he’s just guilty because a court said so and that’s that...when it gets overturned though different story...
Was certainly guilty of treating his fiancée and girl disgracefully. Though not guilty of a crime as deemed by our judicial system
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Right so when he’s guilty it doesn’t matter that there was no real evidence etc he’s just guilty because a court said so and that’s that...when it gets overturned though different story...

They didn't refute any of the evidence that led to the conviction, instead they decided that the victim's sexual history should be heard in court.

He has never denied anything about the events of the evening has he? He only said it was consensual whereas the girl was so drunk she was not in a position to consent.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
They didn't refute any of the evidence that led to the conviction, instead they decided that the victim's sexual history should be heard in court.

He has never denied anything about the events of the evening has he? He only said it was consensual whereas the girl was so drunk she was not in a position to consent.

Indeed and the two “new” witnesses were I assume paid the £50,000 reward - it was a stitch up in my view
 

mark82

Moderator
Regardless if the rights and wrongs of what happened, isn't our club enough of a circus as it is without adding extra controversy?
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
They didn't refute any of the evidence that led to the conviction,
What evidence? The girl couldn’t remember anything. I’ve had sex before and not remembered anything the next day. Was I raped? What was the sexual history used for?

The guys a piece of shit by the way, but he’s not a rapist (or at the very least, we can’t say he is because a girl can’t remember having sex with him).

When he’s convicted despite glaring holes in the case it’s all “he was convicted and that’s that, nothing else to say on the matter”. When it’s overturned though it’s a stick up and it’s all “but...but”.

You just can’t have it both ways
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Was certainly guilty of treating his fiancée and girl disgracefully. Though not guilty of a crime as deemed by our judicial system
Oh yes, I’m not defending his character. Just don’t think there was enough to call him a criminal and more pointing out the hypocrisy/double standards of certain posters on here when our justice system rules against their view
 

ccfchoi87

Well-Known Member
Regardless of the court case, we should judge him on whether he would improve the team or not. On that alone, he would be a very good signing.
 

Robccfc87

Well-Known Member
Regardless of the court case, we should judge him on whether he would improve the team or not. On that alone, he would be a very good signing.
If it was purely football related I agree but many factors have to be considered, it just so happens that we've already tread this path with King in the past!
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
What evidence? The girl couldn’t remember anything. I’ve had sex before and not remembered anything the next day. Was I raped? What was the sexual history used for?

The guys a piece of shit by the way, but he’s not a rapist (or at the very least, we can’t say he is because a girl can’t remember having sex with him).

When he’s convicted despite glaring holes in the case it’s all “he was convicted and that’s that, nothing else to say on the matter”. When it’s overturned though it’s a stick up and it’s all “but...but”.

You just can’t have it both ways

Your first paragraph of this was true means he’s a rapist

Are you aware of the two witnesses and the reward?
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Your first paragraph of this was true means he’s a rapist
No it does not. She could have consented at the time despite being drunk. He also could have easily therefore reasonably believed consent was given.

To be an offence, one person has to not consent and the other doesn’t reasonably believe consent is given.

Just being unable to remember something from the night before because you were drunk doesn’t a) mean you were unable to consent and b) mean it was unreasonable to believe you’d consented.

Otherwise i must’ve been raped/sexually assaulted a fair few times!
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
No it does not. She could have consented at the time despite being drunk. He also could have easily therefore reasonably believed consent was given.

To be an offence, one person has to not consent and the other doesn’t reasonably believe consent is given.

Just being unable to remember something from the night before because you were drunk doesn’t a) mean you were unable to consent and b) mean it was unreasonable to believe you’d consented.

Otherwise i must’ve been raped/sexually assaulted a fair few times!

You said “couldn’t remember anything” which suggests high levels of intoxication - evidence was provided to jury 1 and was accepted

This is not the reason he had the conviction quashed is it?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top