Sigurdsson and Partey up against British Justice

Sigurdsson must be livid.

The player must have been unsellable whilst the investigation was ongoing.

It was a loss to the creativity of the team at that time, along with James Rodriguez departing also that summer, completely killed us dead where we nearly got relegated the following season.

I've always said it, take goals out of your team and you will struggle.

So it is life on hold, or career-ending stuff, whether the subject sweeps streets or is a rock star.

Do we need to speculate on this or shall we just wait and see?

Mr Sigurdsson hasn't made any public statement that I am aware of, nor has the club, so we still don't know anything like the full story, or how much there is to tell...

I think Partey has been allowed to carry on playing because he has crucially denied all charges whereas I don't believe that this was the case with Sigurdsson?

Sigurdsson never denied being with an alleged underaged female, and I think this was crucial with regards the way he was immediately taken out of the squad by Everton?

Close but not quite right.

Almost all organisations have "safeguarding" policies in place and generally if there are allegations regarding a member of staff and a minor... a suspension will automatically follow even if the allegations are vehemently denied by the accused.

I haven't followed the Partey case in any great detail but I suspect there are no allegations involving minors.

That's the difference between the two cases.

Sigurdsson was never charged. That's one of the massive differences this throws up.

The evidence against him — after an astounding, surely completely indefensible 2 years of investigation — was deemed insufficient by CPS to proceed to prosecution.

Partey has been allowed to carry on playing because he has crucially denied all charges.

I don't believe that's true at all. He has only just been charged. He has been under investigation for 3 years and was allowed to carry on playing because Arsenal failed to suspend him despite concerns expressed by Arsenal Supporters Against Sexual Violence.

The specific crimes Sigurdsson was investigated for were never made public to my knowledge… but somehow you seem to know what he did, and that he never denied doing it?

The story includes this:

Dino Nocivelli, a partner at legal firm Leigh Day, told The Telegraph: “I think the fact that the defendant in these cases has been able to continue his working life is wrong and clearly sends the wrong message for such serious allegations as rape and sexual assault.

“The player should have been suspended while his football club and the (English) Football Association investigated the allegations, with no prospect of resuming his work until the investigations were concluded.”

The article talks about other cases, including this one:

Sunderland were willing to continue playing the former England winger Adam Johnson after he was charged for having sexual activity with a 15-year-old girl. Johnson remained a regular starter up until the weekend before the beginning of his trial, where he pleaded guilty to sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 and grooming. Sunderland only terminated Johnson's contract at that point. He was later sentenced to six years in prison.

And this one:

Another case, maintaining the anonymity of the professional footballer arrested throughout, took a very different approach.

That player was suspended by his club shortly after his arrest in July 2021 on suspicion of multiple child sex offences and remained unavailable throughout his time on bail. He was told he would face no action 21 months later, after his case failed to “reach the threshold set out on the Code for Crown Prosecutors”.

Hmmm... so we still don't know who that was???

Those reports are merely reflecting the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra and suggesting that in terms of violence against women... that shouldn't necessarily be sacrosanct.

I actually have a lot of sympathy with that view but fortunately the issue is well beyond my paygrade.

Did Everton knee-jerk? That argument could go either way. We lost a player, a player lost his career. Ultimately, charges were dropped and he wasn't prosecuted.

Then there is the case of Ched Evans, the Welsh footballer. Jailed for 5 years for sex without consent. Released half way through his sentence, he continued to pursue in innocence through the courts. He gained a retrial and was retrospectively found not guilty.

I've no idea other than Everton made a swift decision, Arsenal waited.

I fully understand the importance of thorough investigations, gathering evidence, protecting rights, and ensuring fairness are all essential to prevent miscarriages of justice.

But for the sake of those affected (not just in this case but in similar ones, including those involving male victims) and for the sake of the accused, the entire legal process needs to be reviewed and made more efficient wherever possible.

Perhaps I'm too cynical to wonder if the drawn out nature of some investigations also serves the interests of certain legal professionals and institutions. It’s definitely true that complexity and the pursuit of fairness often make these cases slow-moving.

However, justice delayed is justice denied. People must be able to move forward, receive proper support, and see justice done. And if the accused is found innocent, support must still be extended to those who were attacked, recognising their experiences and needs throughout.

But, surely, this needs to be done quicker so that people can move forward the best way they can.

