PFAI Watch

[Longfordian]

Obviously the PFAI are not enjoying the reaction to it. I can't believe this lad is an experienced solicitor.

[El-Pietro]

Say what you want about the article itself, but it has no place on the PFAI website. If he had submitted that to a newspaper or on his own blog or something then fair enough but the PFAI website?!

[Ezeikial]

Gubu !

[Ezeikial]

Irish Times:


PFAI removes article defending convicted rapist Ched EvansSolicitor had likened footballer’s treatment to that of the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/english-soccer/pfai-removes-article-defending-convicted-rapist-ched-evans-1.2005209

[Macy]

Very good article actually. The amount of self righteous crap people are spouting about that Evans fella is truly ridiculous.

Speaking generally, rather than is direct response to the article/ blog post - there appears to be quite a reinterpretation of the original case going on by his supporters tbh. I'd prefer to trust the court system (multiple times at this stage), rather than PR spin.

I say that as someone who isn't really comfortable with the reaction to the prospects of him getting re-employed, essentially because footballers are deemed as "role models". That's where the debate should be focusing, rather than the basis of the original conviction.

[Longfordian]

PFAI/Stephen McGuinness dodging any blame or criticism I see, "we took it down as soon as we came in this morning". Who put it up in the first place?

[Dodge]

This pretty much proves it wasn't a great article at all. In fact it was dangerous bull****

http://everydayvictimblaming.com/submissions/correcting-the-pfaisolicitor-comments-on-ched-evans/

Gilhooly was on BBC ulster and admitted he hadn't seen all the evidence

[Charlie Darwin]

PFAI/Stephen McGuinness dodging any blame or criticism I see, "we took it down as soon as we came in this morning". Who put it up in the first place?
Love that. "None of us have computers at home so we had to wait until we came in to work today."

[dahamsta]

Google cache of the article here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a7FnuV9TyrwJ:pfai.ie/news/hanging-ched-%25E2%2580%2593-double-jeopardy-court-public-opinion+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie), for anyone that missed it. Please keep the discussion on the level it's at. :)

EDIT: With the exception of the extremely misguided post by Titan, of course. I'm leaving it there because it's been dealt with very well by others.

[Titan]

Google cache of the article here (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a7FnuV9TyrwJ:pfai.ie/news/hanging-ched-%25E2%2580%2593-double-jeopardy-court-public-opinion+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie), for anyone that missed it. Please keep the discussion on the level it's at. :)

EDIT: With the exception of the extremely misguided post by Titan, of course. I'm leaving it there because it's been dealt with very well by others.

Errr misguided??

I just don't understand how on one hand it's ok for a guy who drives drunk and kills 2 kids to just resume his career and life but this Evans lad caused uproar. I just think it's a bit odd. That's all!

[Dodge]

Errr misguided??

I just don't understand how on one hand it's ok for a guy who drives drunk and kills 2 kids to just resume his career and life but this Evans lad caused uproar. I just think it's a bit odd. That's all!
That is not all you said. Don't be facetious about rape FFS

[Titan]

That is not all you said. Don't be facetious about rape FFS

If you think that all these people who are causing a hullabaloo about a rapist playing football are all genuinely outraged at this man being allowed resume employment after serving his (ridiculously lenient) sentence then fine. But I suspect there's an element of hypocrisy about it.

He says he's not a rapist but the courts thought otherwise. Therefor in the eyes of the law he is a rapist. Fair enough.

But the same law sentenced him to 5 years. Then let him out after 2 and a half years!

Given that he has served his sentence the law requires that he is allowed resume his life!

We can't pick and choose which element of the law we uphold.

Of course the victim doesn't get off so easy but that's another thread entirely.

It just bugs me that people are so quick to choose which elements of the law they adhere to and the grief that Sheffield United are getting is unfair. At the end of the day they are doing as instructed by the law of the land.

And I suppose that's my real gripe!

[Dodge]

And I suppose that's my real gripe!

And my real gripe is you continuing to dismiss the fact that he's a convicted rapist and that implying somehow his rape may not be as bad as others.

The court heard all the evidence and they decided he's a rapist.

Whether you think he is or not (based on media reports) and whether you think others have been incorrectly accused of rape is immatterial.

In this case, he raped a woman. The courts convicted him. You can call it hullabaloo and suspect what you like about the intentions of people that comment on it, but the facts remain. He is a convicted rapist.

