Unnamed footballer's bail extended for the third time

Thursday, 20 January, 2022 70comments  |  Jump to last
A Premier League star, assumed to be the unnamed Everton player arrested by Greater Manchester Police last July on suspicion of child sex offences, has had his bail extended for a third time.

The player, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is believed to be the same one who was suspended by their club immediately after the announcement that a 31-year-old married Premier League player had been arrested. Everton confirmed that they had suspended a first-team player pending an investigation by police shortly thereafter.

The footballer's bail was originally set to last until 19 October last year before being extended to 19 January 2022 and then changed again to 17 April 2022 without any charges being made in the case.  


Reader Comments (70)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Bobby Mallon
1 Posted 20/01/2022 at 17:39:48
My mate texted and said this player has been arrested and bailed till April. Is this true? Does anyone have more info?
Brian Wilkinson
2 Posted 20/01/2022 at 18:06:46
Bobby,

Last July for he who cannot be named, bail has been extended three times. We cannot name the player.

Jay Harris
3 Posted 20/01/2022 at 18:54:21
Bobby,

Apparently he has not been charged or arrested he is at home on bail.

Everton's stance is certainly not "Innocent until proven guilty" so there must be something in it.

Kieran Kinsella
4 Posted 20/01/2022 at 18:59:10
Jay Harris,

If he hasn't been charged or arrested, then why has he been on bail? They don't give you bail just for having a conversation about a case, you get bail after you appear before the judge as the accused and post bail so you aren't kept in jail.

Jay Harris
5 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:05:37
It said in the article he has not been charged, Kieran. Maybe it's a typo.
Brian Williams
6 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:11:57
Jay.

He was arrested initially. You can't be on bail if you haven't been arrested.

Chris Williams
7 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:12:10
He has been arrested, and detained, on suspicion. He was bailed, and that has been extended a couple of times. He has not been charged.

The fact he has not yet been charged and the bail has been extended several times could mean that the investigation is ongoing, and there is, as yet, insufficient evidence to charge.

Allegedly!

Anyone remember the David Jones case?

Brendan McLaughlin
8 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:14:14
Jay,

"Everton's stance is certainly not "Innocent until proven guilty" "

How do you figure that?

Dennis Stevens
9 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:29:39
Indeed, Chris, it was an absolute disgrace. Pretty well destroyed his career & his father died before the judge threw the case out.
Mike Gaynes
10 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:40:50
Chris, thanks for the update. Your expertise is appreciated.

What was the David Jones case?

Chris Williams
11 Posted 20/01/2022 at 19:54:21
Dennis,

Yes it was a disgrace, and the ‘no smoke without fire brigade’ need to recall it.

Mike, I’m not a lawyer, but do have some experience of the process. David Jones was a former Everton player, a decent right back who had a good career. He became a manager, promising, who ended up at Southampton. He was accused of something, not unrelated. His chairman, Rupert somebody, fired him I think but could be wrong. He was charged and his reputation was pretty well fucked. On the day of his trial, the key witness, his accuser, didn’t show up.

So best to let this run its course, and suspend judgement, and probably comment.

Allegedly!

Gavin Johnson
12 Posted 20/01/2022 at 20:51:15
He's out of contract this summer. Given the charge would come under gross misconduct if found guilty. I wonder if we're still paying all his wages. If he's had to be suspended because of his actions, surely he can't be getting all of his £90k a week or whatever he was getting. Anyone with a legal or business background have any theories?
Anthony Dove
13 Posted 20/01/2022 at 20:57:09
I think we should support him a bit more.

After all this time he's still not been charged never mind found guilty. Ryan Giggs has just had his Court hearing due in April adjourned for another seven months. Not acceptable all round.

Brendan McLaughlin
14 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:02:19
Gavin #12
It's highly unlikely that he has been "suspended because of his actions". He most likely has been put on "gardening leave" because it would be completely unrealistic and a faiure in the club's "duty of care" to expect him to play in front of spectators given the circumstances. He's almost certainly receiving his full salary.
Dennis Stevens
15 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:03:50
Mike #10 David Jones page on wiki touches upon the case &, should you be inclined, he did a decent autobiography "No Smoke, No Fire"
Kieran Kinsella
16 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:04:27
Anthony

What support would you like to see? We can't even mention his name for legal reasons and have no idea of the allegations and evidence or lack thereof.

