Hartlepool have rejected the chance to sign convicted rapist Ched Evans.
Here's the statement from the club itself:
Following media reports relating to the possible signing of Ched Evans the Club wishes to make its position clear.
1. Hartlepool United do not intend signing Ched Evans and, for the avoidance of doubt, will not be doing so, irrespective of his obvious ability as a football player.
2. This story has emerged following an unsubstantiated internet rumour which the manager was asked to comment upon. The manager responded hypothetically to the situation by stating "if it could happen I would want it to happen". This response was based upon the player’s obvious ability as a footballer and as such as then been headlined by the media without asking the Club for their official position.
3. The Club can fully understand the concerns of supporters and the general public and regrets any misconception portrayed.
4. After a highly positive week at Hartlepool United following the takeover by new owners and the appointment of a new manager, the owners are saddened by this unfortunate turn of events and wish to draw a line under it immediately.
Chairman Peter Harris said: "We are upset at the manner in which this story has escalated and wish to make it clear that the player will not be joining the Club.
“All we are concentrating on is league survival and do not want anything to upset that goal.
“The Club regrets any upset that may have been caused but we feel we must deal with this matter quickly and put the story to bed once and for all."
As I suspected the Hartlepool manager was speaking for himself, not the club.
Was there any physical evidence of intercourse between Evans and the woman in question? If not, then had he lied and said they did not have sex then he would probably have been acquitted and would still be playing for Sheffield United now, instead he told the truth and has had his life ruined as a result.
I realise the consent question has already been debated extensively, but I thought in law drunken consent was still consent, even if it cannot be recalled afterwards.
Knew this wouldn't happen. If even a club as in dire need as Hartlepool are rushing to distance themselves from him, "Wish to make it clear the player will not be joining the club" I cannot see any league club going near him now.
I've said before, he's toxic no one will touch him unless his name is cleared.
Was there any physical evidence of intercourse between Evans and the woman in question? If not, then had he lied and said they did not have sex then he would probably have been acquitted and would still be playing for Sheffield United now, instead he told the truth and has had his life ruined as a result.
He had no reason to lie to the police because he didn't think he had broken any law. He admitted to something that later on, to his surprise I suspect, turned out to have been illegal in the particular circumstances that night (given the state the woman was in, and the way he met her).
I realise the consent question has already been debated extensively, but I thought in law drunken consent was still consent, even if it cannot be recalled afterwards.
Drunken consent may or may not be effective consent, it depends on the facts of each case, including what went on beforehand. Whether or not the alleged victim remembers what happened doesn't on its own prove anything either way and in the end, the Jury having heard all the facts has to decide if was or wasn't. But even if it wasn't an effective consent, if the Jury thinks the accused reasonably believed that the 'victim' consented, he may still be be acquitted. This is probably what happened in McDonald's case (though we may never know for sure).
I've said before, he's toxic no one will touch him unless his name is cleared.
Even if his appeal fails, I still think he can come back from it - if he wants to. He would have to issue a grovelling apology and accept full and unequivocal responsibility for his actions, as well as showing appropriate remorse as well - media-appropriate remorse as well.
If Luke McCormick can resume his career after being jailed for causing death by dangerous driving, there's really nothing to stop Evans, providing he shows the appropriate remorse.
If he still wishes to maintain his innocence, as is his right, then he won't be able to come back from it and will have to accept his career as a professional footballer is over.
Even if his appeal fails, I still think he can come back from it - if he wants to. He would have to issue a grovelling apology and accept full and unequivocal responsibility for his actions, as well as showing appropriate remorse as well - media-appropriate remorse as well.
If Luke McCormick can resume his career after being jailed for causing death by dangerous driving, there's really nothing to stop Evans, providing he shows the appropriate remorse.
If he still wishes to maintain his innocence, as is his right, then he won't be able to come back from it and will have to accept his career as a professional footballer is over.
Yeah, I'd say this is the most realistic reading of the situation from this point onward.
As others said, I think he's been badly advised in all of this. It'd probably make more sense for him to just come out and say that he won't be signing a contract until the appeal is heard. That would stop this kind of media frenzy every time a manager/owner suggests they'd be open to signing him, followed by a bunch of local celebs/politicians decrying the idea.
