Jevani Brown

[grecIAN Harris]

How many times... what if Jevani has told the club he intends to plead guilty?! If that's happened, which is not inconceivable, they can hardly play him on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Why is this so hard to grasp?!

If your presumption is correct, then why has the case been adjourned twice? That doesn't add up to a person ready to admit to guilt.

 

[wiveygrecian]

I've just read this mornings thread back through Hants but can't find any poor language. Have I missed something?

Not even one swear word as far as I can see!!

 

[Egg]

I don’t think you grasp it do you. He’s still working…I.E Training. It’s the clubs decision not to play him in a match, what’s the difference?

Wivey said the club should assume Jevani was innocent until proven guilty. I don't altogether disagree with that – my point is that it's not inconceivable Jevani has told them of his intention to plead guilty; if that's the case – and I don't pretend to know – the club can't play the 'innocent until proven guilty' card.

 

[iscalad]

I've just read this mornings thread back through Hants but can't find any poor language. Have I missed something?

May have been deleted by Hants

 

[tonykellowfan]

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.

This isn't actually true. The bloke at Sunderland who eventually got 5 years inside continued playing for them under a far far more serious offence.

 

[Jason H]

This isn't actually true. The bloke at Sunderland who eventually got 5 years inside continued playing for them under a far far more serious offence.

That's one example - that doesn't make what I said about precedent not true.

EDIT: And the world has moved on since 2015 in any case - were Johnson to be arrested today there's no chance he'd have continued playing. We see the same in other walks of life too - MPs for example, who are pretty much automatically suspended if anything occurs.

 

[Cowshed Grecian]

This isn't actually true. The bloke at Sunderland who eventually got 5 years inside continued playing for them under a far far more serious offence.

I think anyone arguing against not playing Jevani in matches and realise how ridiculous this is, needs to read this post for context

 

[Egg]

If your presumption is correct, then why has the case been adjourned twice? That doesn't add up to a person ready to admit to guilt.

Hypothetically, if I was a professional footballer facing a charge such as this, my first course of action would be to see if I could find a legal basis for getting it thrown out or, alternatively, to see if my defence team might, perhaps, be able to negotiate that I should receive a caution and a slap on the wrist.

If that was unsuccessful then, depending on what exactly was being alleged, I might contemplate pleading guilty if it meant the case would be dealt with relatively quickly, rather than plead innocent and face the very real prospect that it might be many months, if not years, before it reached court.

It seems to me, the critical thing, which none of us know, is the detail of what, exactly, it's alleged Jevani has done.

 

[denzel]

He's going in a couple of months regardless. We're not getting in the playoffs and I'm (almost) comfortable saying we won't go down.

Let's crack on with the current squad and prepare for next season's play off push.

Is he definitely going, though? Do we know if he was offered a contract. And obviously his future plans depend on the outcome of the trial.

 

[Cowshed Grecian]

Is he definitely going, though? Do we know if he was offered a contract. And obviously his future plans depend on the outcome of the trial.

Long term you never know, this could work out well for us and Jevani.