But given the leaks, I doubt the suspect would have wanted to play every week (innocent or guilty) with fans giving dog's abuse assuming guilt.

Meanwhile, if it does lead to charges and or conviction, I don't think Everton want have to go back and airbrush the season highlights video. Probably in the best interests of both parties that he is suspended – guilt or innocence aside.

Brian Williams
17 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:10:17
Kirean. We can mention his name. It's the website "owners" that can't.

We, the users of the website break no laws by mentioning his name.

Dennis Stevens
18 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:12:46
I just refer to him as Number Ten, ironic as he's probably not having a party.
Anthony Dove
19 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:16:59
Keiran @16.

The general silence speaks volumes. I really hope he is not guilty of any wrongdoing and it would be nice if he felt that was a view shared by lots of supporters. Call me an old softie if you want.

Dave Abrahams
20 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:39:06
Anthony (13), the delay is because of the huge backlog of cases due mostly to the coronavirus. Like hospital waiting lists, there are lads who have been remanded in jail a lot longer than the man with no name and still don't know what charges they are facing. There could be more charges added to the list or they could be innocent. Time will tell... or maybe served!!
Michael Kenrick
21 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:40:41
Brian,

I hadn't seen that interesting distinction the last time we risked discussing this.

I thankfully have no knowledge or experience of cases like this but was initially puzzled by the actions of the club in firstly suspending him at all, and secondly, in putting out the statement half-telling the world what they had done.

In my mind, it links to Jay's point about the old cliche "Innocent until proven guilty" – which is of course a complete joke in this day and age. But was it reasonable for the club to act on the basis of unproven suspicions and accusations in a case like this?

Was the act of the player being arrested sufficient grounds for triggering Gross Misconduct provisions that are presumably in the player's contract and result in immediate suspension? And is that suspension justified?

Perhaps Kieran is right that the player would not have been in the right frame of mind or been able to play even if he had wanted to. But it seems astounding to me that they reacted so quickly as if it was an open and shut case, yet they are still investigating after six months without bringing any charges.

Meanwhile, the career of a professional footballer has been destroyed at a stroke, irrespective of his guilt or innocence. That just seems wrong to me. But maybe it's me who's got it wrong?

Peter Neilson
22 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:41:09
Almost certainly the club will still be paying him as it's their decision to suspend him rather than a legal requirement.

If he pleads guilty or is convicted he'll probably be in breach of his contract. The club could then seek compensation from him if his contract is breached and it causes the club a financial loss.

This might be difficult as he's out of contract at the end of the season. They would have to prove the loss of his market value

Gavin Johnson
24 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:49:49
Peter #22, that's an interesting point. I should imagine that you're right and we could claim wages back if he's found or pleads guilty.

Given that it would be clear gross misconduct in that instance, we'd would have continued to pay his substantial wages when there was no realistic chance of him playing this season.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
25 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:52:50
Rob, there's been an article in the national press, relating to an Everton player, and other readers were posting comments about it. That's usually reason enough for us to have a thread.

Why is it pathetic?

Brian Williams
26 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:57:31
It's quite normal for an employer to suspend an employee who may be the subject of a police investigation. It's not a punishment, and doesn't mean the employer sees the employee as guilty.
Tony Everan
27 Posted 20/01/2022 at 21:58:22
The opposite seems to apply in some cases, guilty until proven innocent. Mr Nameless has lost/ irreparably damaged his career, his reputation and his future, no matter what the outcome.

I'd like to know from any legal expert, if he is found guilty and we have paid him say £7m in wages since the crime, are those wages repayable to the club as he was in breach of contract?

Chris Williams
28 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:02:15
Michael,

It’s the way the system works. Gross misconduct is not an issue here. He’s been accused of a criminal offence. Before he was arrested, a lot of investigative work should have been done, otherwise the police could have been accused of false arrest. They may well be yet, if they don’t charge him and then win. The CPS make the final decision, based on a couple of criteria. Maybe those criteria are not yet satisfied?

The club haven’t named him and are probably still fulfilling their contractual obligations, but it’s pretty clear to the whole world who it is.