Just wish a chairman would say ' look what ever crime he committed he paid his debt for. He is an excellent footballer he would be a great asset to the club. He is fully committed to rehabilitation into society, and if he plays to the level we know he can he will improve the side considerably'
I remember when loads of Newcastle fans were saying they will give up their season ticket if Bowyer signs for them. Surprise surprise that backlash never happened.
Even if his appeal fails, I still think he can come back from it - if he wants to. He would have to issue a grovelling apology and accept full and unequivocal responsibility for his actions, as well as showing appropriate remorse as well - media-appropriate remorse as well.
If Luke McCormick can resume his career after being jailed for causing death by dangerous driving, there's really nothing to stop Evans, providing he shows the appropriate remorse.
If he still wishes to maintain his innocence, as is his right, then he won't be able to come back from it and will have to accept his career as a professional footballer is over.
I hope you are right and he can continue his career.
I think lots of clubs want to sign Ched but none of them want to be first.
Says it all when a club that is at the bottom of League 2 and at the moment staring relegation straight in the face don't want to sign a player who could help them try to fight that relegation, not saying he is going to keep the club up single handed, but I think they may have a better chance with him playing for them.
I know it will harm his case but its becoming clear that he won't get back into football without a significant change of stance. You can almost view it as the last straw really that the club bottom of the football league pyramid crying out for a goalscorer and by that token more 'desperate' than most, not only didn't want to sign him but rushed to make it VERY clear they had no intention of signing him despite his "obvious ability". It speaks volumes.
Every story related to him prefaces his name with "convicted rapist" no club wants that the negative publicity that comes with that. Hartlepool were quick to quash it after less than 24 hours.
Oldham strongly hinted that his public image as 'unrepentant' was a huge stumbling block by comparing it with their decision to offer Hughes a contract, making a point of how remorseful he was.
Obviously as Evans maintains his innocence it's difficult to offer any form of remorse and for him why should he when he obviously feels he has done nothing wrong but as others have said his public image since he came out has done him no favours the video interview was ill advised at best. But it seems now hes not going to get back into football in this country without a serious amount of grovelling. Oldham gave a massive hint, his unrepentance is a serious issue for football clubs, signing him risks alienating female fans in particular who have become a sizeable chunk of many lower league clubs, I don't think they'll risk that.
You can bet that any club willing to put up with the firestorm would only offer him a contract on the proviso he puts out a public statement of sorts. Word it as carefully as you want but that's what his team of lawyers are for.
It seems like he can sit and wait for a club to raise their head above the parapet and dare to be THAT club which seems increasingly unlikely or wait for his case to be heard which could still take months/ a year and hope his name is cleared but i think clubs have made it clear now he's not going to get anywhere without a very public declaration of remorse now. Sure it will harm his chance of clearing his name but without it its increasingly unlikely he can resume his career.
I still dont understand why the "public" are having a say.
This is a legal matter not The X Factor where some being liked is more important then talent.
We have people dicating what films we go to the cinema and see and now we have people saying how someone should be allowed to earn his living.
Are people really dumb enough ( or so naive) that him saying a few meaningless words (which is what they are since he clearly believes he has done nothing wrong) really would be enough for all this outrage to be just forgetten about? Or will they just then turn around and say he dont really mean it? and use the appology as another stick to beat him with?
Either way they would just be words. The past cannot be changed by a few words written by some junior solictor nor will it make any real difference, The only way that happens is by his actions going forward in life and if he is not given a chance to do so then we just sit around going around in circles
I still dont understand why the "public" are having a say.
This is a legal matter not The X Factor where some being liked is more important then talent.
We have people dicating what films we go to the cinema and see and now we have people saying how someone should be allowed to earn his living.
Are people really dumb enough ( or so naive) that him saying a few meaningless words (which is what they are since he clearly believes he has done nothing wrong) really would be enough for all this outrage to be just forgetten about? Or will they just then turn around and say he dont really mean it? and use the appology as another stick to beat him with?
