George Street-Bridge wrote:Stan A. Einstein wrote: PS. Good on you for calling out 'disgusting sexual practices' a post that will live long in our memory.
The context was the Ched Evans case and I stand by the point I made. Which was that his defence against a criminal charge was to admit that he had turned up for seconds after a mate had taken a drunken girl back to a motel room having picked her up in a takeaway and then texted him.
I've been thinking about this, I wouldn't not employ him because of his sentence, but I would not employ him because even by his own admission his sexual habits are disgusting.
You are a football manager. You have a choice of employing striker A or striker B. For both, a good night out is the one Evans and his mate had in Rhyl. You know about the one because it has been all over the papers out of his own mouth. You have no idea about the other. Both would contribute equally to the team, but one will repel sponsors because of what's known about him. Which one do you employ?
I would not do it because having found out about something like this, you can't help but be influenced against him (unless you think turning up for second dibs after your mate has picked up a stranger is anything but disgusting). And having found out, you can't un-know it. If it's his normal night out 365 days a year and it stays private, the problem doesn't arise. Simples.
You are entitled to your view.
My view is that which consenting adults choose to do in private is none of my business.
Your argument, that because Chef Evans had engaged in behaviour which you considered disgusting, potential sponsors might be put off.
Exactly the same argument as was used about signing black players or Catholics.
Ched Evans was acquitted of any criminal offence. If, as I do, you believe in the rule of law that's the end of the matter.
Any decision with respect of who we sign can't be dictated to by whether or not we approve of their sex life.