Unlike Southampton all those years ago. And this isn’t a FFP issue, it’s not a case of cost, although the individual concerned will be paying through the nose financially and in other ways too. He will already have been tried and found guilty in certain parts of social media.

Let this take its course.

Rob Halligan
29 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:03:39
Michael, I just don't see the need for a thread such as this on a football related forum. It's your forum so I suppose you can put what you like on it.
Brendan McLaughlin
30 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:07:57
Peter #22 & Gavin #24

It's almost certain that Everton have decided he should not play. As he's complying with the club's instructions, irrespective of the outcome, there will almost certainly be no repayment of wages from the player concerned.

Tony Everan
31 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:10:10
Rob, They’ve been allowing threads covering Everton games under Benitez.
Chris Hockenhull
32 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:11:48
Chris Williams (11).

The case actually fell apart during the trial when the accusers were confronted as having lied through their teeth and made the whole thing up. They were taken apart in court.

I at the time was working with a family relative to him. It absolutely broke him. He'd worked in a social care environment after finishing the game and that was his focus. It was that where the “historical” claim was made. By then, he was more high profile and making a name for himself as a manager in the game.

Southampton royally shafted him, bringing Hoddle in before the case had even got to court, so that was his career shot. When he did – after the case fell apart – return to the game, the abuse from fans finished him. Very sad story.

As regards the unmentionable player, our loveable righteous neighbours have on social media since last summer had a field day bringing it up at any given opportunity, so we know how that would go if he was proved innocent. But then that shower have always been at the top of the church of truthfulness and open thinking with never a hint of deceit, haven't they???

Brian Williams
33 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:11:55
Rob #29.

This is an Everton forum. He's an Everton player. It's bound to be the subject of discussion on an Everton website.


Rob Halligan
34 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:12:28
Very true, Tony. More non related football threads. 😁😁😁
Brent Stephens
35 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:14:06
Tony #31 - wicked.
Chris Williams
36 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:22:22
Cheers Chris,

My memory ain’t so clever these days. I do remember David’s outraged comments afterwards about it never coming to trial.

Still ended up with a decent man buggered right royally.

Now we’ve got the massive jury of social media. As Alexander Pope wrote, ‘at every word a reputation dies’

Ernie Baywood
37 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:36:05
Might sound strange but I kind of hope he's guilty.

Because if he's lost his reputation, maybe lost his relationship, and certainly lost the tail end of his career for no reason that would be very sad.

But I guess what's done is done and the process just needs to play out.

Jim Bennings
38 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:37:01
We've actually missed his input of goals from central midfield this season.

He may be to slow now but was always good for 7-8 goals a season which is more than you can say of our current goal shy central midfield.

Brendan McLaughlin
39 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:41:13
Ridiculous post, Ernie #37.
Andy Crooks
40 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:51:13
Ernie, what are you talking about? How stupid.
Bill Gienapp
41 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:59:00
I find it amazing that this happened 6 months ago and we have zero details re: the case or what's happening. I gather this is simply how British law operates, but coming from America – land of TMZ, OJ and the 24/7 tabloid news cycle – it's just hard for me to wrap my head around.
Steve Shave
42 Posted 20/01/2022 at 22:59:15
Odd comment, Ernie. I am pleased this is a thread; it is of massive relevance and we should not be ignoring it just because we can't name the player or make inflammatory comments.

I have history on here of being extremely vocal against said player, not because I think he is a bad person or a bad player but because, pound for pound, he is the worst signing in our history and the expenditure at the time set us back years. Manager after manager playing him, sometimes making a system fit him and sometimes making him fit a system.

He had a good season, yes, but essentially we didn't need him and signing off on that transfer was one of the bigger mistakes in Moshiri's reign. Period. Nobody on here will sway me otherwise.

I am able to reflect on myself; I actually can see that my irritation with him is at times irrational, I can see that I have a chip on my shoulder about him and the decision to bring him to our club. That I know is not his fault.

Now to the current predicament: I have mused similarly to Tony, what about the wages since arrest? Now he is either guilty and in which case the club in theory could sue for breach of contract, paid wages and loss of potential sale in the summer before his contract ends... say we could have got £8-£10M for him to anyone stupid enough to buy.

Or he is innocent (I have no view either way on this as I know nothing of the circumstances), in which case,e a false allegation has been made. In theory, the accuser could be sued for paid wages, loss of transfer fee etc. It's a real mess. Everton that.