Either way they would just be words. The past cannot be changed by a few words written by some junior solictor nor will it make any real difference, The only way that happens is by his actions going forward in life and if he is not given a chance to do so then we just sit around going around in circles
It would look like an empty gesture to me and to many others in fact but its obvious the lack of remorse is whats holding clubs back. Its the key thing people refer to "he doesn't think he's done anything wrong".Today an anonymous ' close relative' has said he should never be allowed to play football again not because of the conviction itself seemingly but this:
"I'm glad Hartlepool have said Ched won't be signing for them. He has not shown any remorse or said sorry - so should not play football again. No club should consider letting him play for them. It sends out all the wrong messages. He shouldn't get a second chance as he thinks hes done nothing wrong."
Saying sorry won't change peoples perceptions but it would give clubs an opportunity to sign him, they could point to his repentance until he does its abundantly clear clubs will not go near him, its too damaging, just one night of rumours of Hartlepool signing him was deemed 'damaging PR'. Its too much baggage for any club to put up with it, theres probably a load of managers who would sign him in a heartbeat but getting past the owners who have to think about their business' public image is another matter entirely.
In any case Hartlepool was always a no go as they have one of the highest profile football media figures as a supporter. No matter what Stellings personal feeling on Evans is you can bet as a Sky employee he would have been used to strongly condemn it to tow the media line.
I still dont understand why the "public" are having a say.
Because a football club is a business that relies on public support and investment. If an artist is convicted of a heinous crime, I think it's at least understandable that it may lessen a fan's enjoyment of the said artist's work, to the point where they don't want to buy his/her albums, see their films etc. Similarly, a football fan has the right to make his/her mind up regarding whether they want to support a team that fields a convicted criminal. Rightly or wrongly, the wider public, including us in this thread, are interested in the case because it's fairly unique, it's a very complex issue, and of course because the media have been relentless in their coverage.
As for whether an apology will make much difference, only time will tell. I'd hazard a guess that's it's probably better than nothing.
Because a football club is a business that relies on public support and investment. If an artist is convicted of a heinous crime, I think it's at least understandable that it may lessen a fan's enjoyment of the said artist's work, to the point where they don't want to buy his/her albums, see their films etc. Similarly, a football fan has the right to make his/her mind up regarding whether they want to support a team that fields a convicted criminal. Rightly or wrongly, the wider public, including us in this thread, are interested in the case because it's fairly unique, it's a very complex issue, and of course because the media have been relentless in their coverage.
As for whether an apology will make much difference, only time will tell. I'd hazard a guess that's it's probably better than nothing.
Lots of compaines relies on public support and investment (any in the service industry) yet we dont here the sort of thing we do here, Many actors and Pop stars could be considered on the worng side of socitys moral compuss but they are not subject to the same rules as it seems footballers are. They just seem to be a very easy target and its the current fad by the media to hold them to some high level just because its our most popular sport and some are paid well for their talents (and talent should always be highly rewarded)
Many actors and Pop stars could be considered on the worng side of socitys moral compuss but they are not subject to the same rules as it seems footballers are. They just seem to be a very easy target and its the current fad by the media to hold them to some high level just because its our most popular sport and some are paid well for their talents (and talent should always be highly rewarded)
I'd say high profile figures in public life will always draw attention when they commit a crime regardless of their particular field. You don't have to look far to find musicians who no longer tour or sell anywhere near the level of records they used to because they've been involved in criminal activity. That said, perhaps music/film is a little different as there is a line of argument that suggests it is possible to distance the art from the artist. Football's a bit different, as a fan you're actively involved in supporting individuals, cheering them on, hoping that they do well on a weekly basis. I will agree that there isn't always consistency in people's reactions, some individuals are judged differently than others, life sucks, eh?
Evans should be free to seek out a football club and I see no reason why a club should not sign him. However, I'm not all that convinced that fans should necessarily have to blindly agree with the decision. Morality and legality are two different things, and someone's moral compass need not be set to what our culture/state dictates.
I think it was the Oldham chairman who said that carefully gauging how the fans feel about a decision was the way forward in their case, essentially a pragmatic approach, and that's where Evans apology, however meagre a gesture it may seem, may make a little bit of difference.
