Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

Phil Parkes 8:10 Mon Jan 5
Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Lee Hughes - Actually killed someone yet was welcomed back into football by Oldham Athletic

Luke McCormick - killed two young brothers aged 8 and ten years old ... re-signed by Plymouth Argyle

Ched Evans has served his time so what's the difference ?

DJH 3:00 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

The problem Willtell as mentioned in my post is football clubs even like Oldham draw the income that pays the players far and wide, so it isn't a matter of what 4,000 fans feel but what sponsors and their customers feel too.

All I am saying is that Mr Evans is facing a problems loads ex-cons face everyday on release that for whatever reason within his preferred profession he is currently seems destined to be deemed unemployable, what is the big deal because as it stands the circumstances as it stands are all self inflicted.

Others have to simply get on with it and start again why should Mr Evans be any different?

lincshammer 2:53 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Iam not disagreeing with you, it should be hard for a convicted rapist to gain employment. I actually think it would be easier to get a football contract, I know for sure in my profession I would have my membership withdraw and wouldn't be able to do the job.

DJH 2:49 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Lincshammer but surely that is that point that many people would feel uncomfortable knowing a company they worked for and with employed a convicted rapist, so why should football be any different?

Football cannot ask the world to come in and finance it be it through TV, sponsorship, etc and then complain when outside parties start interfering by applying public pressure and financial influence on it, and as supporters we have to accept that unless we go back to the days when solely financed the clubs what we think is merely a factor not a reason to make decisions.

We can argue all we like about morals but the real reason Ched Evans won't play is because of financial pressure and the views that influence those as it equally likely to come from a housewife who never sets foot in a ground than it is you or me, so we better get used to it.

Willtell 2:44 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

DJH
I never said Evans should have a right to return to Sheffield United. Clearly that boat sailed once Jessica Ennis and Charlie Webster jumped on their high horses. But Oldham with their 4,000 gates - really!

DJH 2:36 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Mr Polite be careful or you might find yourself part of the Outraged at the Outraged Brigade and how would cope with that?

lincshammer 2:33 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

I think he would struggle just as much in the real world to get a job as he would in football to be honest. It can't be easy to explain to prospective employers that the two year gap on your CV is where you were serving time for Rape.

SnarestoneIron 2:29 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

DJH 2:28 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

DJH 2:28 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Willtell, the difference which is pretty obvious between myself and Mr Taylor is that I am not representing the PFA with my comments so clearly don't have to be as responsible with my words.

Who is stopping him from earning a living, there are plenty of jobs that a fit young man convicted of rape can still do, personally I don't think being paid handsomely to play football in front of children and women is one of them be that Ched Evans or anyone else.

That is a situation many convicted criminals face and if your argument is that everyone has the right regardless of crime to resume their career from where they left once they have paid their dues to society, though I disagree I respect that but if you don't can't you see why others think as they do on this subject?

Mr Polite 2:25 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Agreed - that's the point I was trying to make. Not sticking up for Evans or any other criminal. Just hate the 'outraged' brigade with a passion

lincshammer 2:18 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

I agree with that, he should be able to try and gain employment wherever he wants and the company should have every right to accept or decline his services.

I must admit though I wouldn't be happy at all if West Ham were to sign any of the three mentioned in this thread even if they were good enough, but that's because Iam West Ham and as A supporter who spends his money at the club feel I have that right. I don't give one single fuck if another team does or doesn't sign them.

Mr Polite 2:13 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

As for a Terrorist

It is the same situation, if he served his time it should be down to the club and not MP and lefties to say where he is allowed to be employed.

Dr Congo 2:10 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Isn't the Carlisle one a death by dangerous driving case?

Willtell 2:07 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

DJH 2:02
Yes DJH but do you see the irony in criticising Taylor for comparing Hillsborough to a rapist when you compare him to a convicted terrorist FFS!

That's the trouble with all you outraged people. Even a rapist that has served his sentence is entitled to earn his living. Why are so many people against him doing what he did before serving his sentence?