[Titan]

Woah! You've basically agreed with the main points I made regarding his guilt. I said he was guilty because the courts said he was. You've ignored my main point however. Has he not served his sentence?
The sentence is a joke. But he's served it.
Unfortunately he is entitled to resume his career. I doubt Sheffield United are happy about it but they must have got some legal advice on the matter.

By the way I didn't dismiss anything. Also I didnt dispute his guilt.

[A N Mouse]

Woah! You've basically agreed with the main points I made regarding his guilt. I said he was guilty because the courts said he was. You've ignored my main point however. Has he not served his sentence?
The sentence is a joke. But he's served it.
Unfortunately he is entitled to resume his career. I doubt Sheffield United are happy about it but they must have got some legal advice on the matter.

By the way I didn't dismiss anything. Also I didnt dispute his guilt.

So he's served his sentence and should be able to walk back into his old job? Much the same way as you or I, had we been convicted of anything really? I suppose?

Personally I don't think you can compare him with a drink driver. Whose bad judgement was, in spite of however many people he killed, illegal from the moment he sat behind the wheel. But at least the drunk drivers seemed to show some contrition!

Neither should be a role model. But only one of them is a sex offender, which should preclude them from some of the duties of a modern high profile professional footballer.

[Titan]

So he's served his sentence and should be able to walk back into his old job? Much the same way as you or I, had we been convicted of anything really? I suppose?

Personally I don't think you can compare him with a drink driver. Whose bad judgement was, in spite of however many people he killed, illegal from the moment he sat behind the wheel. But at least the drunk drivers seemed to show some contrition!

Neither should be a role model. But only one of them is a sex offender, which should preclude them from some of the duties of a modern high profile professional footballer.

Yep agree with this.

That said if I was convicted of anything I would not be allowed to return to my job! That's standard for where I work.

Had Sheffield United been waiting outside the prison with a contract for this lad then it would be worse.

The fact is that the club are responding to a request to allow him train with them from the PFA.

Therefor I don't understand the outrage directed at the club.

If they offer him a contract however then all bets are off and it will be time to get the pitchforks!

[El-Pietro]

If he has served his time and a company are willing to hire him he should be allowed to be employed by them.

[Dodge]

Woah! You've basically agreed with the main points I made regarding his guilt. I said he was guilty because the courts said he was.

He's guilty because he raped a girl.


If he has served his time and a company are willing to hire him he should be allowed to be employed by them.

And clubs' fans have a right to get a say in who represents them

[DannyInvincible]

He's guilty because he raped a girl.

I sense you're being emotive here. He's guilty (legally-speaking) because he was found by a court of law to have raped a girl. Legal guilt is a determination made by a court based on the evidence and testimony available. The evidence would appear to point towards a fact, but, as you know, Evans disputes his guilt and claims to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice. However much the evidence might seem to point towards the occurrence of a crime, the status of guilt is still an externally-made determination. For what it's worth, perhaps he doesn't feel guilty in a personal emotional sense.

However, to realise what is fundamentally problematic about the above comment, take a step back from Evans' case and think about proven miscarriages of justice in history. They have happened and they do happen. Now, I'm not at all saying that there has been a miscarriage of justice here, but, generally-speaking, to necessarily assume the absolute guilt of an alleged and convicted offender on the basis of a court having said he or she is guilty would set a dangerous social precedent; it would be to render the status of such guilt irreversible. On the basis of your words, there would be no room for the notion of appeal or, to take them to their logical conclusion, even for reform of the justice system because there is a presumption of infallibility of the court therein. Of course, we know courts aren't infallible; they're entirely human, like Ched Evans. (I understand Evans' conviction was upheld on appeal, but I speak generally.)


And clubs' fans have a right to get a say in who represents them

Fans can have their say and the club owners can consider it, but ultimately it's the employer's call. I don't see how fans could have a direct say or (legal?) right to have a say in any decision-making process, unless they have a direct stake in the club or hold some sort of legal relationship with the club besides being voluntary benefactors, if you will. They're certainly entitled to voice disapproval with their feet, but why should a club be legally obliged to entertain or conform to their wishes?

Aren't the notion of redemption and a faith in the possibility of rehabilitation foundations of western criminal justice? If you have an issue with Evans being deemed re-employable, then surely your problem is primarily with the justice system. As it stands, he was served his punishment and remains indefinitely on the violent and sexual offenders' register. If you have faith in the finding, or the court that found him guilty, why not trust the sentence of the court?