Lots of compaines relies on public support and investment (any in the service industry) yet we dont here the sort of thing we do here, Many actors and Pop stars could be considered on the worng side of socitys moral compuss but they are not subject to the same rules as it seems footballers are. They just seem to be a very easy target and its the current fad by the media to hold them to some high level just because its our most popular sport and some are paid well for their talents (and talent should always be highly rewarded)
John Leslie (not proven guilty) was accused of rape and vanished off screen.
To suggest footballers are an easy target is laughable too, I'm sure if an eastenders actor referred to someone from coronation street as a f***ing n*gger they would no longer be on the show. John Terry has continued pretty much unscathed in his role with Chelsea. Similarly if someone from eastenders took in a gun and fired it at extras he might not be welcome back either.
John Leslie (not proven guilty) was accused of rape and vanished off screen.
To suggest footballers are an easy target is laughable too, I'm sure if an eastenders actor referred to someone from coronation street as a f***ing n*gger they would no longer be on the show. John Terry has continued pretty much unscathed in his role with Chelsea. Similarly if someone from eastenders took in a gun and fired it at extras he might not be welcome back either.
He called him a black c***. Also he was spotted doing it by a lip reader. Anton Fedinand did not realise he did it till the off duty lip reading policeman brought it to the authority's attention. He was than tried in a court of law and was aquitted. That was not good enough for the pc brigade. The Premier league had their own kangRoo court which subsequently found him guilty. I don't know to many jobs that find you guilty of a crime internally after being acquitted of the same crime by a court of law.
He had no reason to lie to the police because he didn't think he had broken any law. He admitted to something that later on, to his surprise I suspect, turned out to have been illegal in the particular circumstances that night (given the state the woman was in, and the way he met her).
Drunken consent may or may not be effective consent, it depends on the facts of each case, including what went on beforehand. Whether or not the alleged victim remembers what happened doesn't on its own prove anything either way and in the end, the Jury having heard all the facts has to decide if was or wasn't. But even if it wasn't an effective consent, if the Jury thinks the accused reasonably believed that the 'victim' consented, he may still be be acquitted. This is probably what happened in McDonald's case (though we may never know for sure).
Well said. Those are indeed the facts of the case. Ched Evans was unwittingly convicted by the statement he freely gave to the police. If Evans and McDonald had remained silent there wouldn't have been a case to answer.
I do feel sorry for the girl, I don't think she really wanted the charges brought against Evans or McDonald. The police insisted on It going to the CPS. Then it all rested on whether she was in a fit state to give consent. Nobody really knows the answer to that question, not even the girl herself.
The CCTV footage and evidence from the taxi driver and hotel porter certainly suggests that she was prpbably in a fit (though drunken) state of mind to make decisions before she went into the room. There is a difference in just being drunk, and being helplessly incapable through drink. But I think everyone would have to agree that she appeared to be a willing participant up until arriving at the hotel and going up to the room. Ched Evans arriving on the scene afterwards to join McDonald was sordid and morally despicable. But that in itself doesn't make it rape.
Comments
Well said CC.:)
Here's the statement from the club itself:
Looks like he is a footballing pariah after all.
He really needs to keep his head down now until his appeal is heard.
Was there any physical evidence of intercourse between Evans and the woman in question? If not, then had he lied and said they did not have sex then he would probably have been acquitted and would still be playing for Sheffield United now, instead he told the truth and has had his life ruined as a result.
I realise the consent question has already been debated extensively, but I thought in law drunken consent was still consent, even if it cannot be recalled afterwards.
I've said before, he's toxic no one will touch him unless his name is cleared.
He had no reason to lie to the police because he didn't think he had broken any law. He admitted to something that later on, to his surprise I suspect, turned out to have been illegal in the particular circumstances that night (given the state the woman was in, and the way he met her).
Drunken consent may or may not be effective consent, it depends on the facts of each case, including what went on beforehand. Whether or not the alleged victim remembers what happened doesn't on its own prove anything either way and in the end, the Jury having heard all the facts has to decide if was or wasn't. But even if it wasn't an effective consent, if the Jury thinks the accused reasonably believed that the 'victim' consented, he may still be be acquitted. This is probably what happened in McDonald's case (though we may never know for sure).