I remember reading about the serious impact that the child abuse charges had on David Jones during his time as manager of Southampton. He was suspended and placed on gardening leave while the case was ongoing. If I remember correctly, the trial began but the charges were dropped just a few days in, with the judge ruling there was no case to answer.

In the meantime, he had been replaced whilst the investigations were ongoing by Glenn Hoddle. Dave Jones expected to be reinstated when cleared but wasn't and even lost an unfair dismissal case.

Dave Jones, a proper right back

The whole thing comes down to money; however, raising taxes to fund things like this is not a vote winner, so nothing will be done.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the accusations against Sigurdsson implying that he was involved with texting a girl who was apparently underage but not meeting in person?

Partey is accused of rape, which “he denies”, and because he's denied these crimes his club are backing him, which means he's allowed to continue playing football. (Maybe this will change now he has been charged?)

Sigurdsson was never charged (something I think a lot of us have forgotten, Michael) but because he “allegedly admitted to being with a minor” (I might be wrong Ray, but I think that's what this was all about), his club suspended him.

I don't think Sigurdsson was ever charged because investigators probably uncovered that he was being blackmailed by someone who he allegedly used to meet on a regular basis, and she had completely tricked him with regards her age.

I might be wrong, but I believe this would have probably been the case for Sigurdsson's defence. Because he wasn't charged, he was allowed to get on with his career.

I got told before the story broke, Michael (second-hand information).

If my memory is correct, Sigurdsson never turned up for a pre-season friendly, and during a phone call discussing Everton, I was told he had been arrested and hadn't denied being with the person who had accused him of committing whatever crime.

This must have meant there was a lot more investigating for the police to do, especially when you consider that he was never, ever charged with any crime.

It's water under the bridge, although I will say that anyone convicted of such disgusting crimes should be castrated and locked up for a long time, but sometimes the innocent victims are the accused, and many lives have been ruined by despicable lies.

The majority of supporters also drowned in a wave of righteous morality. Arsenal and their supporters probably went to the other extreme but we should cast the mote out of our own eye first.

The ironic outcome of course that after a 2-year suspension, which deprived Everton of his services, resulted in charges being unproven and dropped and he went on a free, after being our most expensive signing!

Funny Ol' Game.

I was under the same belief as Ray that Sigurdsson didn't actually or physically engage with the under-age girl (made up to look a lot older) and openly admitted to it, believing it would help to clear his name.

Stupidity was what Siggy was guilty of, his wife was like a page 3 model, and he dabbled online with a coquette!

I'm certain this will have been a deciding factor behind Sigurdsson's arrest; I look around our country now and nobody will be able to convince me that the scale of this mass immigration isn't about money.

I expect this post to be removed, especially now Michael has mellowed, and has gone all hippy! But I believe that many politicians in high places right across Europe have been bought by money because this is the only logical opinion I can form on something that I think has gotten completely out of hand with regards the numbers. (Not the actual concept.)

I've listened to an Icelandic woman tell me he was guilty of a lot more and was completely finished… and I've listened to an Icelandic man saying the complete opposite — and we should wait to see what the courts do.

Sigurdsson never even got to court.

I thought we did and that his unavailability and loss of 'book value' contributed to PSR troubles? (I may be wrong on this, but that was my recollection?)

Also, a lot of the examples above, Ched Evans, Adam Johnson, Partey, all differ because they were actually charged?

I don't know exactly what happened with Sigurdsson, and I don't really want to speculate, but the evidence must not have been enough to be charged? Which casts significant doubt on any rumours?

Liam, again, to the best of my limited knowledge, I do believe Sigurdsson was on full pay, even though suspended. As you so rightly pointed out, in his case alone, transfer fee and wages earned or not by playing or not playing have contributed to our PSR/FFP breaches.

There are many others too, hiring and firing of managers with massive compensations, all down to severe lack of sensibility by the Board (ie, The Maggot and Moshiri).

My view is that she will have gone to the police after initially tricking him and then possibly trying to blackmail him.

Like Oscar Wilde said " I can resist everything except temptation itself "!

Sigurdsson did show up for preseason as there was a picture of Rafa greeting him on Day One in the parking lot.

But like you, I heard the day the news of "an arrest of a 31-year-old man in Manchester" that it was complicated as he was alleging blackmail from the accuser's family.

That's it.

