Sky news players charged bury game - Page 41

Fourth official · 10-08-2009, 13:22

TheFA.com - Regulatory Commission Statement

MCR ADIM · 10-08-2009, 13:31

Accrington Stanley assistant hits out at Cavanagh ban (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Makes a good read

Outback Ozzy · 10-08-2009, 14:01

I am sorry to say, if Cav is guilty after appeal then he must leave the club and not be retained. However, if he can prove that the bets placed were not by him, then good luck to him and i for one will welcome him back. But, the message put out by our esteemed assistant manager is totally wrong! Have sympathy yes, but don't put it in the press, it sends out the wrong signals.

cashman · 10-08-2009, 14:59

i would hope he can prove it was not him, but think club management should have kept stumm, moral support privatly is one thing, putting in media another, agree wi outback.

Revived Red · 10-08-2009, 15:01

According to the LET report, Jimmy Bell reckons "it's been his (Cav's) livelihood since 10 years of age". Looks like he's been playing truant from school, then, too.

Revived Red · 10-08-2009, 15:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by cashman

i would hope he can prove it was not him, but think club management should have kept stumm, moral support privatly is one thing, putting in media another, agree wi outback.

Absolutely correct.

We still await the outcome of the club's internal enquiryinto this matter.

ukcowboy · 10-08-2009, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

Absolutely correct.

We still await the outcome of the club's internal enquiryinto this matter.

If JB's comments are anything to go by,then I think we can all guess what the outcome will be!

Without meaning to upset anyone, I believe that the club should disassociate itself from the whole sorry affair without delay.

If, after appeal, the charges are dropped,then yes by all means rethink, but for now the club cannot afford any more negative publicity.

cashman · 10-08-2009, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukcowboy

If JB's comments are anything to go by,then I think we can all guess what the outcome will be!

Without meaning to upset anyone, I believe that the club should disassociate itself from the whole sorry affair without delay.

If, after appeal, the charges are dropped,then yes by all means rethink, but for now the club cannot afford any more negative publicity.

exactly what concerns me, is how would any prospective sponsers (of which the club DO NEED) view these comments?

shakermaker · 10-08-2009, 15:23

"Cavanagh is understood to have paid £4,500 for a voice recognition test in an attempt to prove that his brother – not him – had placed the accumulator via telephone, which would not have broken any rules."

Why would he bother if he was guilty?

I'm glad Coley and Jimmy have come out and given their full support to Cav. He'll get my support until he hangs up his career on his own terms. Hopefully after many more games for Stanley.
With the things Cav has gone through while giving his all for Stanley over his career, he deserves every bit of loyalty from his bosses.

cashman · 10-08-2009, 15:40

ya can give support without talking to the media shaker, do ya still not "Get It"?

shakermaker · 10-08-2009, 15:50

I completely understand the point about publicity. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it, though.

Aiming for good Google Page Ranking in all quarters is a fool's errand for our club. The media will never be interested in showing our debt ridden, TV advert joke of a club in a positive light unless it's with on-the-field success. Even then they do it through gritted teeth. I think the public show of loyalty and support is more than deserved.

cashman · 10-08-2009, 15:53

good Google Page Ranking is no fools errand when yer seeking new sponsers IMHO.

Revived Red · 10-08-2009, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

"Cavanagh is understood to have paid £4,500 for a voice recognition test in an attempt to prove that his brother – not him – had placed the accumulator via telephone, which would not have broken any rules."

Why would he bother if he was guilty?

Because it would be a comparatively easy way to conceal his guilt. Guilty people try all kinds of tricks to conceal guilt.

I agree with ukcowboy. The club really should draw a line under the whole sorry episode. Furthermore, they should ban Jimmy Bell from making any further statements on ANY matter relating to Accrington Stanley. His record on public utterances is less than impressive.

JEFF · 10-08-2009, 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

"Cavanagh is understood to have paid £4,500 for a voice recognition test in an attempt to prove that his brother – not him – had placed the accumulator via telephone, which would not have broken any rules."

Why would he bother if he was guilty?

What about the other bets ?

Quote:

Cavanagh had been charged with placing a £5 accumulator that included betting on Stanley to lose at home to Bury in May 2008, as well as betting on a Reds match during the 2008/09 season and further League Two games.

He has been found guilty and sentenced. If his appeal is not successfull he will miss all of this season and he shouldn't be seen in a Stanley shirt again. If his appeal is successfull and he is subsequently found not guilty then I would welcome him back.

Jimbo T Hornblower · 10-08-2009, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEFF

He has been found guilty and sentenced. If his appeal is not successfull he will miss all of this season and he shouldn't be seen in a Stanley shirt again. If his appeal is successfull and he is subsequently found not guilty then I would welcome him back.

I agree completely Jeff - the question is what happens until the appeal?
He cant play?

Jimbo T

blower