This "inconsistency" is explained here: https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-v-ched-evans-chedwyn-evans
The appeal judge is basically saying that the first bloke *could* have been led to believe that it was consensual because of the events leading up to the 'act' (i.e. they met at a takeaway, got in a taxi, went to a hotel, etc) whereas Evans just pitched up at the hotel and could have been under no illusions that the woman was too drunk to consent.
I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the conclusions of the jury and the judge(s) but that's the distinction that led to the first guy being found not guilty and Evans guilty of the "same" offence. It's all about their own perception of the incident not whether the woman gave her consent, per se.
If we qualify for Europe then I would expect us to increase the depth of our squad. So we can't really compare playing 3 games in a week this season with next season (if it happens). Yes, we've "got to get used to it" but not with the current squad.
Surely the burden of proof sits with the accuser rather than the accusee? IMO, take it to court and see what evidence they come up with.
Edit: also check out this site for useful info and support: http://www.appealnow.com
Just back from the game. Players didn't seem interested in the first half - we were playing in 2nd or 3rd gear. We dominated the second have but that was largely due to Ipswich deciding to park the bus rather than go for the win.
My MotM goes to Steven Davis.
I'd "play the kids" in the replay. As highlighted by Isgrove's introduction, they would be more up for it than our 'senior' starting 11.