Evans wouldn't be the sole beneficiary from his possible re-employment either. Whilst re-employment would certainly help re-integrate him back into society, the potential net benefit of that doesn't necessarily flow one way towards Evans; he would be using his talents and abilities in a way beneficial to society again (entertaining on the football field thousands of people who love being entertained by football) and would be contributing a very significant amount back to the public purse in taxed earnings.

For those who feel Sheffield United should not re-employ Evans, what constructive and socially-beneficial alternative do they suggest? Another few years in prison, at the cost of the taxpayer, I might add? A life on the dole, also at further cost to the taxpayer? A life of poverty having been permanently deprived of any form of social support? Could he ever become re-employable in your minds and what criteria would you deem it necessary for him to fulfill in order for him to become re-employable? Generally, further needless punishment (as far as society and the offender's rehabilitation are concerned) and social alienation only increase the prospects of recidivism or similar/worse.

I've seen it written that football exists in its own moral bubble (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30139723) because of things in the game like Evans' possible re-employment by Sheffield United, as if it would be a throw-back to the misogynistic/sexist dark ages or as if his re-employment would amount to a condoning of the act of which he was found guilty. I don't agree with this at all. In fact, I think it would have been a very brave and progressive stance had the club stuck to their guns and allowed him to train with them. It would have been restorative rather than retributive justice in action.

I should add that I thought the PFAI publication bizarre in that it was totally unnecessary for the body to engage itself with such a contentious issue not directly relevant to its own professional affairs.

[dahamsta]

So your argument is that we should assume everyone is innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law and some indefinable "social" court? Perhaps we should just toss out the whole legal business altogether and let The Journal decide?

Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, too many of them. But they're a tiny minority of cases. The man is guilty. If he believes there's been a miscarriage of justice then I hope he's actually doing something about it, rather than actually just telling people that's the case.

[Dodge]

I'd argue (strongly) that there's more cases of people who actually commit crimes and aren't convicted based on the burden of evidence to prove things beyond doubt (which of course is vital).

In this case a court found him guilty. They have heard all the evidence. I'd guess no one here has (and Gilhooly admitted he hadn't)

He's not arguing he didn't commit the acts BTW, he's arguing over signalling consent.

[DannyInvincible]

So your argument is that we should assume everyone is innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law and some indefinable "social" court? Perhaps we should just toss out the whole legal business altogether and let The Journal decide?

I'm not sure how my argument could be interpreted in such a way. The presumption of innocence until guilt is legally proven through the determination of a court does happen to be a cornerstone of Western jurisprudence, so, if I'm reading you correctly, it would be you advocating the tossing out the whole legal business altogether if you wanted to dismiss such a crucial pivot of modern-day justice? I do sense just a little hint of sarcasm though. :)

I haven't brought any other imaginary or "social" court into it. All I'm saying is that a legal court's finding is no more and no less than a determination by a judge and/or jury and that such courts, being human in construction, are not infallible; sometimes their determinations will conform with the facts and on other rare (you would hope) occasions, regrettably, maybe not. My statement was simply in recognition of that fact and it was to by no means trivialise or dismiss the importance or function of courts of law in our society.

I’m not necessarily saying that fact has any consequence or bearing in this particular case either as I am, similarly, by no means qualified or in any position to offer a certain verdict as to Evans’ guilt. Determinations by a court of law do carry very significant social weight, however, and we, as a pragmatic civilised society (myself included), broadly put our faith in those courts in recognition that they are the most effective method of ensuring the service of justice and of determining the facts of cases so that legal judgments can be made about those facts. A court’s finding will always remain just a judgment on or an interpretation of available evidence and alleged fact rather than a categorical statement or confirmation of absolute truth. If the judgment conforms with the truth, that’s good, but, if not, that’s not so good. We can't attach to a judgment some absolute status simply because we might be so repulsed by the specific act under question and are keen to stress our revulsion in absolute, uncategorical terms as a result.

I was speaking generally to demonstrate why such emotive, loaded and presumptuous language as Dodge had used can be unhelpful and dangerous, because if we are to presuppose that a court's word is absolutely true and correct simply because it says it is so, then it theoretically or tautologically renders any decision of that court absolutely irreversible because the reversal of a decision would be to admit the potential for error. That would be inherently paradoxical. Of course, we know that practical error is possible, and it would be a very grim society in which to live where the legal system absolutely assumed its own theoretical and practical infallibility with no recourse for the overturning of wrongful convictions. It doesn't mean I personally think Evans might have been innocent until a court said otherwise though. I’m in no position to offer any such verdict on his case. I'm just referring to a court's determination. That's all we're in a position to comment on here, unless we witnessed the incident or have an omniscient ability to have mind-read both Evans and the girl involved. Instead, we put faith in the fallible court and justice system - it's the best we have - but I'm not sure we can speak in such absolute terms.

