egafd.com

"So you agree then to paraphase the Guardian quote...

"Football clubs claims to be community organisations, with their funded programmes designed to teach children literacy and wellness through the elixir of football, is just empty marketing".

Profressional Football is just business - everything else is just guff."

To be honest, I am not sure. Clearly a lot of football clubs do good work in the community but obviously, they are keen to build their fan base from a young age.

But I do not accept any premise that states anybody with a criminal conviction should not get involved in community work because of their drink driving, assault, sexual assault conviction unless it is deemed as a risk by probation officers, their licence etc.

Should Mecca Bingo be treated as a role model.
After all a club prints shirts with their name on.
More then a single players name
Mecca bingo "please become a gambling addict".

No idea because I didn't write that. Nor do I believe it.

No and neither did I.

And I wouldn't because that would be to compare the severity of a conviction for rape with the participation in a game of bingo.

I think that is the trap some Ched Evans supporters are falling into.

I said there was more shit-to-hit-the-fan before this was over.

"Oldham owner Simon Corney said Evans had "served his time".

Mr Corney is an idiot if that's what he thinks.

That's a good one, taking the moral high ground by saying the deal has been withdrawn because following threats to the club's "staff and their families".

I think it finally dawned on them that the bean counters sums weren't going to add-up, because all of these sponsors were pulling out. Mr DJ, I'm sure you are correct and they are only pulling-out because they need the cheap publicity.

Perhaps I shouldn't blame the accountants. Perhaps it's the lawers who should take the blame (or credit).

Yesterday Mr Corney was saying However, "there are still legal issues to overcome which could cause a delay to signing the deal".

Wonder what the outcome of these "legal issues" was?

The sponsors gain nothing by Oldham taking on such a toxic liability. Why would the sponsors take a risk in having their companies tarnished?

Agreed.

But according to DJ they are just looking for free publicity..

"There will always be organisations willing to join a witch hunt and in so doing get themselves some free publicity on the national news bulletin."

"Mr DJ, I'm sure you are correct and they are only pulling-out because they need the cheap publicity."

I believe that sponsors do take onboard all the issues re. their decision e.g. getting favourable publicity with those opposed to CHed Evans' return as a footballer, but also the moral issues in general. In that sense, they are operating just like a football club which is just another business.

That is why I stated earlier:

"Now let's move onto the moral question you raise. Clearly there are moral issues here and as part of the reality of a business decision I am sure that Oldham would have weighed this up".

I see no difference between the football club and the sponsors in that sense.