Why aren't you concerned about the sexual offender lad at Carlisle now playing there?

lincshammer 2:06 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Fairplay polite, my personal opinion was that I wouldn't pull my company as it's not for me to tell a club how to run, and would still be keen to support my local club. but I wouldn't want my brand associated with Evans, unless of course he was acquitted, so I would make them remove my sponsorship from his shirt or whatever it was I was sponsoring.

Mr Polite 2:02 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Lincs - I would argue the reason that sponsors have pulled out is the amount of coverage it is getting and a chance for them to get a lot of extra publicity - although some may genuinely have a moral stance, I don't that is the case for most.

Joe Bloggs Windows (or whoever) up until yesterday had an advert at the ground that would be seen and most ingnored by about 5000 every 2 weeks. Today it has it's name in every national newspaper, has it's director on every radio and tv station saying what a lovely moral comapny they are - seen by millions.

Sorry for being a cynic but that is how most company owners would have made their decision.




DJH - You don't even have to ask the terrorist question. I wouldn't want us taking a rapist on no matter how good a footballer he was. I wouldn't want that because of the negative affect it would likely have on the dressing room, the match day and the club as a whole. I would be happy for the fans to stand up and say they don't want him. What I wouldn't want is a law to say he couldn't, or MP's trying to score points by saying he couldn't or people that have absolutely nothing to do with the club but feel they want to be outraged having a say.

The club should be able to decide whether or not to listen to the fans that don't want him or the ones that do - If the club decided to ignore me and sign him then I would have a choice on whether to come to games, to put money into the club.

DJH 2:02 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Willtell I am not being righteous but discussing someone who in law is a convicted rapist and shows no remorse for his actions.

Mr Evans may well get cleared and he would have a lot more respect if he put his head down until he proves that.

Instead until that changes he is blatantly ignoring the fact that he is a rapist in law and for many that is a pretty despicable human being and therefore shouldn't be surprised at the outrage he is receiving.

I used the example of the terrorist as clearly there is a line some draw as to what is or not acceptable and for many a convicted rapist also oversteps that.

Dr Congo 1:56 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

I'd have more respect for a petition from genuine Oldham supporters with 30 signatures than one whipped up my militant feminists who have no interest in football with 30,000.

lincshammer 1:51 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Regardless of what the WHO jury think or what Ched evens.org tells you Willtell that is exactly what Evans is, a convicted rapist.

Willtell 1:49 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

I think you've made your mind up to be righteous DJH.

I strongly doubt that any football club would want to employ a convicted terrorist for very obvious reasons.

The whole point about Ched Evans is that even though he's a bit of a cunt, a lot of people have read past the headline of "CONVICTED RAPIST" and think he may well be a victim of a miscarriage of justice...

DJH 1:43 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

Mr Polite in the past I would have agreed with you but football clubs draw their income from far and wide not just their fans so it is no longer realistic to say it is just the opinion of say Oldham fans to decide.

The reality is that despite personally feeling there are strong morals grounds for the FA directly stopping Mr Evans from the playing it is financials ones that have but have had to be instigated by the ones making the moral arguments and no matter what you think you not going to stop them.

Out of interest if West Ham wanted to sign a released convicted Islamic terrorist and us fans were undecided about it but all of our major sponsors were uncomfortable about it knowing it would lose them customers to be associated with him, what would all those saying give another Ched another chance think in this case?

lincshammer 1:40 Fri Jan 9
Re: Lee Hughes v Luke McCormick v Ched Evans

We were chatting about this at work today as I work for a company that could quite easily sponsor a lower league club the size of Oldham. We weren't really talking about the case as such but what we would do as a business if we were ever in this situation. Most of the directors were in agreement that as it stands he is a convicted rapist and we wouldn't want our brand and logo associated with him, it's an extremely difficult case for sponsors but as most are so conciencious of public image they don't have much choice.

The reason he hasn't got a club is purely down to sponsors threatening to pull out, and football club doesn't give a fuck about a MP spouting off on tv or epetitions but sponsors do.

Page 1 - Next