You seem to be saying with absolute certainty that he is guilty though. How do you know that to be true? From where have you attained such knowledge? Haven’t you made a determination yourself based upon the determination of the court? On the basis of probability, your determination might well conform to the facts, but, I’m not sure what qualifies you to say you absolutely know he is guilty. You have a belief based on your perception and an interpretation of what you understand happened, but then there is the truth, which is a separate entity. Indeed, the two may overlap, but they are still distinct and one should not necessarily be assumed to be the same as the other.

I hope I’ve explained that coherently as I’m not sure I have the philosophical vocabulary to truly do justice to what I’m trying to articulate there. Or maybe I'm just needlessly complicating matters. :p


Yes, there are miscarriages of justice, too many of them. But they're a tiny minority of cases. The man is guilty. If he believes there's been a miscarriage of justice then I hope he's actually doing something about it, rather than actually just telling people that's the case.

The fact you admit that even in their minority there are far too many of them should convince you that a court's word can/should never be assumed to be infallible. Anyhow that’s a separate discussion and I’m not trying to suggest there has been a miscarriage of justice here.

The man was found guilty by a court of law. Can you so surely proclaim "the accused is guilty" in all cases where a court determines the accused guilty or is it just this one for some reason? If it’s just this one, why is that exactly? Would you have said of, say, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six that they were absolutely guilty prior to the overturnings simply and solely on the basis of a court having determined them to be guilty in law? I would think and hope not.

As far as Evans is concerned, I understand he has employed a new legal team to fight his case and help him clear his name. This certainly isn’t me fighting some sort of case for him. I’m content to accept the verdict of the court, like yourself, and if he wants to clear his name, he’s entitled to try that. I couldn't care less for him personally, to be honest.


I'd argue (strongly) that there's more cases of people who actually commit crimes and aren't convicted based on the burden of evidence to prove things beyond doubt (which of course is vital).

Maybe so, but, as you say, that’s no good reason to flirt with its dismissal. The legal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) is another vital cornerstone of criminal justice and due process in civilised, democratic societies; I suppose the rationale behind it is that your scenario is the lesser of what one might call the two evils. The greater evil would be innocent persons being convicted on much flimsier grounds than those required by the law at present.


He's not arguing he didn't commit the acts BTW, he's arguing over signalling consent.

I'm aware he freely acknowledges he engaged in a sexual act, but the question of whether or not consent was given is what the court's determination rested upon. The question of consent (or lack thereof) is what determined the alleged criminality of the act. Just because he committed a sexual act doesn't mean he is legally guilty of rape. You’ve also declared him absolutely guilty. Do you know that consent was absent and, if so, how do you know?

If you think I’m trying to dismiss the court’s findings, by the way, I’m not at all. I’m just saying it’s a determination. It may well be a very sound determination, although I’m not in a position to say with certainty.

[nigel-harps1954]

Did anyone ever post something up, and completely regret doing so a week later?

[DannyInvincible]

Did anyone ever post something up, and completely regret doing so a week later?

Just give it another week. :p

[TonyD]

I should add that I thought the PFAI publication bizarre in that it was totally unnecessary for the body to engage itself with such a contentious issue not directly relevant to its own professional affairs.

Exactly. What on earth has it got to do with the PFAI or their solicitor anyway ?

[gufcfan]

Exactly. What on earth has it got to do with the PFAI or their solicitor anyway ?

They're a business, not a union and they seem to like to weigh-in on matters that they shouldn't and appear to be happiest when someone is talking about them, no matter what the reason.

Why don't they discuss the merits of the idea that the holocaust never happened while they're at it.

I still can't believe that a solicitor of over 20 years could be capable of lodging their foot so far back in their cake hole.

[Martinho II]

did anyone read the article in the sun today?it said that Evans is considering joining a LOI club and may live in the North! maybe thats the reason why the PFAI Solicitor is posting that article over the last week!

[Titan]

did anyone read the article in the sun today?it said that Evans is considering joining a LOI club and may live in the North! maybe thats the reason why the PFAI Solicitor is posting that article over the last week!
Well given that you're average uk football club/player thinks the irish league is us and the LOI is them up north maybe he's joining an irish league club!!!

[Longfordian]

I'd imagine he'd have to live in the UK as part of his parole conditions so a club in the North would make sense if any of them wanted him.

[nigel-harps1954]

Maybe Dundalk or Derry?