Even if his appeal fails, I still think he can come back from it - if he wants to. He would have to issue a grovelling apology and accept full and unequivocal responsibility for his actions, as well as showing appropriate remorse as well - media-appropriate remorse as well.
If Luke McCormick can resume his career after being jailed for causing death by dangerous driving, there's really nothing to stop Evans, providing he shows the appropriate remorse.
If he still wishes to maintain his innocence, as is his right, then he won't be able to come back from it and will have to accept his career as a professional footballer is over.
Yeah, I'd say this is the most realistic reading of the situation from this point onward.
As others said, I think he's been badly advised in all of this. It'd probably make more sense for him to just come out and say that he won't be signing a contract until the appeal is heard. That would stop this kind of media frenzy every time a manager/owner suggests they'd be open to signing him, followed by a bunch of local celebs/politicians decrying the idea.
I remember when loads of Newcastle fans were saying they will give up their season ticket if Bowyer signs for them. Surprise surprise that backlash never happened.
I hope you are right and he can continue his career.
I think lots of clubs want to sign Ched but none of them want to be first.
Nobody can stop him playing football, but nobody has to sign him and allow him to play for them.
Every story related to him prefaces his name with "convicted rapist" no club wants that the negative publicity that comes with that. Hartlepool were quick to quash it after less than 24 hours.
Oldham strongly hinted that his public image as 'unrepentant' was a huge stumbling block by comparing it with their decision to offer Hughes a contract, making a point of how remorseful he was.
Obviously as Evans maintains his innocence it's difficult to offer any form of remorse and for him why should he when he obviously feels he has done nothing wrong but as others have said his public image since he came out has done him no favours the video interview was ill advised at best. But it seems now hes not going to get back into football in this country without a serious amount of grovelling. Oldham gave a massive hint, his unrepentance is a serious issue for football clubs, signing him risks alienating female fans in particular who have become a sizeable chunk of many lower league clubs, I don't think they'll risk that.
You can bet that any club willing to put up with the firestorm would only offer him a contract on the proviso he puts out a public statement of sorts. Word it as carefully as you want but that's what his team of lawyers are for.
It seems like he can sit and wait for a club to raise their head above the parapet and dare to be THAT club which seems increasingly unlikely or wait for his case to be heard which could still take months/ a year and hope his name is cleared but i think clubs have made it clear now he's not going to get anywhere without a very public declaration of remorse now. Sure it will harm his chance of clearing his name but without it its increasingly unlikely he can resume his career.
This is a legal matter not The X Factor where some being liked is more important then talent.
We have people dicating what films we go to the cinema and see and now we have people saying how someone should be allowed to earn his living.
Are people really dumb enough ( or so naive) that him saying a few meaningless words (which is what they are since he clearly believes he has done nothing wrong) really would be enough for all this outrage to be just forgetten about? Or will they just then turn around and say he dont really mean it? and use the appology as another stick to beat him with?
Either way they would just be words. The past cannot be changed by a few words written by some junior solictor nor will it make any real difference, The only way that happens is by his actions going forward in life and if he is not given a chance to do so then we just sit around going around in circles
Thats true BUT it should be the clubs choice at the moment its being decided by people who should have no say in staffing matters of a company
It would look like an empty gesture to me and to many others in fact but its obvious the lack of remorse is whats holding clubs back. Its the key thing people refer to "he doesn't think he's done anything wrong".Today an anonymous ' close relative' has said he should never be allowed to play football again not because of the conviction itself seemingly but this:
"I'm glad Hartlepool have said Ched won't be signing for them. He has not shown any remorse or said sorry - so should not play football again. No club should consider letting him play for them. It sends out all the wrong messages. He shouldn't get a second chance as he thinks hes done nothing wrong."
Saying sorry won't change peoples perceptions but it would give clubs an opportunity to sign him, they could point to his repentance until he does its abundantly clear clubs will not go near him, its too damaging, just one night of rumours of Hartlepool signing him was deemed 'damaging PR'. Its too much baggage for any club to put up with it, theres probably a load of managers who would sign him in a heartbeat but getting past the owners who have to think about their business' public image is another matter entirely.