You have no idea. It never went to court, and no charges were ever laid. The full story has not been told and never will be. You have no right to know. If you do actually know – perhaps you work in the CPS or Police or know a victim, or are an Icelandic footballer – then you really should know better than to mouth off on ToffeeWeb about it.

It may all feel very unfair to football fans that these things are so inconsistent – and I do think Arsenal have shown a complete lack of class in the Partey case, as Sheffield United did with that scum pond-life Ched Evans – but it's really nothing compared to the alleged crimes or the real-life impact of them, whatever the truth may be.

"You have no idea. It never went to court, and no charges were ever laid. "

"Arsenal have shown a complete lack of class in the Partey case, as Sheffield United did with that scum pond-life Ched Evans."

Don't you see a contradiction here? Until now, no charges had ever been laid against Partey. So for all Arsenal knew it was a baseless allegation. Wouldn't it have been wrong of them to do what you accuse people of doing on here and make judgments based on rumors and innuendo? Evans stood trial and was found guilty so yes after the fact you can bash Sheff Utd for standing by him. But in the same vein Dave Jones was charged but later acquitted. Southampton suspended Jones once the charges were made. Was that a "classy" move given he was found innocent? It seems like you're picking and choosing the facts with the benefit of hindsight in some instances and pre-judging which you accuse others of doing in other instances.

Wasn't that “pondscum“ as you call him, Ched Evans, ultimately found not guilty?

Les 31 - Ched Evans was indeed ultimately found not guilty. However, if you read up on what he did and admitted to doing in court, and the way that the victim was treated by his lawyers and private investigators in order to get him off... well, personally I'm fine in continuing to judge him and call him out for that behaviour even if one jury out of two said it couldn't be certain it met the threshold of a rape conviction.

It is a matter of public record now, though, with both sides having laid out their stories in open court. So not at all like our Icelandic former player's case. And in his (Ched Evans's) case, the club still played him even after he was charged.

Everton were right to suspend Sigurdsson. Arsenal are a disgrace. They were according to reports, considering offering Partey a new contract. I don't think it was a coincidence they didn't and the charges were made just after his contract run out.

He's now referred to as "the former Arsenal player". That's quite a difference to "Arsenal Star charged by police with serious offences". Imagine if you were a parent, who had your son and daughter led out by a player, who it later turned out was under investigation and the club hadn't told you.

First; "Is it in the public interest to have this person charged?" and then, "Is the case winnable on the evidence presented?"

Of course all parties involved in court, including the defence, are wholly dependent on the police to reveal anything they discovered in their investigation that may undermine the prosecution or support the defence of the criminal.

Hmm! The police have a long history of avoiding that responsibility!

Nobody in the police, CPS or anywhere else in the criminal justice system has a direct responsibility to explain themselves to anyone at all in the public domain – so speculation is let rip.

Winners? None but lawyers!

In terms of Gyffi's suspension... it was irrelevant whether he was charged, arrested or simply attended for a "voluntary interview". As soon as a minor was mentioned... suspension was pretty much inevitable.

As for some other posters... Everton were more than honourable in this shit storm.

Everton didn't suspend the player... the Premier League did.

Everton probably could have terminated Gyffi's contract much sooner than they did but in spite of being on the edge of PSR... they opted not to.

Everton could also have gone after Gyffi for the wages paid to him whilst he was suspended by the Premier League. They didn't.

Although I thought you had made it pretty clear about an inevitable suspension once a minor was involved, I didn't realise it was the Premier League, that suspended the player, mate.

Or in the case of Jimmy Saville, Don, was it in the interests of some people in very high places to carry out the prosecution of a man who could have possibly taken quite a few of these slimy bastards with him.

I obviously misinterpreted one of your posts.

Technically rather than the Premier League, it was a different but related entity, the FA who suspended him as stated on page 11 of the Premier League's Independent Commission decision document dated 17 November 2023

“29. Everton had signed Player X in 2017. Player X had proved to be a star player for the club. In July 2021 Player X was arrested. The FA suspended Player X from all football activity, making it impossible for him to perform his contractual duties. On 23 August 2021 Everton dismissed Player X. Everton sought advice on the possibility of suing Player X for breach of contract but elected not to do so.”

The FA suspension must have been long-term. Looking back, this was a monumental event because his creativity has never been replaced which I think is the main reason for Everton's lack of goals and recent struggles.

The FA have to clarify why they suspended Player X after arrest in July 21 but didn't suspend Arsenal's player after arrest in July '22, allowing Arsenal to take advantage.