Ernie Baywood
43 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:03:57
What's the alternative? Hope he's innocent and has suffered a life-defining injustice?

Nothing is going to change what (if anything) has already happened.

I know what the club would prefer, but this is well beyond football.

I'd like to think that, if you wreck a guy's life, you do it on pretty solid grounds. Not on the basis of a fishing expedition like Dave Jones suffered.

Karl Masters
44 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:07:32
No charges after 6 months?

Stop and think about that.

For something as serious as this, you either have good, strong evidence to confront the ‘accused'... or you should keep away.

If he's innocent, think what he's lost. Put yourselves in that situation. What if you were accused of something like this, but never charged for months on end?

Whether he's guilty or not, this is a disgraceful indictment of what our legal system has become. Incompetent or malicious, who knows? But bang out of order.

Barry Hesketh
45 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:07:59
We don't know the truth about what has happened, who is involved, and if anyone is guilty of anything. It's a much bigger issue than how it affects Everton Football Club financially or out on the pitch. It's an issue that we could do without, but we have to be patient, wait for the outcome of the investigations, and try not to pass judgement one way or the other.
Kevin Prytherch
46 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:10:07
There were plenty of rumours at the time and pictures relating to said incident. I've no idea what's allowed and what isn't so if it oversteps a line then please remove this post.

The rumours at the time was that it was basically a honey trap, the parents were in on it and said player was blackmailed. Said player admitted it to the police. The rumours were that this would not be a one-off case and plenty more high profile footballers had also been successfully targeted.

These were rumours and if this oversteps the mark then please remove this post.

Brendan McLaughlin
47 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:19:35
Seriously Ernie (#43),

So if it was your son... you'd rather he was guilty rather than being innocent and at least having the option, stigma notwithstanding, of making some sort of a fist of the rest his life?

Ernie Baywood
48 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:25:06
He's not my son, though, is he, Brendan? And I'm not speculating on his actions.

When it comes to something like this, I have no connection at all to the individual.

I do have a connection to the system that puts him in this position. Because I live in it.

So I hope it's all above board, fully investigated.

The alternative would be very sad indeed. The alternative is what happened to Dave Jones.

Brendan McLaughlin
49 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:34:05
Ernie #48,

Are you saying if he were your son... then different standards would apply? Are you really that detached from the fate of people with whom you have no connection?

Frank Wolfe
50 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:38:52
Innocent until proven guilty.

On the football front, we have really missed having a No 10 this season. A glaring hole in the team which Rafa failed to address.

Ernie Baywood
51 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:48:28
No, Brendan, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying on a very significant level.

You're speculating on what has already happened. Whatever happened has already happened. Or hasn't happened. We don't get to decide or change any of that as it's in the past.

I hope my children do not commit child sex offences. That much should be fairly clear. If they were arrested, I would hope that they were found innocent because I would hope that they actually didn't do it.

Now, ignoring the debate about my kids, because they're not relevant.

I hope that if someone's life is ruined by being arrested on child sex offences, then it's because there are strong grounds to suggest that they actually committed the offence.

The alternative is that someone's life is ruined by being arrested on child sex offences when there is flimsy evidence or false allegations.

Andrew Keatley
52 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:55:24
Ernie (37),

Forgive me if I am reading your post wrong, but I took it that you meant that you'd rather live in a world in which the guilty were caught and punished – and that the prospect that an innocent man could be treated in the manner of this unnamed Everton player would be more problematic than a world in which a guilty man was caught and punished appropriately.


Mike Gaynes
53 Posted 20/01/2022 at 23:58:47
Tony #27, I know of no legal case in any country that would empower an employer to "pull back" wages paid to an employee on suspension in a legal matter. The employer could sue the employee for damages or restitution if the crime was against the employer, but that's obviously not the case here.

Michael #21 and Karl #44, with regards to how long the process has taken, Dave #20 made a very good point. Every democratic legal system is currently backlogged because of COVID, from police to the prosecutors/defenders to the courtrooms themselves.

Jim #38, I think what we've missed even more is his consistency. He played a lot of minutes and you always knew what you were getting from him...

