UV

I genuinely believe that a all a better manager would mean would be that we would try to get by with even more mediocre players than we already have. The better the manager did, the more of our better players we could sell off and still finish mid-table. That's the level of my cynicism towards the ownership of this club.

Thank goodness that kind of boardroom interference in which players should or shouldn't play in certain games doesn't happen at our club.

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion? You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto. As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others. To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence. He didn't serve his time he's out on licence. Also he's a convicted rapist, you can't cast aspersions on the validity of his conviction without being in court and seeing all the evidence they saw. It's not as simple as "well it sounds like it's bit dodgy to me!!" are other people out on licence allowed to work during the remainder of their sentence or are they all prevented from doing so? Not sure. I'm merely stating the fact he hasn't "served his time". This all seems to be predicated on the fact it's not a "clear cut case" which doesn't sit very comfortably with me, considering none of us were in court and heard all the evidence. Seems to me if it was as shaky as people think he might have not been convicted? "serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system"

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion? You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto. As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others. To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence. I didn’t say ‘all women’, I said female Oldham fans. The guy was sentenced to prison time, clear cut or not based on what you and I read about it, he was found guilty in court. Yes he served his time, but his profession is a specialist one, a privileged one. I work for Social Services, if I had a rape conviction and prison time to my name, I’d struggle to find employment. Lastly, when did I say that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think he should be left alone to get on with his life? I was merely implying that potential team mates of his who do, may feel more strongly against him due to pressures from their loved ones. Nothing remotely sexist or ignorant about that. You are assuming a viewpoint based on gender, both in your assertion that female Oldham supporters would be against it (not sure why supporting Oldham differentiates them from other women), and in your implication that men would be pressured into a viewpoint by their wives & sisters. This was debated on question time: Watch from 27:30. Going on your logic, some of the women on here must be pro-rape I guess?

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion? You think it’s sexist of me to assume that women are anti-rape? Righto. As previous posters have pointed out, you do seem to have major comprehension problems. You probably shouldn't be bandying around terms like "thick as pigshit" about others. To clarify, I think it's sexist of you to assume that all women think the same way about this case. Specifically that they all a) agree that this is a clear cut case of rape b) think that after serving the time in prison dictated by the British justice system he hasn't been punished enough and should not be able to resume his career with someone who is willing to employ him It is also ignorant to think that only men without wives or sisters could possibly think that he should be left alone to get on with his life after serving his sentence.

Bit sexist that isn't it? Assuming every single woman holds that opinion?

"How nice it would have been if the whole sorry saga of Ched Evans had been left in 2014." Says journalist writing an article about it. Anyone who tries to make an argument that because he doesn't believe what he did constitutes rape means "HE MIGHT DO IT AGAIN!" is clearly point scoring and not trying to make legitimate arguments. After what's happened, unless he's psychotic, he's going to avoid any kind of situation where any shadow of doubt could be cast for the rest of his life. Meanwhile here's some lifestyle advice from the same moral guardian: Don't be boring and sober, go out and get pissed girls, you might get a new year shag! Wahey!

I see he has just made the following statement via the PFA: Wont change a single thing or anyone's opinion of course.

aye she might, but she can't remember so she doesn't know 2 witnesses say she did 1 witness (porter) said he heard her partaking in the act Yeah but I'm saying its entirely possible to consent with one and not the other. The point is not whether or not she consented, but whether or not she was in a fit state to consent. The jury has decided she was in a fit state consent to bloke A, but not to bloke B.

Personally I think this is mental, especially in cases where we know there's a massive grey area. There isn't a massive grey area, though, that is the point. Any lack of clarity in this is caused mostly by Evans's actions and those of his bankrollers since he came out of prison. That's precisely what I meant when I referred to the way he has acted. Evans was found guilty of rape by a jury. By law, a conviction has to be "beyond all reasonable doubt". Any grey area added to that exists purely because of Evans and his team. It is a grey area though as rape, in this way, isn't exactly a single identifiable action. It's not like being caught on CCTV walking into ASDA and walking out with a tele. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm not saying he's innocent, I'm just uneasy about saying he's 100% guilty because that's the verdict that was given. unless evan's people are responsible for making up loads of shit that didn't happen and spinning it as the truth without anyone taking them to task for it there's a lot to question about the conviction imho - in effect he's gone down because a jury, heavily influenced by the judge at the time iirc, have decided that the lass was too drunk to consent, not that she didn't consent mind you...in fact the porter fella heard her actively participating in the act (again iirc) so unless i'm missing something he wasn't sent down on hard evidence at all, the lass said she can't remember, no-one can prove otherwise and a subjective decision has been made to say he raped her when witness testimony suggests it wasn't forced and was indeed consented to at the time if there's nothing grey about that then jesus all of this is said with the proviso there may be evidence i've not read or heard about etc. She had sex with 2 blokes in a hotel room, neither of which incidents she can remember. Sex with bloke A is OK. Sex with bloke B is rape. No grey areas though as its been decided in court by 12 people who are infallible and have no biases or preconceptions.

