PhilStarbucksSilkySkills

Goals = success for a striker. I'd say we achieved plenty by signing him.

It's good enough for me, for reasons I've already stated. You might be right. But it has to be worth a try. I also can't see him getting as much as 10K a week when he hasn't played for a couple of years or more.

They shouldn't have to close the door. If this is all an exercise in sweetening Ched Evans up just incase his appeal is succesful then it would be foolish to come out and fully deny any intention to sign him. Sometimes things belong behind closed doors and should remain so. The club don't have to explain every move they make and conversation they have. Doing so would be extremely counter productive.

Until we know the nature of the discussions then we literally know nothing of importance. Certainly nothing worth getting upset about.

I am discussing the opinion. I am saying it is over the top and unnecessary at this point. There's crying over spilt milk and then there's crying over spilt milk that might possibly be spilt (and in all likelyhood isn't being spilt) in the future.

Ridiculously OTT Ironic that the very first person to comment after advising everyone to chillax comes out with this.

I'd chillax about this guys. Even if the story is true then it could easily be about keeping tabs on the guy just incase his appeal is succesful. There isn't a chance they'll be signing him otherwise after everything that's been happening lately.

I'm too sophisticated to successfully impersonate a Rochdale fan. I'd be turned away. In fact, a scenario like this one springs to mind:

Let's hope Paddy Kenny gets a good start. At least this bit of business makes sense now. It would have been a waste of a wage to bring him in as understudy for Rachubka.

To save me starting a new topic, does anyone know specifically what has happened to Amari Morgan-Smith? I never hear his name mentioned, even amongst the injury worries.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30126234

He wasn't drawing any comparisons other than to say that people vilified in public and by he media have had their cases overturned. That was the only point made by bringing up the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six. But quite typically the BBC threw some spin on it and turned it into an outrageous headline.

The point I'm making is that I am not going to judge anyone until I have enough evidence to do so. I certainly can't claim that for the Ched Evans. It doesn't seem that the details of what led to the verdict have been made available and I think that courtrooms will get it wrong often enough for me to be skeptical. This isn't about giving "the benefit of the doubt". It's about not judging so venomously as so many people in the media and on here seem to be delighted to do. I think the whole thing is badly out of proportion. If he did it, he has served his time and should be allowed to rebuild his life and his career. If he didn't, then boy is he getting a rough deal right now. But the mob are out with their pitchforks, and the vast majority if not all of them know little to nothing about the case other than he was found guilty. I find it all incredibly distasteful.

I assume that if someone is sure that he's innocent then they will defend him. I am not one of those people. So says you. Do you have any other reason to make such a statement other than faith in the judicial system to deliver justice? You know this how? Good to know. I'm glad you enlightened me on that. And what if he has a good reason to show no remorse? Unless you know that he's guilty, how is it fair to critisize a guy for insisting that he's innocent?

I'm unaware of any specific sites dedicated to Evans in that way. I'm talking about forum post and journalists mainly.

Why do you need faith in either?

That position assumes a level of faith in the judicial system that I don't have. Do you know a website with well balanced and rounded take of the events? Most of what I see is on the anti-Ched Evans side, extremely emotional and assumes guilt with no justification other than the aforementioned faith in the judicial system.

I assumed he was being sarcastc, Rummy. That's certainly how I read oafcmetty's response.

I've not heard of this story at all. But unless there's an important detail that i'm not aware of, I can't think of a reason that a rape scene shouldn't be in a play.

My liberal viewpoints remain steady regardless of the variables at play.

I'm just curious how many youngsters would have considered Ched Evans a role model prior to his conviction. And the main question for me is should it be the responsibility of any footballer to be a role model when all they are trying to do, or care to do is to play football?

Not a fan of the "football players are role models" argument. I'm not saying footballer can't be a role model, I just think it shouldn't be automatic and needs to be earned.

Plumb new depths? Are you saying that what Evans has been convicted of doing is lower than what Hughes did? Or were you insinuating that if we signed him it would add to our poor reputation, having already Hughes and that the compounding effect would sink us lower?

A lot of righteous and strong opinions on here about Ched Evans. I am curious about how many of these people are highly knowledgeable about the details of the case or it it just blind faith in the judicial system that is spurring these emotions? If it's the latter then your confidence in a court to reach the correct conclusion is far stronger than my own. If it's the former then I welcome any facts that might convince me that you are correct to feel this way. As it stands I hold no beliefs on this matter.

I've already answered how I believe it can