Getting dangerously into the realms of speculation here.

No offence would be committed unless they were seeking to put improper pressure on her to change her evidence or his bail conditions prevented him contacting prosecution witnesses.

For all we know the approach could have been made with the knowledge of the Police, who don't generally give out the addresses or contact details of victims/witnesses to defendants.

As i've said previously, the club should stand by Ben and help him put this behind him but under no circumstances should they make out this is ok like it states in the press. They may have taken some action behind closed doors but its in the public domain that they need to be seen to be doing something about it even if behind closed doors they aren't.

What was it that Aspinwal got done for before the start of last year? I remember something like an altercation with a bouncer.

Seen as comments are locked, contact them. Tell them its the wrong person, threaten legal action

what they going to do?

Don't believe you put Ben.

I see what you did there

What a ing tool you are, he nearly killed a man FFS.

No I didn't


No I don't

That excuse is never going to fly

Employment tribunals wouldn't give a monkeys unless it meant he was unable to do his job or if it can be proved he was unsuitable to do his job, likely under break of trust and confidence. Something which is next to impossible to prove and in a court that usually sides with employees over employers.

This ^^^^^^

We don't know all the ins and outs, but glossing over it as AP has done is convenient apologism, given Lineham's injury.

Only one tool here mate, seems that in your view because there are 'worse' crimes that were punished at the time by a club (and for me he should have been sacked) then a 15st rugby player punching a girl in the face (trust me that could end up with more than a black eye) and the club doing nothing but defend him seems almost ok!!!

It takes a certain sort of 'man' to ever contemplate hitting a woman in the face, his mum must be so proud.

There are literally thousands of previous cases of someone being fired for breaking the law in their personal lives. This is no different.

Crookes stated in court that he was a role model to thousands, I'd contend that lamping a woman is hardly the actions of anyone I'd want as a role model or ambassador to our club

Where did I say it was ok? I didn't, and stop being an idiot. Hitting a woman is a cowardly thing to do, but to say it's on a level with what Cockayne did is laughable. I couldn't give two s what your personal view is, it was your clubs decision to back him that is far worse than what FC are doing with JC.

Rovers fans have no right to pass judgement on FC for this, as soon as you idiots comprehend that, the better.

Hull KR punished Cockayne for his incident as did the courts. Hull FC haven't been seen to punish JC instead they have come out and said his punishment from the courts was harsh. Whether a club stands by a player is up to them and whether what BC did was worse than what JC did is not the issue, but to be seen to condone JC's actions by publicly calling his conviction harsh is deplorable. If there are circumstances known to the club but not to us, then the club need to make a proper statement over this, otherwise they are inferring that violence to women is ok.

That's a pretty big leap to make tbh.

I think AP may come to regret what he said (based on what has been reported) but it's not up to the club to make any further statement until they want to or are ready to. Crookes is an idiot, and I suspect he knows it, and I would prefer it (on the basis of what we know) that we got rid, but the club know more than we do, so I'm relaxed with their silence on the issue at this stage.

The club would have been better in not making any sort of statement rather than what they did say. What they did say doesn't really cover them in glory and does more harm than good.

That was my argument regarding Cockayne, you shouldn't take someone's livelihood away because of a stupid mistake. The problem is in several cases like Cockaynes and Raynors you give them a second chance and they throw it back in your face. I'm not saying Crookes should or shouldn't be sacked, just don't be surprised if he is kept on, if you're not having a similar thread in a few months time, some of these players as Bet said earlier, don't appreciate how lucky they are to be in such a position.

It doesn't happen often, but I agree totally.

I'm going for a lie down!

Agreeing with 2 Rovers fans inside 5 minutes can't be good for me

They haven't done either of those. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think otherwise.

The club suspended him for 8 weeks and imposed a heavy fine, AP seems to think a slap on the wrist and £775 quid is harsh, still each to there own.

I'd demand that Crookes serve as Nicola Adams's house bitch for the close season. With the strict instrutions that if he steps out of line, she can punch his lights out

I think we sometimes read too much into what might be off the cuff remarks and hold people to account for slight imprecisions it what they say. I'd be happy to accept he didn't mean exactly what he said, and just misspoke. It happens.

However, if 'harshly dealt with' is the official line, it begs some questions. The sentence? You'd think and hope not, IMO. So, the verdict? Was there a compelling alternative narrative that they either didn't use in his defence or the HDM neglected to report? Or perhaps he felt that it wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt, and irrespective of whether Crookes did it, he was unlucky on that count. While that [imight[/i be correct, he'd be second guessing the criminal justice system and it'd seem a somewhat mealy-mouth defence of the club's position.
'We all make mistakes and Jason has paid for his.' Is that an acceptance that he made the mistake of assaulting a woman? Or something vaguer? We don't all make mistakes on that scale, if it is the former, and in what way would what has happened to him then be 'harsh'?
'It's been dealt with by the courts, and we're drawing a line under it and moving on' should been the obvious cliche to use, for a club choosing not to take any action of its own.

Clearly not condoning what has happened, but very much standing by his man.

I agree.