Brendan McLaughlin
54 Posted 20/01/2022 at 00:04:24
Ernie (#various),

"Might sound strange but I kind of hope he's guilty."

Did/do you apply that logic to the Dave Jones case? Do you think Dave Jones, despite the devastation that those allegations caused him, isn't massively thankful that he was found innocent or do you continue to argue that it would have been better if he had been guilty?

Ernie Baywood
55 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:08:25
They're different sides of the same coin, Andrew.

We want the guilty to be punished. And the innocent not to have their lives ruined. That's justice.

At the moment, it's guilty until proven innocent. If we're being honest. The courts just decide the legal punishment to be dished out, but the media has already delivered its own 'no smoke without fire' justice.

I go back to the Dave Jones case. The police actually canvassed for victims on the potential for compensation. Elements were clearly incorrect, yet the man's name got dragged through the mud before the claimants (a better description than 'alleged victims' in this case) lost their nerve. Due process wouldn't have done that.

Going back to my original statement, which I stand by, if our unnamed player is suffering, then I at least hope he deserves to have suffered.

Ernie Baywood
56 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:11:15
Brendan... I've referenced Dave Jones multiple times. My perspective on that case should be pretty clear.

You still seem to be living in this fantasy that the courts dictate whether things actually happened or not. It's not suddenly true or not due to a legal outcome. It's already happened.

You're completely missing the point.

Mike Gaynes
57 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:16:36
Frank #50,

There was no money available this summer to buy a direct replacement for a player who became unavailable so suddenly in mid-July. There would have been no plans in place to do so.

Benitez signed Gray and Townsend a few days later, but I don't recall there being any #10s available on free (or almost free) transfers at that time. It's purely guesswork, but I'd bet Benitez had plans to address the issue in the current window.

Brendan McLaughlin
58 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:21:05
No Ernie #56

It's not clear... you are stating that, because our No 10 has been accused of these offences, you "kind of hope he is guilty". Dave Jones was similarly charged but acquitted... so are you kind of disappointed he was found innocent?

Ernie Baywood
59 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:34:17
No Brendan, I'm disappointed that his name was dragged through the mud based on a sham investigation.

Like I said, you've missed the point on a pretty fundamental level.

It's beginning to feel like you're desperate to be outraged by something.

Brian Williams
60 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:40:09
Kevin #46.

That's my understanding also. And when Siggy told 'em to get to fuck, they were getting nowt, they went to the police (all allegedly of course).

Brendan McLaughlin
61 Posted 21/01/2022 at 00:53:19
Ernie #59

So why are you disappointed that Dave Jones's name was dragged through the mud but hope that our No 10 is guilty?

There are many people who have suffered at the hands of the justice system. Indeed many have been convicted and, after long years of imprisonment, found to be innocent. Despite what they've suffered, how many of them would share your view?

Missing the point... you don't have one!

Ernie Baywood
62 Posted 21/01/2022 at 01:20:42
Brendan. I can't figure out what you're trying to 'win' here.

I've been pretty clear in what I've said. Your lack of comprehension really isn't my issue.

I think I can depart now.

Brendan McLaughlin
63 Posted 21/01/2022 at 02:13:56
Ernie #62

I'm simply pointing out that it is not, never has been and never will be, better in any respect for someone to be guilty of a crime.

I mean you've already acknowledged you would take a different view if it was a member of your own family and, despite a couple of invitations, you've also chosen not to apply your logic in Post 37 to the Dave Jones case.

Trying to win, Ernie... no trying needed in this instance!

Kieran Kinsella
64 Posted 21/01/2022 at 02:20:10
Brian 60

Your version makes more sense than the one I heard which is he went to the police to report the blackmail. Then they asked, blackmail for what?

Kieran Kinsella
65 Posted 21/01/2022 at 02:24:14
Ernie,

I can kind of see your logic if you look at it in a very narrow way, thinking purely about the person who's falsely accused.

But after that thought enters your mind, your better sense takes over and you look at the big picture and think “Wait – if he is guilty, then there is a victim and that's worse than him being wrongly accused then exonerated.”

And hopefully you think it through before you post it. And then you don't.

Ernie Baywood
66 Posted 21/01/2022 at 03:16:18
Kieran, I get what you're saying, and I get a sense that you have at least tried to understand my view.

