Next Seasons Confirmed Squad/Transfer Rumours (3 Viewers)

Forums New posts
M

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

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
Robccfc87 said:
He's been paid out though for wrongful conviction hasn't he? Would you take him? Gets glowing references from Fleetwood fans.
Click to expand...

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

better days

Well-Known Member
junglej13 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Is that deal possible
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
C

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

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
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...
Click to expand...
Was certainly guilty of treating his fiancée and girl disgracefully. Though not guilty of a crime as deemed by our judicial system
 
fernandopartridge

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
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...
Click to expand...

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

Grendel

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed and the two “new” witnesses were I assume paid the £50,000 reward - it was a stitch up in my view
 
mark82

mark82

Super 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

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge said:
They didn't refute any of the evidence that led to the conviction,
Click to expand...
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

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete said:
Was certainly guilty of treating his fiancée and girl disgracefully. Though not guilty of a crime as deemed by our judicial system
Click to expand...
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
 
C

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

Robccfc87

Well-Known Member
ccfchoi87 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Grendel

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Are you aware of the two witnesses and the reward?
 
robbiekeane

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
Grendel said:
Your first paragraph of this was true means he’s a rapist
Click to expand...
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

Grendel

Well-Known Member
robbiekeane said:
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!
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top