PerryBarrPet

Just to make it clear the information we have, in this thread, is that two people are involved in this investigation. One is a man around 40 years old (not the player) is on conditional bail. The other is the player who is either on unconditional bail or not on bail at all.

The starting point for us all is the right to unconditional bail. If the Court has concerns over things like interfering with witnesses, commit further crimes while on bail, not respond to bail (go into hiding or skip country) then bail with conditions - to be defined by the Court - will be allowed. Finally bail may be denied for serious concerns but reasons must be given in Court. In this case I think it true to say that one ‘man’, not the player in question, has been given conditional bail. It is not clear whether the player is on unconditional bail or no bail at all. Whatever is true this suggests that the player is considered to be at lower risk than the ‘man’.

Good shout but it depends how much we have left in the kitty. New CM/CDM must come first.

I agree with the general points you are making. The three bullet points are clear. On the issue of due diligence then any sensible business - football or not - will go through this whether buying an expensive asset or recruiting a senior employee. Past employment history, criminal record etc. should all be researched irrespective of any current Police investigation. I presume that Villa’s management is competent so will be doing this anyway. We do not know but much of this may well have been done and Villa are now awaiting the results of the current investigation. I have no information on this player but so far have heard no reference to previous offences.

Pedantic comment but there is no court case right now as far as I am aware. Police are certainly investigating so Villa should tread carefully. No reason why the player’s solicitor cannot provide Villa with detail on where the investigation is at present. Other reports in this thread state that two men are under caution - the player and a man about 40 yrs old. The player is on unconditional bail while the older man has conditions on his bail. This may suggest that the case against the older man is far stronger but we, in a remote position, cannot make a judgement. I understand what you mean by ‘standards we apply in daily life’ but for me it is wrong to ‘apply standards’ until all facts are known. As far as NI rugby players are concerned then this case is at a completely different level: charged, taken to court, found not guilty so is no exemplar. The player has not even been charged yet so I think you are premature in ‘applying’ your standards.

Waste of talent being back-up for Martinez. I think he would be better as a CM.

Yes we are. These are serious men showing serious intent - don’t think they will stop until we reach a consistent high level.

Rather have Denis Zakaria.

Agree, Zakaria or better will be a transformation. With more to come in the summer.

This is SKY Sports News so they can’t be.

Yes a DM is a must if we are to move forward. Bissouma is certainly an option but our ‘interest’ was first announced by SKY Sports News - do we really believe what they say? Brighton say no approaches or offers for this player so perhaps we are looking elsewhere. Who are the DMs at Coutinho level

Liverpool fans call him agent Rafa.

Or the Australian “fancy some sex Shiela ? No OK lie down while I have some”.

An American friend told me about ‘Texan foreplay’ : you drunk yet bitch. Not very PC!

I thought 6 month loan with right to purchase at end of loan - price set at £34 million. A steal if true.

Excellent post, thank you. Elsewhere in this thread there was an implication that when a female accuses a male of any form of ‘interference’ then this should be taken at the highest and the male treated as though guilty. The suggestion was that Villa should not be seen as believing a man over a woman. No mention of facts either way just a presumption of guilt. All very worrying.

This is a very interesting take on this. Elsewhere I have asked about bail restrictions: perhaps this is the answer.

I know, this is why I questioned the bail conditions. If the legal authorities think it fine for him to travel overseas then I’m not sure how serious they view this case.

Any idea of the conditions? No restriction on overseas travel? No fears of not responding to bail?

You, and anybody else, can decide for yourselves whether a person is a bad egg. This is a value judgement and like all value judgements will vary from person to person - nobody has a Devine right to dictate what is acceptable. In this case it will be for the Villa to decide whether they think a player is a bad egg and proceed - or not - from there (this point has been made previously). I think the use of the legal system is because if found guilty there is no need for a value judgment.

We all make good character assessments of others from time to time. In fact I’m sure that Villa management make such assessments on players they plan to buy. When building an assessment we take a range of behavioural elements into account but I draw a line at 3rd party claims made without substance. So an accusation made without any firm proof is dubious at best. I see no sense in the ‘no smoke without fire’ contention used to support such dubious links. In the case of your ‘Cronaldo’ then there is sufficient to question his character but this has no relevance for any other person. Certainly I believe it wrong to take the doubts you have over Cronaldo and transfer them to another completely separate person. In the case of Bissouma if there is a no case to answer decision then I believe, from what I know, there are no doubts strong enough to prevent purchase.

Retired is all I will admit to.

The legal process is as I set out. In this country a person is innocent until proved guilty. Others may have their doubts and suspicions but these mean little in the eyes of the law. In England we don’t have a ‘not proven’ condition so without a charge and a guilty verdict we are all innocent. I presume you are referring to Ronaldo in your reply. What he did or didn’t do in a totally separate case, Civil or Criminal, is irrelevant to any other case involving other person(s). There is no logic in using one case to infer guilt in another. If there is a no case to answer decision then there is nothing ‘hanging over his head’ other than personal suspicions held by others.

How many fond fools serve mad jealousy? Wm Shakespeare.

Spot on. This describes the big picture being followed by our owners.