Unnamed footballer's bail extended again

The story going around that he was being blackmailed. If innocent, it's going to be a year-plus maybe to have this hovering over him.

Is it Michael Keane? Mason Holgate? André Gomes maybe?

I know of a man who was accused by an employee. Through a long process, he was found innocent. He then sold his business, but he told me he should have sold earlier, concentrating on the case and planning his new life. If he had been found guilty, it would have been unbearable, and stuck with a business, would have put him over the edge.

Of course the due process has to be gone through.

Imagine we get relegated and, a few months later, he is acquitted.

Approaching one year since the arrest. Enquiries continuing, no formal charges laid. This must be one oddly complex case. Perhaps there is much more to it, or nothing to it.

Or maybe the nameless one attended one or more parties at Downing Street.

The possibilities are endless and everything is mere rumour and speculation.

Why do the police need to make such an opaque and yet blatantly obvious initial statement that ends up totally destroying the accused?

Why did the club need to come out with their ridiculous statement suspending some unnamed player? For it to then become obvious exactly who was suspended.

Does any of this nonsense aid the investigation? Or could that have proceeded in camera until they had enough evidence to prosecute, and then make it public?

And why on earth is it taking so incredibly long anyway?

And then we are left with the incalculable harm this episode has had on the morale and cohesion of the team in this dreadful season.

Maybe a lot of this becomes justified through his ultimate guilt. But it seems a shocking way to go about things. And if he turns out to be innocent... ooops. Sorry. Go commiserate with Dave Jones and Cliff Richard.

For somebody to be charged with an offence, as opposed to being arrested on suspicion, certain circumstances need to be satisfied.

1) There must be a good chance of CPS winning the case. The benchmark used to be a 50% chance of winning, at least, which isn’t that demanding you might think. I don’t know if this is still the case.

2) It must be in the public interest. Clearly underage sex charges satisfy this condition.

The fact that bail has been extended again probably means that one or other, or both circumstances have not yet been satisfied.

I think that in the case of a high profile individual, ‘in the public interest ‘ can be replaced by ‘of interest to the public’ which isn’t the same thing at all.

Whatever the answer, this individual, innocent or guilty, is basically in some sort of Limbo, or worse. Even if it goes to trial, given this ongoing time lag, it may well be that it won’t be proven.

Either way he’s fucked!

Furthermore, the unnameable player, if he had been available, would almost certainly have made a positive contribution at some stage during this woeful season.

And without detailing it here, my understanding is the invisible man has a credible defence. We shall see