No need to thank me Silverdale, happy to debate just for the hell of it.
A clause that allows the club to sack the player simply on the basis of a police charge, even if it turns out to be unfounded, would seem a little unreasonable. If I was a player agent, I don't think I'd be advising my client to sign that, but I'm not an expert so maybe he did?
Regarding bail, there's a lot about this case that disturbs me as well. However for a first offence, with his high profile, I would have been amazed if he'd been refused bail, particularly given the time it takes for the legal process to play out.
Well I think the clause could be worded in such a fashion as to permit a series of manner of form eventually arriving at a discretion for the club, the exercise of which would be a non paid stand down.
Confine the charge to an indictable offence and the player, wide eyed and considering he would not find himself in such serious trouble would sign away.
Otherwise the club can argue with said youngster that surely he would not contemplate being involved in such trouble and if he did, well he’s not a fit and proper person to play for sgi anyway.
I have not seen the contract so I could not shed any light on its terms. I’m just saying it’s possible to tie these things in without the catastrophic ramifications for the club you envisage.
As you correctly state, delay to hearing is a factor the court can and should consider. But in my view, the seriousness of the allegations and strength of the Police case overcomes this issue.
First offence doesn’t cut it for mine. It’s not a shoplift or jaywalk! It’s too serious. We don’t let first offence alleged murderers out!
High profile? So was Jimmy Saville and Rolf! That’s not in the Bail Act! We can’t judge people on their celebrity.
Those are my submissions.