dontpassback
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2015
- Messages
- 4,462
who ever is making these non football decisions,needs to be explaining the decision making process,to the people that own the club
-
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here
Jevani Brown
- Thread starter Grecian2K
- Start date
wiveygrecian
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,159
Nope it’s the cowards way the way they’ve done it
It's flawed because there has been no case heard yet to try those facts that I don't know about. No decision has been made in law yet so currently Jev is innocent, he has yet to be tried. What our club has done is effectively made a decision that would be taken had he already been found guilty.
PeteUni1984_7
Member
So 4 possible outcomes:
1: guilty and custodial sentence
2: guilty and non-custodial sentence (e.g. community service, suspended sentence) so available to play
3: bound over to keep the peace (so no criminal record)
4: not guilty
I assume under 4 and possibly 3 we would expect him to play in the next game subject to any disciplinary action for being out drinking late at night prior to a game etc which one assumes would already have been implemented, arguably by not being selected for a while already.
Under 1 and 2, will the club sack him straight away? Would we feel that we wouldn't want someone who committed that sort of offence representing our club? If he served his punishment and he then signed a new contract would we feel that justice had been done and therefore he is available to play - we all make mistakes? If we don't want that sort of person representing our club then we probably shouldn't play him if there is that risk except...
Innocent until proven guilty and if he did turn out to be not guilty it would seem unfair that he has been prevented from playing, especially as the case is taking so long to be heard. As an extreme, one of us could make an allegation about Argyle's best player just to get him banned until it was heard in court.
Both arguments appear valid to me. If I were the decision maker I could justify either one. One imagines that the manager and chairman will have heard JB's account of what happened which we haven't and this could well influence their views. I don't think they can be criticised for what they have done. On balance if it were me, I'd probably have done what they have done thus far and kept him paid and in training but not playing. I'd be tempted to reconsider it in the light of the continued postponement of court case but I think in the end I'd also consider the club's reputation (and discipline within the squad) and how that would look in the event of outcomes 1 & 2. Sacking him before now was probably impossible as it would presume guilt and in the event of outcome 4 being done for wrongful dismissal. A shame but there it is.
I dare say this has all been said before on here.
1: guilty and custodial sentence
2: guilty and non-custodial sentence (e.g. community service, suspended sentence) so available to play
3: bound over to keep the peace (so no criminal record)
4: not guilty
I assume under 4 and possibly 3 we would expect him to play in the next game subject to any disciplinary action for being out drinking late at night prior to a game etc which one assumes would already have been implemented, arguably by not being selected for a while already.
Under 1 and 2, will the club sack him straight away? Would we feel that we wouldn't want someone who committed that sort of offence representing our club? If he served his punishment and he then signed a new contract would we feel that justice had been done and therefore he is available to play - we all make mistakes? If we don't want that sort of person representing our club then we probably shouldn't play him if there is that risk except...
Innocent until proven guilty and if he did turn out to be not guilty it would seem unfair that he has been prevented from playing, especially as the case is taking so long to be heard. As an extreme, one of us could make an allegation about Argyle's best player just to get him banned until it was heard in court.
Both arguments appear valid to me. If I were the decision maker I could justify either one. One imagines that the manager and chairman will have heard JB's account of what happened which we haven't and this could well influence their views. I don't think they can be criticised for what they have done. On balance if it were me, I'd probably have done what they have done thus far and kept him paid and in training but not playing. I'd be tempted to reconsider it in the light of the continued postponement of court case but I think in the end I'd also consider the club's reputation (and discipline within the squad) and how that would look in the event of outcomes 1 & 2. Sacking him before now was probably impossible as it would presume guilt and in the event of outcome 4 being done for wrongful dismissal. A shame but there it is.
I dare say this has all been said before on here.
That really ought to read 'The stupid decision was to prevent the club's best player from playing '.
Colesman Ballz
Very well known Exeweb poster
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
- Messages
- 15,004
That is not true. The Club has the overall reposibility, and the decision is coming from there, either the Club Board collectively or individual members of it. They appointed GC as manager and are now interfering rather than let him carry out his remit !
I have no comment to make on whether he is innocent (or not), merely saying that you can't compare an FA breach investigation with a criminal investigation. There is a lot of precedent in players under criminal investigation being put on gardening leave by their club.
No case has been heard, but Jevani has no doubt told the club what happened, which will likely have informed the club's decision making.
Bridgy 81
Active member
I know the two situations are separate but does anyone know what the outcome of the October city centre disturbance involving some of our players was?
I don’t recall reading any subsequent statement from the club after their initial one acknowledging the presence of videos of it circulating on social media.
Presumably if any criminal proceedings were taking place that would have been reported by now unless of course there’s still a criminal investigation ongoing.
If those proceedings have concluded and no further action by the Police/Court is occurring the club may have decided to make no further comment on the situation I suppose.
Either way, I wonder whether it’s possible that these two ‘incidents’ (whilst of course being mindful the one allegedly involving Jevani is still undetermined) in the space of just over 3 months has made the club a bit twitchy?
I don’t recall reading any subsequent statement from the club after their initial one acknowledging the presence of videos of it circulating on social media.
Presumably if any criminal proceedings were taking place that would have been reported by now unless of course there’s still a criminal investigation ongoing.
If those proceedings have concluded and no further action by the Police/Court is occurring the club may have decided to make no further comment on the situation I suppose.
Either way, I wonder whether it’s possible that these two ‘incidents’ (whilst of course being mindful the one allegedly involving Jevani is still undetermined) in the space of just over 3 months has made the club a bit twitchy?
The biggest annoyance here is actually the financial hit we are taking - we were going to finish in midtable whether Jev played the last 10 games or not (though we would like to have had him especially in the "harder" games and the Argyle one in April (which is still a possibility if he is tried on 23 March and found not guilty a week or two later - he is training so should be in some way fit if not match fit))
We turned down a good offer on the Tuesday for him. Lets say £500k. So we've lost that as he is OOC in June and wont sign here again. Then we have to pay him his wages whilst he cant actually do his job. Lets say £2k a week for 16 weeks and that's another £32k wasted
Assuming he doesnt resign for us in June, is there some way we can get this back?
We turned down a good offer on the Tuesday for him. Lets say £500k. So we've lost that as he is OOC in June and wont sign here again. Then we have to pay him his wages whilst he cant actually do his job. Lets say £2k a week for 16 weeks and that's another £32k wasted
Assuming he doesnt resign for us in June, is there some way we can get this back?