[SwanVsDalton]

Ha! That would be some story. And I was just thinking of how I think Evans should be allowed to continue his career but that I would feel conflicted if I was a Sheffield Utd fan...

Don't rule yourselves out here Nige, Kevin McHugh could have a new strike partner. ;)

[Nesta99]

Maybe Dundalk or Derry?

No chance, Maxi would be waiting for him with petrol can in hand. If he was allowed travel in to the Republic I ould see Pat Fenlon not caring much about his conviction and giving him a go. More likely to Portadown ..

[MariborKev]

Ha! That would be some story. And I was just thinking of how I think Evans should be allowed to continue his career but that I would feel conflicted if I was a Sheffield Utd fan...

Don't rule yourselves out here Nige, Kevin McHugh could have a new strike partner. ;)

Sunday World(I know, I know) had Derry linked to him. From the screengrab I saw it was the from the "Showbiz" section of the paper.

[Dodge]

He has to stay living in the UK as part of his parole. I still think he'll play in England

[pineapple stu]

If he can get a contract with Sheffield United, I'd be surprised if he suddenly turned around and played in Ireland tbh.

[Nesta99]

If he can get a contract with Sheffield United, I'd be surprised if he suddenly turned around and played in Ireland tbh.

Thats the issue as Sheffield Utd are distancing themselves from him and due to his 'apparent' lack of contrition post sentence he is totally toxic and he will find it tough to get a club even in the lower leagues. I know little of him as a player but maybe he thinks that an IL club would jump at taking on a player of a higher calibre and overlook his past and rebuild from there?

[Longfordian]

What was the name of that tool who amongst other things was taking pictures of himself surrounded by bags of money, posting them on Twitter, Leon something? He ended up playing up the North when nobody else would have him. Admittedly he was crap as well which didn't help his cause.

[Charlie Darwin]

Leon Knight?

[Longfordian]

That's him. He was constantly offering to fight people and giving it the big "I am" on Twitter.

[DannyInvincible]

Knight signed for Coleraine for a bit, but did he even train with them? My recollection (which is open to correction) tells me they might have flown him over from London for games.

[nigel-harps1954]

Knight signed for Coleraine for a bit, but did he even train with them? My recollection (which is open to correction) tells me they might have flown him over from London for games.

Played with Glentoran too. Think there was some sort of fallout with him over not going to any training and just turning up for matches if memory serves me right.

[pineapple stu]

His wiki is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Knight). Decent record in the north, but £1,000 a month to fly him in for games? Bloody hell.

Seems he was kicked out of Glentoran for opposing gay marriage (with some pretty stupid comments), and ended up without a club for two years.

Missed the entire 2012/13 season, having set up a charity page (https://www.justgiving.com/Leon82Knight/) where he was going to donate money for every goal he scored that season.

[eitoof]

The FifPro tournament is on again;

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/soccer/positive-reaction-to-soccer-players-career-frankness-305554.html

[Mr A]

I see the poor old PFAI solicitor can't make it this year. He has been appointed to the panel of arbitrators for Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for next 3 years though.

[colonelwest]

I see the poor old PFAI solicitor can't make it this year. He has been appointed to the panel of arbitrators for Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) for next 3 years though.

If only Ched Evans knew!

[Mr A]

PFAI looking to look at helping players with education for careers after football. http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/fall-in-wages-shows-tough-irish-reality-31144122.html

[seand]

PFAI looking to look at helping players with education for careers after football. http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/fall-in-wages-shows-tough-irish-reality-31144122.html

I thought, perhaps, this was going to be a good news story of the PFAI finally pulling their finger out and actually doing something to help young footballers. Instead it's McGuinness saying "we have to take action" without absolutely no hint as to who is going to do what. Would be great to see the PFAI pulling their weight here.
Also his quote about nobody playing LoI to become rich and famous is ******, there's a well established route to high paid professional football that runs through the LoI, any young player with ambition can use it as a stepping stone to the UK, and hundreds of young fellas are getting more money for playing football a few hours a week than they would otherwise be getting on the dole or on minimum wage.

[GCdfc]

So salaries have decreased....welcome to the real world McGuinness! Mine went down too and I'm nowhere near what some players were on during their peak. If salaries aren't managed then clubs wouldn't exist. We know where that would leave the players he represents.

[vinnie]

"This year the highest earner in the League of Ireland is on €40,000 per year"

This bit is Bullsh1t, and Lazy journalism

[Longfordian]

McGuinness is on something like €80k a year himself as full time Chairman.