Instead of saying we lost £50M 'cos that's what we could have sued the player for but we're nice guys, which the commission didn't accept.

We should have gone down the road that the authorities (FA) have banned the player although there have been no charges brought against him, and we have lost money because of that.

And to claim back wages paid during suspension? If they didn't think he was entitled to be paid they should just not have paid him. That they did is their own decision.

So the club lawyers could have looked at it as a no-win cost, as well as bringing the player's name out into the open.

Also 'a minor was mentioned' but has there been any proof that it was a minor?

The FA rather than the Premier League... I'm genuinely impressed with your recall of these matters.

It's generally accepted that a minor was involved, so I can understand why the FA don't come out publicly and explain why Gylfi's case is different.

Just to get things as straight as we can, I don't want to be an arse but some of what you write might be giving the wrong impression:

Everton didn't suspend the player... the Premier League did.

We reported on 20 July 2021 that Everton did suspend "a" player — Sigurdsson obviously, but not named. Everton made no mention of the player being suspended by either the Premier League or the Football Association at that time, only by the club.

Then, more than 2 years later (Thanks, Macc @38), it comes out that "Player X" — Sigurdsson obviously, but not named — was suspended by the Football Association, not the Premier League.

Also, Everton dismissed "Player X" — Sigurdsson obviously, but not named — on 23 August 2021, so a month after the arrest and suspension. I think it might not be unreasonable to infer that they terminated his contract at that point and stopped paying his wages, if not earlier.

This probably answers the discussions above regarding his wages and whether or not he was paid them; it seems unlikely if he had been dismissed.

Eric, the failure of the player to claim breach of contract seems like an admission of sorts that something untoward had occurred, but Tony's account is so mixed up and gossip-ridden, I have a hard time giving it much credence.

And I think it was only £10M they were claiming against PSR — not £50M.

No proof at all that a minor was involved but I'd be amazed if there was some other explanation for the arrest, suspension and sacking of the player.

On the contract termination and claiming back wages I'm speculating but I think there's a clause in player's contract's that if they engage in any activity which makes them unavailable to play then the club has the right to discipline them including the ultimate option to terminate their contract.

Everton's defence against their points deduction in the original hearing included the wages paid to "Player X". The Commission concluded Everton could have gone after the player for the money.

Everton didn't argue the point at the appeal.

You are no doubt much more exact on the detail than I. Does it make much, any, difference to what I posted earlier on this thread? I don't think so.

Not only did "Player X" not sue Everton for breach of contract... he also opted not to take a case against the police for false arrest. There could of course be a myriad of reasons for that decision.

He's chosen to stay quiet and that could mean many things, with one interpretation being that he is a private person who just wants to rebuild and get on with his life.

There's a broader discussion about the rights of the accused vs the rights of the accuser. And that's a mightily tricky topic that's probably beyond this kind of forum.

Factually, the Commission did not conclude that Everton could have sued Player X.

They said that the club claimed it had legal advice saying they could. They also considered the total speculative and stated that such a case could have faced difficulties.

Another with impressive powers of recall.

I misread your second paragraph and thought you were suggesting the club could not have gone after the player for the money as they had opted to continue paying him in the first instance. I see now you meant it would have been a difficult case for various reasons to pursue.

As you point out, however, although potentially difficult, the legal advice was that the player could be pursued.

If this was part of a blackmail, a player's career was ruined because of it.

Now a touchy subject, if indeed the player has been cleared, would it stand well with supporters to include the player in the legends game? No wind-up, no leg-pulling… how would fans feel?

MK #43, thanks for the clarifications of the timeline. I was going on other posters' opinions that the club were paying him.

But I'm sure I read they were trying to claim £50M against PSR for him.

When this was proven, he probably didn't want to open old wounds for his family, because he had already caused them enough shame.

The mental health angle was a pretty weak argument and smacked of a luvvie's input rather than a financial or legal mind.

Now, if you've been found guilty of a crime, then your employer has every right to terminate your contract as you face legal consequences for your actions.

But "suspending" a player or terminating a player because of an investigation is, in my mind, criminal in and of itself.

A classic case over in here in the States was one of MLB pitcher Trevor Bauer. He was accused of sexual assault and MLB basically blackballed him. His contract was terminated and he further lost future wages that he would have certainly received in future contracts. This occurred during the "Me Too" movement.

