The court heard the young woman slept with the player twice before - once in a hotel on the day he arrived in Crawley and again in a house he was sharing with other young players.
According to this thread on the Blackpool forum, they believe there is court action going on between us and Blackpool. This could get messy
all sounds serious - but as one of the Blackpool users said he's not guilty yet so we shouldn't rush to judge but indeed a worry if Blackpool want there money back at this stage - sounds like they think the club were not forthcoming at sale time with pertinent information
Fair enough Thad but the question could easily be answered as..." As a club we are unaware of any reasons that the transfer should not proceed".
The club would not be kept informed by the police of any ongoing investigation so there is no reason to mention it and as around ten months had passed since the original investigation and transfer (I believe), it may well have been thought to be water under the bridge. Also, the player is under no obligation to disclose the information to anyone either as a football player would not be a "notifiable occupation " requiring such disclosure.
Having said that it makes us look dodgy and may impact our dealings in future.
Very apt that you mention damage to reputation Jim. Blackpool have little to lose on that score. Changing perceptions from the current narrative that they "BOUGHT" a pup... To one wherein they were deliberately "SOLD" one... ...could well be a key motivation behind their litigious approach...(?)