In any case Hartlepool was always a no go as they have one of the highest profile football media figures as a supporter. No matter what Stellings personal feeling on Evans is you can bet as a Sky employee he would have been used to strongly condemn it to tow the media line.
Because a football club is a business that relies on public support and investment. If an artist is convicted of a heinous crime, I think it's at least understandable that it may lessen a fan's enjoyment of the said artist's work, to the point where they don't want to buy his/her albums, see their films etc. Similarly, a football fan has the right to make his/her mind up regarding whether they want to support a team that fields a convicted criminal. Rightly or wrongly, the wider public, including us in this thread, are interested in the case because it's fairly unique, it's a very complex issue, and of course because the media have been relentless in their coverage.
As for whether an apology will make much difference, only time will tell. I'd hazard a guess that's it's probably better than nothing.
To quote the vernacular "WE PAY YOUR WAGES"
We pay many peoples wages. We pay the wages of many companies staf but dont ask for a say in who they or do not give a job to.
Do you go to Sainsbury's and ask about the morals and history of your local stores cleaner?
Or dont they earn enough (or a job they dont want to do) for people to climb on a media led moral high horse about?
Lots of compaines relies on public support and investment (any in the service industry) yet we dont here the sort of thing we do here, Many actors and Pop stars could be considered on the worng side of socitys moral compuss but they are not subject to the same rules as it seems footballers are. They just seem to be a very easy target and its the current fad by the media to hold them to some high level just because its our most popular sport and some are paid well for their talents (and talent should always be highly rewarded)
I'd say high profile figures in public life will always draw attention when they commit a crime regardless of their particular field. You don't have to look far to find musicians who no longer tour or sell anywhere near the level of records they used to because they've been involved in criminal activity. That said, perhaps music/film is a little different as there is a line of argument that suggests it is possible to distance the art from the artist. Football's a bit different, as a fan you're actively involved in supporting individuals, cheering them on, hoping that they do well on a weekly basis. I will agree that there isn't always consistency in people's reactions, some individuals are judged differently than others, life sucks, eh?
Evans should be free to seek out a football club and I see no reason why a club should not sign him. However, I'm not all that convinced that fans should necessarily have to blindly agree with the decision. Morality and legality are two different things, and someone's moral compass need not be set to what our culture/state dictates.
I think it was the Oldham chairman who said that carefully gauging how the fans feel about a decision was the way forward in their case, essentially a pragmatic approach, and that's where Evans apology, however meagre a gesture it may seem, may make a little bit of difference.
John Leslie (not proven guilty) was accused of rape and vanished off screen.
To suggest footballers are an easy target is laughable too, I'm sure if an eastenders actor referred to someone from coronation street as a f***ing n*gger they would no longer be on the show. John Terry has continued pretty much unscathed in his role with Chelsea. Similarly if someone from eastenders took in a gun and fired it at extras he might not be welcome back either.
He called him a black c***. Also he was spotted doing it by a lip reader. Anton Fedinand did not realise he did it till the off duty lip reading policeman brought it to the authority's attention. He was than tried in a court of law and was aquitted. That was not good enough for the pc brigade. The Premier league had their own kangRoo court which subsequently found him guilty. I don't know to many jobs that find you guilty of a crime internally after being acquitted of the same crime by a court of law.
Well said. Those are indeed the facts of the case. Ched Evans was unwittingly convicted by the statement he freely gave to the police. If Evans and McDonald had remained silent there wouldn't have been a case to answer.
I do feel sorry for the girl, I don't think she really wanted the charges brought against Evans or McDonald. The police insisted on It going to the CPS. Then it all rested on whether she was in a fit state to give consent. Nobody really knows the answer to that question, not even the girl herself.
The CCTV footage and evidence from the taxi driver and hotel porter certainly suggests that she was prpbably in a fit (though drunken) state of mind to make decisions before she went into the room. There is a difference in just being drunk, and being helplessly incapable through drink. But I think everyone would have to agree that she appeared to be a willing participant up until arriving at the hotel and going up to the room. Ched Evans arriving on the scene afterwards to join McDonald was sordid and morally despicable. But that in itself doesn't make it rape.