Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
He’s cheap because he has a year left on his contract and suggested he won’t sign another as he wants CL football.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Yves Bissouma
- Thread starter Daisuk
- Start date
All the stories going around seem to indicate it's a relation of his that was with him in the nightclub that is the culprit and Bissouma is only under investigation because he was in his company. Not excusing it, all mistreating a woman is wrong, but if the allegations turn out to be true they seem to be on the minor end of the scale and those crying rapist need to reel it in.
Terrible thing to call a person when he's not even accused of that, never mind convicted. There's no way Levy is sanctioning signing him if there is a doubt about his involvement.
As others have said the price is down to 1 year on his contract and nothing to do with the allegations.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I'm disappointed. I think that the club have got this wrong.
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I think that remark has aged perfectly well.
I can only assume the club is on top of what's going on and aren't making a poor decision. That same assumption couldn't be made at the time milo made that post.
I think it's more likely that you have it wrong and the club have done their due diligence and know the situation.
Aren't Paratici and Conte known for checking out the mentality of a player as much as their ability before signing?
braineclipse
Willie Hall
I think it's too early to say as we don't have enough information available.
If the club doesn't have more information either I would agree with you.
milo
Jack L. Jones
What due diligence can they do when the police investigation isn't complete?
My objection to it is the signal it sends out to the victims of sexual offences. The conviction rate for sex offences is pitiful in the UK and has been getting worse. It is incredibly hard for victims to come forward and out of those that do, only a fraction see the perpetrator get charged. Conversely, the number of people found to have made false accusations is minuscule. The club has done some good work in supporting marginalised groups over the last few years, I think that this undermines that and in a small way will make it harder for victims to come forward.
milo
Jack L. Jones
I think that the idea that the club might have inside knowledge on an active investigation is a fig leaf.
But regardless of the information that the club has, I think that this is the wrong move until either investigations have been dropped or he has been cleared.
K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Les Ferdinand
I, like many on this site, do not know any of the details of the incident, and as I understand it people are innocent until judged guilty by our legal system. It's a horrible situation, I worked with a man who was accused of indecent exposure and it was a case of mistaken identity with an other person being convicted of the offence. It was the worst week of his life as it happened at our workplace and the rumour was rife. In these cases I believe all concerned should have their identity protected, as mud sticks.
He's cheap because he's in the last year of his contract.
AjaxDeSuperYids
Drama queen
This low conviction rate you mention shouldn’t be directly related to this case. Each case should be judged on its own merits with the evidence scrutinised and the facts subsequently revealed.
The low conviction rate is an important subject in its own right and should be examined as such. I do not believe the conviction rate is low because the judicial process often reveals someone is guilty or likely to be so but it wasn’t progressed anyway. If that is going on then it is obviously wholly wrong and deeply corrupt. If that is happening and bissouma turns out to be another getting away with it i.e. it was him that did it and he raped with his hand in the nightclub and the evidence supports this but its just dusted under the carpet (and by who btw the police?) then no one here will want him at the club.
The reality is the low conviction rate is much more likely to be due to a lack of evidence to get said convictions. That doesn’t mean the offences didn’t happen but it does have to be proved. People can’t be sent to prison on peoples word alone. Unfortunately such acts are hard to prove or disprove. Personally I support more cameras and much tougher sentences for those found guilty of sexual crimes. Those two things can be strong deterrents.
So someone should have their life put on hold, not progress their career because there is a police investigation going on that seems more related to someone in their company rather than the actual person? I'm pretty sure that Levy and Paratici know if the accusation is against Bissouma or his relative. Just because it's not in the public domain doesn't mean that Levy and Paratici aren't privy to more of the details than we are. If it's against his relative then why should we not go ahead with the signing?
If he is the actual perpetrator and is convicted then yes, I'd agree they messed up, but until then I'll trust they know what they're doing .
The reason sexuall assault has a low conviction rate is the nature of our judicial system. We have reasonable doubt. The government can't take away citizens liberty without them being certain that they have committed a crime. In sexual assault, the majority of cases there are no other witnesses and no other evidence. It is basically one persons word against anothers. We are not going to change our judicial system. That would be incredibly dangerous. So we try and protect the victims. Tro's, refuge etc...
DeanoAustin
Christian Ziege
I think in principle you are absolutely right. The only way I can agree with this signing is that I cannot see Levy or the club forking out 25m without absolute certainty that he won’t be convicted. Otherwise it’s a reckless and immoral move to make.
Yes, though:
- Liverpool play with 2 CBs and 3 holding CMs (5 in total)....this allows their FBs to play as WBs
- we play with 3CBs and 2 holding CMs (5 in total)...this allows our WBs to get forwards
So I dont think we need an attacking CM, and arguably if we played with one it would mean that our WBs needed to not get forwards as much
braineclipse
Willie Hall
Perhaps a fig leaf, perhaps not. I'm choosing to assume that the club has more knowledge than us, and that they wouldn't make what would at the very least be seen as a really bad decision on this.
I could be wrong on that, I'll be all with you in that case.
Lemonade Money
Steffen Freund
If he gets convicted, it sends out the right signal, and he will be punished accordingly. If he doesn't, you want to condemn him regardless? So anybody who's been convicted of something can ever be employed again by a company?
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Bentancur is the Dembele to Bissouma's Wanyama.