mrmojorisin75

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans. There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough? Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now. As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked p*ssed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction. Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict. You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made. I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such. Pretty fair summary imo. The one thing I can't get over is the hypocrisy of those who are more than happy to point to "he's been convicted by the legal system" yet are completely unprepared to accept that under the very same legal system he has served the custodial part of his sentence and is now entitled to resume his career on probation. Like they're saying the law and our courts are always right and cannot be questioned- until they disagree with them, then that doesn't apply. The one real positive is that the case and media furore have really shone a spotlight on what legally constitutes rape. If the threat of going to jail is enough to make young lads in general think twice about taking advantage of that pissed up young lass they met when she was falling all over the place in the club then that's got to be a good thing.

This. Starting to think Messi needs to move for his own sake tbh. Yeah, could be. He's been there a long time and he might need a fresh challenge. He's already achieved all he can with Barca. Bear in mind he's coming to 28 I think and Barca are likely to be in this state for at least the next 2-3 years while they recover from the transfer ban. That combined with the Tax thing, plus just generally looking demotivated for so long might see him away. Who too though, and for how much?

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans. There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough? Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now. As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked pissed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction. Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict. You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made. I think we can all probably agree that, from what we've read, heard and seen ourselves, it does look dubious but on the same score, they found him guilty and he was sentenced as such. Aye there's nothing more to say about it really I suppose

You say that but where's the smoking gun in this case? Whenever anyone is discussing the evidence publicly available there's never a damning piece of evidence against Evans. There's some stuff that "looks bad" but is that really enough? Everything discussed is 'in his favour' so to speak. Considering the campaign against him if there was such evidence used in court that proves beyond doubt he's guilty then I think we'd have heard about it by now. As far as I know it was decided in court the lass was too drunk to consent (as she said she had no memory and looked pissed on camera) and that's essentially the basis of his conviction. Of course there would have been a lot more to it than and if I'm wrong I'm wrong but I understand this as the ultimate basis to convict. You can tell me "it's the criminal justice system" all you like but that's no guarantee the right decision was made.

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? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist. It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury. He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him. No Santoon, I wouldn't consider as evidence because it's not. You'd have to interpret his motivation for doing it and that would be entirely subjective, much like the basis of his conviction in fact. Funny when you think about the Serial Adnan trial and everyone being shocked that he was convicted on nothing more than the flaky testimony of Jay, yet Evans has been convicted on less but seemingly as he was a footballer he's judged to another standard. Yes but you've done the same with your interpretation of other bits of info, it's entirely based on opinion. I'm highlighting that while you can point to these things that make him seem not guilty, you can do the same the other way. In my opinion leaving out of the fire escape doesn't look good, neither does going to a room where your mate has picked up a drunk girl. All my opinion of course. The only fact is he was convicted. Nothing to do with him being a footballer, couldn't care less. Like I say he may well not have done it, no one knows except for him clearly. The rest is complete specualtion I don't believe I've ever said I think he's not guilty, if I have it's not what I intended. I strongly believe he shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence presented as it wasn't nearly strong enough, which is why I brought up the Serial example.

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? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist. It's blasé imo because there's clearly, clearly some doubt over the conviction and the idea that everyone currently saying he's a convicted rapist now so he should dig ditches for a living will just then gan aye he's not guilty now off you go Ched sits badly with me. If read the details of this case and your conclusion is he's a convicted rapist so fuck him then I just don't know man. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and him losing this next appeal wouldn't surprise me as I don't think the justice system will expose itself in this instance. I don't doubt that there's some uncertainties but the jury, at least a majority of them, considered the evidence and he was convicted of rape. Clear cut case or not, that's what happened. I'm not suggesting he should only be allowed to take up menial jobs for the rest of his life, but I just don't know if he should be allowed to return to football. I know there's an argument that football is a job, of course it is, but it's a priveleged one. There are now laws against him doing it but morally, nobody really wants to see it through and sign him up and he can't go abroad right now, can he? Oldest story in the book though man, jury's convicted the Guilford 4 and whoever else. Mistakes are made. Unless he's a considered a danger to anyone in football or through football, i.e. do we expect him to prey on people through an abuse of his role as a footballer specifically, then he should be allowed to return to football. Anything else makes no sense, the nature of the job and remuneration should have no bearing on things once the first point is considered.

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? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist. It's not at all blasé. It seems like people reckon they know more about all the evidence presented than the jury. He left out of the fire escape fwiw. If you wanted to consider that as evidence then that isn't really looking good for him. No Santoon, I wouldn't consider as evidence because it's not. You'd have to interpret his motivation for doing it and that would be entirely subjective, much like the basis of his conviction in fact. Funny when you think about the Serial Adnan trial and everyone being shocked that he was convicted on nothing more than the flaky testimony of Jay, yet Evans has been convicted on less but seemingly as he was a footballer he's judged to another standard.

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? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really. I don't understand how can this be considered a 'blasé attitude'? The guy was arrested. Went to trial. Was found guilty of rape and convicted as such. Therefore, he's a convicted rapist. It's not blasé at all, until such time he lodges a successful appeal and has it overturned, he will always be a convicted rapist. It's blasé imo because there's clearly, clearly some doubt over the conviction and the idea that everyone currently saying he's a convicted rapist now so he should dig ditches for a living will just then gan aye he's not guilty now off you go Ched sits badly with me. If read the details of this case and your conclusion is he's a convicted rapist so fuck him then I just don't know man. Miscarriages of justice happen all the time, and him losing this next appeal wouldn't surprise me as I don't think the justice system will expose itself in this instance.

