egg

Agreed. He's a steady 6.5/10 player. Sure he's ever reliable but we need better players to make progress. The lad hasn't accepted the offer put to him so we cash in while we can.

Tough call Del. If not, we can loan him out to Telford or similar.

The stats on the Mainz os don't suggest he's in great form. 11 appearances, 477 minutes played, 0 assists, 0 goals, 3 shots on target. 75% pass completion is the highlight. His pedigree looks good though. May be a confidence player - a change of surroundings and management may be what he needs.

Because the jury did not believe that Evans could have believed that the girl consented. They believed that the other fella could have believed that she consented. That's not surprising given that she went back to the hotel with the other fella whereas Evans just rocked up and had a go.

I explained why in my post. He was convicted before this media circus and before "evidence" was put into the public arena. If the review can and does lead to a retrial then the bloke will struggle to have a fair trial. If that's the case, and he's convicted, then an appeal would be in the offing. The way I see it is that any retrial would not lead to a safe conviction. Faced with that possibility the crown could well pull it - far better to do that and explain why rather than have the bloke "proved innocent" in the court. If the review leaves things be then that's the end of it. If it leads to a retrial then my gut feel is that Evans will get a result. Let's see what happens.

Anyone who has sat through trials will know that the words in the evidence only tell part of the story. The jury get to see the mannerisms and body language of the witnesses and form an opinion of them. Essentially, their job is to asess the evidence based on what they have seen and heard in the witness box - a transcript is not the same. 12 jurors assessed the evidence in this case and arrived at the conclusion that Evans account left them with no reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Reading the evidence will not give the same insight into the evidence as the jurors had. I've not looked into the powers of this "review" thingy but if they have the jurisdiction to order a retrial then Evans will probably be acquitted one way or another. He can't possibly get a fair trial. If I were at the cps I'd probably pull the case in that situation citing rather than allowing him to think he's been exonerated by a jury or the court of appeal. If a retrial is an option for the review thingy then this media circus may well aid Evans and it could be that he is being better advised than it first appears.

What amounts to a role model is subjective. Its more about a professional status/social standing, and the standards expected. Imo being a rapist falls below the standards expected of any professional and the privelige of continuing in that profession should not be permitted in my opinion. You have a different view which I disagree with.

There are many professions whose professional bodies have the discretion to refuse to allow somebody convicted of certain offences to continue in that profession. They include the legal profession, medical, teaching, police, and others. Its not just about being a role model, but that's a factor. A professional footballer has a priveliged position. He's in the public eye. He has responsibilities, like the professionals above, to behave appropriately and as would be expected by his professional standing. Convicted rapists clearly fall below the expected standards. If he was a lawyer, copper, teacher, etc, he would have to think about a new way of earning a coin. If he was a plumber or painter maybe not. Sure, his profession is different to these few examples but IMO the standing and priveliged position of a pro footballer is such that in circumstances like this a pro footballer cannot expect to return to his chosen profession.

Most rapists say that they believe the other party consented. Faced with a prison sentence and a ruined life that's perhaps an understandable stance - an attempt at self preservation. The role of the jury is to determine if consent was present. In the Evans case the jury concluded no consent, thus he's a rapist. I'm staggered this thread is rumbling on with people speculating whether or not convicted rapists are guilty. They have been found to be, including Evans - end of story.

Because that's how valuations work. Comparables are used. A better player is worth more than an inferior player. Sure, supply and demand and other factors come into player but a comparable is a well recognised starting point.

So how do rapists unintentionally have non consensual sex. Are you saying their ****s go on auto pilot?

Matic went to Chelsea for £21m. He's a better player than Morgan IMO. £20m is about right.

Agreed. Pelle's movement against city was awful. We were predictable and the same against Arsenal will produce a similar outcome IMO. Long hanging on the shoulder of the last man would give the arsenal defence something to think about and will peg them back. Mane wasn't as bad against city as people make out. Bertrand offered no overlap beyond him and he never once got the ball in space to have a free run at zabaleta. He took up good positions and used the ball well. I'd give him another go. His pace will frighten chambers.

He said they won't be playing, not that they won't be travelling. He's probably right - it's unlikely that any player will play on Monday and then again Wednesday.

I have a oneplus one invite going spare. If anyone wants one pm your email and it's yours.

http://m.yelp.co.uk/biz/pink-elephant-windows-and-conservatories-eastleigh Excellent products, service and prices.

Come on, you know better than that. If all rape was the same then all rapists would get the same sentence. They don't, in the same way as all those convicted of violent offences, and manslaughter, and theft, and robbery, etc, don't all get the same sentence. All of those offences have different "degrees", "categories", "levels of seriousness" or whatever you want to call it. Whilst rape is rape, like violence is violence, not all offences are the same and cannot be (and in the eyes of the law, are not) dealt with in the same way.

Nope.

It is naive to think that people who fight to clear their name actually believe they are innocent. Remember, twelve jurors, were satisfied that he was guilty. The court of appeal did not consider the verdict to be unsafe. Despite that it staggers me that people on a forum think that a bloke who wants to pursue a lucrative career could be innocent just cos he says he is. Unbelievable.

Solicitors rules of conduct are present not because of the position solicitors hold in the legal profession, but because of the position they and the profession have in society. The same applies to other professionals. Solicitors and the legal profession have responsibilities and standards to uphold. Ditto doctors, MP's, teachers and pretty much all professionals. Footballers are professionals. They too have standards to maintain and cannot expect to pursue their profession having committed rape when other professionals cannot. His lack of remorse is a huge factor. If you can't accept you've done wrong then you can't be rehabilitated. Simple.

Personality has nothing to do with it. Football is a priveliged profession. Those who play it are in the public eye, and role model. I mentioned earlier that solicitors can't expect to practice if convicted of rape, despite having served there sentence. After all, doing the porridge doesn't take away what they've done. Footballers are also professionals in a position of authority and should be treated similarly imo. Here's the rules for solicitors: http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/suitabilitytest/part2/content.page Any good reason why footballers should be treated more leniently?

Amen to that.

Blimey. You're over analysing something, and blindly speculating. I haven't read a transcript of the evidence and I doubt you have either. The jury heard it all and decided beyond all reasonable doubt that Evans was guilty. The fact that the other bloke was acquitted doesn't mean that the jury "found him innocent". They could have done but having defended more criminal cases (including rape) than I care to remember, I suspect that the jury had some doubt, hence he was not found guilty. The jury, having heard the evidence, had to determine guilt. In doing so they would have had to consider the issue of consent. Mcdonald and Evans cases were different. She went with McDonald but Evans came along later. That difference may have caused some doubt re McDonald. There may well have been something else, I don't know, but there is a difference that may have been the difference in the jurors mind. If McDonald was fortunate to be acquitted it doesn't follow that Evans should also have been.

No idea mate. Like the rest of us I haven't read or heard the evidence, or the judges summing up. I suspect both fellas say she consented. McDonald was better placed to cast doubt in the jurors minds by virtue of her merrily going to the hotel with him. In contrast, and as Hatch put it, Evans just turned up and nailed her. Your question was how one was acquitted. Without knowing all the facts or evidence, it seems to me that there is a huge difference between the boys cases.

The girl went back to the hotel hand in hand with McDonald. Evans invited himself to the hotel, and seemingly to her.