You're right that I'm not looking at it from the victim's perspective.

We don't know if there is a victim. But, if there is, they are already the victim. Whatever the unnamed player has been accused of doesn't suddenly and retrospectively physically happen if he's found guilty, or disappear if he's found not guilty.

So no I'm not wishing ill on children. Not even close. That bit already happened, or it didn't.

Let's put it another way. I hope that what the police and the media are currently doing to unnamed player is justified by the information available to them. Maybe that's more acceptable, though it says exactly the same thing.

Kieran Kinsella
67 Posted 21/01/2022 at 04:30:59
Ernie,

I get it mate. Sometimes posting on the internet without context of tone or knowing the poster comes across differently than it would if you were just having a pint with your mates and speaking off the top of your head.

I understand what you're saying, I just wouldn't have posted it for it being misunderstood [lol]... but hey, that's because I've learnt from bitter experience so I'm not criticizing you. I've been there too often myself:

Drew O’Neall
68 Posted 21/01/2022 at 04:31:14
Why is Ernie still getting slaughtered here?

When I read his original post it’s brevity meant it read a little oddly but, if it wasn’t obvious what he was saying then, it is now.

He’s defended his point very eloquently and we’re now down a rabbit hole of nuance, nomenclature and syntax, the hunting grounds of the keyboard warrior which, at 4 o’clock in the morning, is rather a waste of everyone’s energy, I’d humbly suggest.

Michael Kenrick
69 Posted 21/01/2022 at 16:10:45
Ernie,

A remarkably patient and thoughtful series of responses to the almost point-scoring glee of the hypocrisy police.

One big thing I've noticed since returning from the USA after many years out of this country: the incredible preoccupation people have here with sniffing out and lambasting the very faintest whiff of hypocrisy in others.

That's the only way I can understand Brendan's persistent attack on what I thought was a very understandable sentiment in the circumstances.

Even if there are reasonable excuses for the inordinate absence of progress (ie, still no charges) after 6 months, when there must have been sufficient cause for the police and social media to destroy a professional footballer's life, it's not unreasonable to think it would be a better outcome if there really was a case for him to answer.

Phil (Kelsall) Roberts
70 Posted 21/01/2022 at 16:52:44
Ernie - I get what you were saying but to be fair - if he was guilty he is likely to
1 to get a jail term
2 be on the SoR for a number of years
3 have his reputation trashed
4 find his career finished
5 never be able to work as a coach should that have been his wish.
6 possibly be refused a visa to enter the UK.

If he is not charged then it is only #4, and depending on the court of public opinion, also #3.he will lose. So given #1, #2 #5 and #6 are only if found guilty, then I think innocent or even not charged is the preferable outcome.

It is a minefield area of the law. Having any child under 16 involved in sexual activity is against the law. That includes any couple of 15 year old kids having a grope behind the bike sheds. The police turn a blind eye to that one because - well because. But technically the moment he turns 16 and dumps her a few weeks later, she can go to the police on the basis of her birthday treat and he is charged. Better tell that one to your kids.

We also have to remember that Benjamin Mendy was first interviewed by Police about his alleged rape offences, including one with a girl aged 16-18 back at the tail end of 2020 and it was only in August, when the police laid charges, did City suspend him. I think he played about 20 games including being an unused sub in the Champions League final. So that took 9 months from accusations to charges.

So far the case that started this thread is at about 6. But somehow City managed to keep the Mendy stuff sufficiently quiet that he could play without the SM/MSM spotlight which seems to have been the main problem here. And Man City had obviously the "innocent until proven guilty" attitude, or were just more cynical.

Ernie Baywood
71 Posted 21/01/2022 at 21:54:50
The point about Mendy is interesting Phil. You could say the same for the Adam Johnson case.

Should our club have suspended unnamed player?

To me it depends on what unnamed player has told the club.

Dave Jones maintained he was completely innocent and the allegations were a fabrication. Yet he was stood down by Lowe and was devastated by this.

I'm not sure what Mendy told Man City but understand Johnson did tell Sunderland what had happened (he pleaded not guilty but never denied text flirting and kissing a 15-year-old) and they decided he had a right to train and play until proven guilty.

Interestingly, Dave Jones lists Bill Kenwright as one of his greatest supporters during his ordeal.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads