Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

Tom Shines said:
They might be ..based on his statement he provided
Click to expand...
Nope.

He voluntarily attends to make a statement.

Police have to compare and contrast his statement to other material they have.

They have a process.

They cant and wouldnt conclude an investigation into someone during or after a statement is being taken.

No chance.

And its their job to be a bit skepitical of what they are told by people anyway.

He could have lied in his statement.

But the issue is whether he had to go and make it when he said he did. And at first blush, i think thats rubbish.

If he didnt have to make it then but went anyway, he should be up-front.

Dont get me wrong, in principle id like to think people should be protected from other demands if they are making a statement. But to say that he was required to, at that time, on that date-i think its coming the raw prawn.
 
Last edited:
TSP said:
Nope.

He voluntarily attends to make a statement.

Police have to compare and contrast his statement to other material they have.

They have a process.

They cant and wouldnt conclude an investigation into someone during or after a statement is being taken.

No chance.
Click to expand...

What if he provides information that gets someone out or keeps someone in a cell? This could be the deciding factor needed with other evidence the police already have
 
Tom Shines said:
What if he provides information that gets someone out or keeps someone in a cell? This could be the deciding factor needed with other evidence the police already have
Click to expand...
I understand your point but the question is whether or not he was "requied to" at that time and on that date.

Im suggesting hes not under any legal obligation to make that statement at that time and on that date when he said he was required to.

So he may not be being truthful.

Even if he provides infornation, police will suss it out. They wont release someone because someone says something.

People lie in statements all the time unfortunately. Police are alive to peoples mischiefs.

But they will follow their processss.

If he can provide evidence that they threatened him in some way to make a statement at the time and date, he may have a case. But the chances of that are probably a million to 1.

I think they would have asked him when could he come in and then tried to help with a mutual time. Theyd appreciate him stepping forward.
 
Last edited:
diedpretty said:
How does Laundy supply third party deals. There is no way they can argue he is at arms length from the dogs being there major sponsor. Unless you're suggesting they are under the table payments.
Click to expand...
I thought I read a while ago that Laundy offered shares in his Hotel business as 3rd party deals.

Don't quote me on that as it was a while ago.
 
TSP said:
I understand your point but the question is whether or not he was "requied to" at that time and on that date.

Im suggesting hes not under any legal obligation to make that statement at that time and on that date when he said he was required to.

So he may not be being truthful.

Even if he provides infornation, police will suss it out. They wont release someone because someone says something.

People lie in statements all the time unfortunately. Police are alive to peoples mischiefs.

But they will follow their processss.
Click to expand...

why are you fixated on him being “required “… and that he was under a “legal obligation” to? Perhaps he was asked to by a family member to assist them and they asked him to do so immediately ? Would you do the same if asked even if it meant being 40 minutes late for work ? Even if it’s possible that the statement you provide doesn’t actually make a immeadiate difference?
 
Last edited:
Tom Shines said:
why are you fixated on him being “required “… and that he was under a “legal obligation” to? Perhaps he was asked to by a family member to assist them and they asked him to do so immediately ? Would you do the same if asked even if it meant being 40 minutes late for work ? Even if it’s possible that the statement you provide doesn’t actually make a difference?
Click to expand...
He told the club he was "required to" give the statement when he did.

Those are his words.

Im saying its unlikely he was "required to"

Required has a sense of compulsion about it.

He simply wasnt under any obligation.

He wasnt being straightforward with the club.

If a family member asks you, thats a request and not a requirement.

They have different meanings.
 
TSP said:
He told the club he was "required to" give the statement when he did.

Those are his words.

Im saying its unlikely he was "required to"

Required has a sense of compulsion about it.

He simply wasnt under any obligation.

He wasnt being straightforward with the club.

If a family member asks you, thats a request and not a requirement.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a slip of the tongue …to the journo …we don’t know what he said to the club ..

Under the rest of my scenario that you haven’t commented on … I’ll say that if it was me,,, I would do the same
 
Tom Shines said:
Perhaps a slip of the tongue …to the journo …we don’t know what he said to the club ..

Under the rest of the the scenario that you haven’t commented on … I’ll say thst if it was me,,, I would do the same
Click to expand...
Youre asking a completely different question and now speculating the story is wrong.

I think youre changing it too much.

Maybe reframe your question without reference to the impugned player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BZN
Oldman said:
Hey Vicious
So Newcastle will have 3 players on a million plus ?
Ponga
Brown
Sharp

Plus
Best (big dollars)

Have they the same accountant as the Broncos 😂
Click to expand...
Sharpe would be on a minimal contract at the moment, but I think he would command a million dollars per season as a fullback on the open market.
Dom Young heading back on 500k.
Dylan Lucas probably contracted to under 500k, I would say he could get 600-700k on the open market without a problem.
Very hard to see how a Fletcher Sharpe at 5/8 and Dylan Briwn at halfback combination would work as both have individual brilliance, but neither steer the ship.
 
Vicious said:
Sharpe would be on a minimal contract at the moment, but I think he would command a million dollars per season as a fullback on the open market.
Dom Young heading back on 500k.
Dylan Lucas probably contracted to under 500k, I would say he could get 600-700k on the open market without a problem.
Very hard to see how a Fletcher Sharpe at 5/8 and Dylan Briwn at halfback combination would work as both have individual brilliance, but neither steer the ship.
Click to expand...
A lot of their problems would be solved if they told Ponga he’s free to go. Then you can play Sharpe at 1, and bring a Toby Sexton type in to play 7. They’d be a much better side.
 
TSP said:
Youre asking a completely different question and now speculating the story is wrong.

I think youre changing it too much.

Maybe reframe your question without reference to the impugned player.
Click to expand...

The news story I posted does not provide all the facts to this matter …so the scenario that I’ve provided could be valid …its why I said this about three pages ago ..

Tom Shines said:
We don’t know what the police said. Or the other circumstances , so pointless to speculate
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 305 (members: 9, guests: 296)
Back
Top