Turns out he was falsely accused and his accuser was extorting him. She's on record as saying so to a friend. Bauer hasn't been brought back into the league (and he's certainly good enough to be a top one or two starter for many teams in the league) and he's been resigned to playing in Japan because of the how it would now look if a team signed him, even though he was innocent.

I don't ever see him getting a job in MLB again based on these false accusations.

The only way you get to £50M is if you assume a transfer value for the player that we were denied... but that was never offered as mitigation even though he was a star player for the club and still had 2 years on his contract, and so a potentially saleable asset.

Talk of these other cases, many of which suggest huge inconsistencies in the way they were handled, made me think of that utterly bizarre and surely inexplicable case where the police invited the BBC along when they went to very publicly investigate Cliff Richard for "evidence relating to claims of non-recent sexual offences dating between 1958 and 1983 made by four men".

What happened in that astonishing case to the precious principle of protecting the anonymity of the people involved until charges are made? Or was it okay because that one involved homosexuality — even in 2014!

The Athletic article I referenced earlier contained an interesting sentence on this anonymity thing:

In the United Kingdom, arrested suspects have the right to privacy until the police charge them. The courts generally consider there is no public interest in knowing what someone is being investigated for or has been arrested for.

Unless it's the South Yorkshire Police raiding the property of a national icon suspected of offences involving homosexuality. What Cliff Richard said after the 22-month investigation was dropped for "insufficient evidence" is very apposite to Gylfi's situation, I suspect:

"My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS's policy is to only say something general about there being 'insufficient' evidence. How can there be evidence for something that never took place?"

Sigurdsson was a bellend and entrapped himself.

A not football related case, but as MK introduced one I don't see a problem, is Russel Brand.

He has been accused of sexual offenses and hasn't even been charged by police, yet the British government requested that he be de-monitised by the various platforms that he produces content on!!

Yes, the government!!!

He would have been strongly advised to say nothing by his legal team. Anyone accused of sexual abuse goes through a 2-year process — whether innocent or guilty. Those that are found innocent to my knowledge do not take action after being wrongly accused, having gone through the trauma of 2 years. They walk away.

There is little they can do about perceptions. A sexual abuse allegation is really sticky in innuendo, as a barrister friend once said to me. Solicitors in practise deal with one sexual abuse allegation a week and it is a common weapon in partner separation.

High-earning footballers should not be texting anyone they don't know.

I don't know what the situation is in the US but in the UK many organisations have "safe guarding" policies in place which detail the procedures to be followed in the event of allegations of impropriety against a member of staff and a minor.

In almost every circumstance the adult will be placed on gardening leave until an investigation has been completed. These policies have been agreed by employers, management and trade unions.

It's not perfect but it's probably the least worst option.

The club would have been widely criticised for allowing a player to keep playing who is subsequently found guilty – I don't believe the club had that option after talks with the player. We've hardly heard Sigurdsson go around slagging the club off which would have surely happened if he was 'innocent'.

As Jerome pointed out (57), he will be advised to say nothing and I doubt he would have said anything to the club other than the situation of his arrest.

The club almost certainly would have got a limited version from the police and would have acted on the assumption of possible reputational damage to the club. If memory serves me correctly, there was very little time between the arrest and suspension.

I am not sure why you think he would be slagging Everton off if he was innocent or guilty for that matter. My own perspective is that the club acted with undue haste, perhaps in mitigation they had no choice if it was the FA who suspended him. Questions should therefore be asked of the FA on what basis was he suspended?

The problem is of course there was no guilt as no charge was ever laid. The issue was that it took 2 years, a ruined career and personal life, loss of a reputation and loss of a key player for the club. Whatever happened was not cause for criminal charges. Stupidity or naive behaviour are of course criminal on the alter of social networks.

Likewise I guess in the end we shouldn't believe everything we do (or don't) read... and make assumptions.

Up until that point, her parents had control on her behalf and likely made the original complaint. The CPS and Police can threaten to force the victim to take part in the case but they rarely follow through.

And how clumsy of the BBC to compromise the case against Cliff Richard and others, nobody will go near them now will they. It was all just Jimmy Savile. Look no further to anybody else. Move on.

Everton, obviously given the severity of the supposed charges, took a hardline approach.

Such a shame Sigurdsson's career ended the way it did but ultimately it was his own stupid fault. He's still an adult responsible for his own behaviour.