Are there any reports which actually say that she has been identified and harassed in real life by Evans or people in support of him (ie outside of facebook, twitter, etc). I read the quotes from her father saying she has had to move 5 times due to her location being revealed, but I've not seen anything specifically saying who has been doing the harassing. Are people just jumping to the conclusion that this is all down to Evans supporters? It just seems far more likely to me that any harassment may have come from the media itself once her location was known rather then a bunch of Ched Evans groupies?

On the "role model" issue. If anyone has Ched Evans as role model, then surely the major thing they are going to take away from this is not to copy what he did, but to avoid situations like that at all cost. He was imprisoned for 2 and a half years for what he obviously considered at the time to be just shagging a drunken slapper. If anything, having him in the public eye is a good cautionary tale for kids - diven't pick up any blart doon big market son, look at what happened to your hero Chedwyn.

I'd normally agree with this point of view when people start pontificating over the verdict of a case, however in this instance there isn't really any "evidence" as such. It's not even a case of who do you believe, as the woman claims to remember nothing. The only evidence of what went on in the room is from Evans & his mate, in fact the only evidence that sex took place is from their own admission that it did. She didn't go to the police to report a rape, she went to report a missing bag & phone. The verdict really does just boil down to a subjective view of whether or not the jury thought she was too pissed to have given consent based on CCTV & witness statements. As the majority of this evidence is in the public domain, I think it's fair that people who have seen and read it should be able to form a form an opinion and question that verdict even if it just to the point that they themselves have reasonable doubt about the validity of the verdict. The jury seems to have decided that hours after she stopped drinking she was too pissed to have consented to have sex with one of them, but not too pissed to have consented to have sex with the other one. I find that conclusion ridiculous.

Can people pick holes in this? Good work. Not checked all the numbers, but I'd point out the following: Starting from the 2008 accounts, temporary matchday staff (stewards, catering, etc) were not counted in the staff numbers, prior to that they were. In the 2008 accounts the payroll costs were restated for 2007 (down £2.7m to £59.8m). It's not explicitly said, but I'm guessing the restated figure is without those part time staff whose costs were moved into other operating expenses. This ties in with the restated op ex figure in the 2008 accounts (it is reduced by £3.5m, but £6.2m of exceptional items are not included in it). So if this is the case, and you use the restated 2007 amounts, then only the 2006 wage figure would include the staff which were later outsourced. It also gives you cost of those staff at that time. Also, it looks like you're adding up everything except wages & amortisation in operating costs in section 3 of the accounts to get your other costs figure. This ignores exceptional items (mostly sacked manager payouts which we never have to worry about again) in post-Ashley accounts, but these were included in the 2006 & 2007 wage & op-ex figures you are using. For consistency you should either add them in the 08 & 09 numbers or remove them from 06 & 07. The 2006 numbers are also only for 11 months as the accounting period was changed & the other costs figure doesn’t look right?

Did you catch MOTD2 last night? John Hartson's 'analysis' was laughably bad. In one example he highlight Carroll making 'a great run' (complete with a line showing where he'd been) which was essentially Carroll running in a straight line after the cross had come in. He did it in a few of the other matches as well. I like John Hartson like, he seems like a really sound bloke, but his analysis was really, really basic, even for MOTD standards. I didn't catch it, but it's the same thing you get from all the pundits. Most of them never look beyond the obvious. They were all bleating about Man Utd having no chance of finishing top four a few weeks ago, because their defence was awful. Now I know their fully fit defence is bang average, but a main reason it was awful was because they had about six defenders injured and were putting in youngsters and midfielders. Anybody with half a brain could see they would improve once players were back fit and so it has proved. They never once mentioned the ridiculous injuries once as being a mitigating factor. They also came out with a load of rubbish from our game with West Ham last week. They all mentioned West Ham doing well against us despite injuries, failing to mention our injury list was twice as long. Where is the research? The amount of work effort going into jobs from 'good football people', especially pundits is shocking. Their only job is to know the things surrounding the games they're covering. Good examples. The one that always springs to mind with me is when people criticised our defence in the relegation season, despite it being constantly exposed by midfielders like Alan Smith and mainly Nicky Butt. Good example. Alan Smith started 4 games & came on as a sub in 2 in the relegation season.

Can't believe people are arguing that by virtue of playing a computer game a "huge proportion" of people would be far better at managing a football team than people who have been managing premiership clubs for many years. The only thing stopping them would be the footabllers who for some reason wouldn't respect their in-game coaching badges and their 5 successive Champions League titles - what a bunch of thickies. I'll remind you again of the original assertion which people are defending: There are of course no managers without footballing experience who have failed at football management, they are all Mourinhos, Wengers and Rodgers* *j/k

Oh, the irony. Aye, and if they gave me a car I reckon I'd be able to well beat that Lewis Hamilton, I piss it round Monaco in F1 2014. I realised a long time ago that the ability to play at being a manager (and inevitably do well at it in the game) is what makes a lot of people think the job is a piece of piss, and also gives some people an over-inflated idea of the magical transformational effects of formations & tactics on players' abilities. I never actually thought I'd see someone go this far and admit they think these games are anything like real life though unless it was one of the usual suspect forum dunces.