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? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. no one is saying that. Did you listen to all the testimony then? I think they probably made their decision based on all the evidence presented to them. Yes, but I don't think there's anything that they would have heard that we don't know. If there was, it would be all over that cringeworthy Support Ched website and in the media. If your point is simply how witnesses came across in court etc then fair enough, but should that be enough to convict someone? Don't know how many times it needs saying like: The lass claims no recollection whatsoever, and therefore can't say what happened either way There was no physical evidence The night porter backed his and McDonald's statement that she consented willingly The only evidence against him really is his own statement that he had consensual sex with her The jury, seemingly heavily influenced by the judge and against expert testimony have made an entirely subjective and arbitrary decision based on CCTV footage and the lass saying she can't remember to convict the lad of rape based on her not being able to consent, which literally can not be proven beyond doubt He might be an absolute fucking knobhead but he should not have gone down

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? I think it's highly unlikely there is some secret piece of conclusive evidence that was only available in court but hasn't been mentioned by anyone since. Based on what we know, i'm not comfortable with the decision reached by the jury and think he has every right to an appeal. Same here. It was good hearing that woman on Question Time saying the same thing tbh (then getting shouted down mind). The blasé attitude of "he's been found guilty, he's a convicted rapist" in this case is ludicrous really.

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" So his full sentence hasn't finished, you didn't say prison. His time is still ongoing until the licence stops. Why is that relevant in this case specifically though? It's not like he fucking escaped or got out on a technicality, he served every day inside he was told to and is presumably doing as he's supposed to now he's out. Wasnt my point mate. I merely contested the fact he's not served his time. He's done his bit in prison yeah, he hasn't finished his sentence, he can't even go abroad can he? Fair enough

This. Starting to think Messi needs to move for his own sake tbh.

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" So his full sentence hasn't finished, you didn't say prison. His time is still ongoing until the licence stops. Why is that relevant in this case specifically though? It's not like he fucking escaped or got out on a technicality, he served every day inside he was told to and is presumably doing as he's supposed to now he's out.

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? He's served his time in accordance with the law so unless the law says he can't return to work when under licence then it's utterly irrelevant tbh.

that video :lol: scruffy b******s. f***ing video has me in tears Aint that from American Beauty ?? Did you follow the Twitter link?

neither do it, i really just can't see it unless ashley doesn't fancy pay the 10th bonuses this year

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?

It's never been more complicated than that. but lads, kids are going to have posters of him all over their walls i wonder if a ched evans poster has ever existed?

Can't see that, they'll want someone to get them close to the CL title surely

I think Ashley's problem, or one of them, with football comes back to that Pardew quote about not understanding football and it making him angry. I reckon in Ashley's mind if 10m GUARANTEED a good manager with competent backroom staff who will be GUARANTEED to increase the value of at least one player per season plus develop a good youth system he'd do it tomorrow. The problem is he knows it can't be guaranteed, or even close to it being a dead cert. In football management failure is the norm, not success. In Ashley world I imagine that's his biggest nightmare, having to pay people off millions for failing at their job. He's just had a daft cunt doing the job for 4 years on relative buttons, taking all the shit for doom with backroom staff of clowns and managing to not get relegated. Why fork out to get rid of 'performing' staff and replace them with unknowns at great cost? Which is maybe why it’s been claimed that Graham Carr will play a big part in the recruitment process. Let’s be honest, he seems to trust Carr’s judgement when shelling out for players so hopefully he’ll do the same with a manager. Like you said though, no manager is a guaranteed success but £10m is a drop in the ocean for him. I wouldn’t class a promising manager and back room staff as a gamble as such, but hey, who knows when it comes to this guy? But his entire SD business model is based on incentives isn't it? Succeed and you get rewarded handsomely, fail and you get fuck all. For a guy like him to have to reward failure must be like a knife in the heart. He must look at Spurs over the last few years and come out n cold sweats. Still, the stupid cunt shouldn't have bought a top flight football club if that's the case really.

I think Ashley's problem, or one of them, with football comes back to that Pardew quote about not understanding football and it making him angry. I reckon in Ashley's mind if 10m GUARANTEED a good manager with competent backroom staff who will be GUARANTEED to increase the value of at least one player per season plus develop a good youth system he'd do it tomorrow. The problem is he knows it can't be guaranteed, or even close to it being a dead cert. In football management failure is the norm, not success. In Ashley world I imagine that's his biggest nightmare, having to pay people off millions for failing at their job. He's just had a daft cunt doing the job for 4 years on relative buttons, taking all the shit for doom with backroom staff of clowns and managing to not get relegated. Why fork out to get rid of 'performing' staff and replace them with unknowns at great cost?

Hans and Simon

i would like to think that charnley recognises the impact graham carr had on his job this summer - without perez and janmaat in particular he'd have essentially ended up looking like he'd balls'd his first major window activity but now he's got a potential superstar out of it and janmaat looks like one of the best RB's in the league (plus cabella will come good imo and you'd imagine de jong will be decent once fit LC: "er Graham, Mike's asked me to sort the new head coach position out on me own, fancy helping me with me homework?"

advance planning, you do need more forwards

yep, we've done f*** all but slate lazy journalism for the last 2 years they can go and f*** themselves until they're proven right We slate them to hell. We don't believe a word they say. We then lose our shit when it goes against our thoughts. When it goes with our thoughts we get excited and then slate it anyway. we've all suffered so much bull shit from those fuckers. I hate seeing my fellow NO brethren get worked up. Like seeing everyone happy and excited on here, we don't get to enjoy it that often ffs aye, suggest we choose to believe the continental reports written by professionals who know what they're doing and don't have a vested interest in fucking us over at every given opportunity until carver's signed on the line that is