If he goes to fund the attacking targets then so be it.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.
Would swap Bayliss for Bright and Walker.
Is that deal possibleWould swap Bayliss for Bright and Walker.
Is that deal possible
Would deffo take Evans!Ched Evans got 17 in league one last year and is transfer listed. Dominic Samuel would be available.
Why hasn't Evans signed for anyone yet? No rumours at all that I can find.
He's been paid out though for wrongful conviction hasn't he? Would you take him? Gets glowing references from Fleetwood fans.I suspect it's because most teams, despite his acquittal, wouldn't want to be associated with him.
He's been paid out though for wrongful conviction hasn't he? Would you take him? Gets glowing references from Fleetwood fans.
Sky Sports saying Huddersfield are one of the clubs interestedPete 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.
Yeah it's a mucky road that I don't want to go down but in fairness we did sign King!!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...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.
Was certainly guilty of treating his fiancée and girl disgracefully. Though not guilty of a crime as deemed by our judicial systemRight 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
Absolutely.Agreed but if we didn’t include people who had treated girls badly, I suspect we would not have a team or a fan base.
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.
Be nice to have someone here who wins in court though!!Indeed and the two “new” witnesses were I assume paid the £50,000 reward - it was a stitch up in my view
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?They didn't refute any of the evidence that led to the conviction,
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 viewWas certainly guilty of treating his fiancée and girl disgracefully. Though not guilty of a crime as deemed by our judicial system
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!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.
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
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.Your first paragraph of this was true means he’s a rapist
If we signed him would you stop going ?Your first paragraph of this was true means he’s a rapist
Are you aware of the two witnesses and the reward?
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!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?