Ergo any sex with someone who is intoxicated (to any degree) is sex without consent and is therefore by definition rape should that person later decide they would not have made the same decision if sober. That is the logical conclusion of this line of argument, and I'd suggest that if that is the case, then there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of non-convicted rapists (of either sex) walking the streets of Britain today. Some of these rapists will be famous footballers, pop stars, actors, etc, others will be treating you at the doctors or in hospital, and many will even be teaching your children. Frightening. This is the actual stance of the law btw: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/ and this would seem to be the most relevant section to this case: It would seem that the jury decided that at the point of getting into the taxi and going back to the hotel the woman was capable of offering consent, but subsequently lost that capacity later in the evening without further consumption of alcohol or drugs.

Can I just point out that there is absolutely no evidence that either bloke had sex with her while she was sleeping or unconscious, in fact there is evidence that this was not the case (from the night porter who was listening outside the room). Nor is there any suggestion that the sex was actively against her will. The only question was whether or not she was so pissed that she was incapable of giving consent. An expert witness at the trial estimated from the amount that she drank throughout the night, that at the time of the incident she would have been about 2½ times over the drink drive limit, (which I believe for the average woman would be the equivalent to the state they'd be in after drinking around 3 large wines). Apparently she was capable of texting her mates, capable of buying a pizza with the correct change, capable of picking up the bloke and inviting herself to his hotel, capable of remembering she'd left her pizza outside and nipping out for it (while being supposedly barely capable of standing), but subsequently - without having anything more to drink - incapable of offering consent. I can only hope that noone on here has ever had casual sex with a woman who has had any more than a couple of glasses of wine, otherwise I guess they too should be considered rapists if the woman subsequently can't remember what happened. I also hope the police are actively pursuing any other men this woman may have slept with on other occasions where she would "normally and regularly drink well in excess of what she had consumed on this particular night out."

http://www.chedevans.com/index.files/html5video/travelodge.m4v

This back 4 (along with Ramage, Taylor & Moore, and managed by Souness & Roeder) conceded 42 league goals in 05-06. Last season we conceded 59 & the one before 68.

That will depend on who the new manager is, if he's more like Sir Bobby in personality then it's unlikely to be a problem. Not sure Nobby Solano would agree with that.

All we have to do is win the league this year to keep "The Rise of Ashley" going and average 9th

This is bollocks like. Another myth that's become fact. Transfers over £5m 2000-2007 Carl Cort 7 05/07/2000 01/11/1977 22 Craig Bellamy 6 25/06/2001 13/07/1979 21 Laurent Robert 9.5 01/08/2001 21/05/1975 26 Jermaine Jenas 5 04/02/2002 18/02/1983 18 Hugo Viana 8.5 22/06/2002 15/01/1983 19 Titus Bramble 5 12/07/2002 06/09/1981 20 Jonathan Woodgate 9 31/01/2003 22/01/1980 23 Jean-Alain Boumsong 8 01/01/2005 14/12/1979 25 Scott Parker 6.5 15/06/2005 13/10/1980 24 Alberto Luque 9.5 26/08/2005 12/03/1978 27 Michael Owen 16 31/08/2005 14/12/1979 25 Damien Duff 5 22/07/2006 02/03/1979 27 Obafemi Martins 10 24/08/2006 28/10/1984 21 Joey Barton 5.8 14/06/2007 02/09/1982 24 22.93 2007 - Alan Smith 6 03/08/2007 28/10/1980 26 Jose Enrique 6.5 06/08/2007 23/01/1986 21 Jonas Gutierrez 5.2 02/07/2008 05/07/1982 26 Fabricio Coloccini 10 04/08/2008 22/01/1982 26 Francisco Tejada 5.7 31/08/2008 26/06/1986 22 Hatem Ben Arfa 5.75 05/01/2011 07/03/1987 23 Davide Santon 5 30/08/2011 02/01/1991 20 Papiss Demba Cisse 7.5 17/01/2012 03/06/1985 26 Vurnon Anita 6.7 16/08/2012 04/04/1989 23 Mathieu Debuchy 5 04/01/2013 28/07/1985 27 Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa 6.7 22/01/2013 15/05/1989 23 Siem de Jong 6 01/07/2014 28/01/1989 25 Remy Cabella 12 14/07/2014 08/03/1990 24 Emmanuel Riviere 5 16/07/2014 03/03/1990 24 Daryl Janmaat 5 17/07/2014 22/07/1989 25 24.07

http://content.screencast.com/users/UV-Ray/folders/Jing/media/1c966385-cde2-42e9-b7b7-dafb73fb9f25/2014-07-14_1334.png