Speculation: Gylfi

[72 bus]

Would take him back next year in a heartbeat.

Just what we need, a 33 year old that hasn't played a competitive game for two seasons.

[Elm Park Kid]

And endless away fan chants of "She said no Gylfi, she said no".

[Sutekh]

Yes but to have someone in the team who can actually provide consistent dead ball expertise after years of inconsistency and this season where I don’t think the last regime was even taking the time to work on set pieces, despite the fact that so little was being created in open play, is something to dream about.

[SCIAG]

The CPS have specifically stated that the evidence they have managed to accrue over the last two years does not meet their threshold.

Their threshold is "balance of probabilities", or "is it more likely than not". They do not have to get to the criminal standard for a charging decision.

So in other words, the CPS and police couldn't even get to a 50% chance of a crime being committed.

Which is incredibly rare in a criminal investigation.

Morons might hold the fact that he was investigated against him. Anyone with a mind capable of critical thought would have him back in a heartbeat if he's still up to standard.

Think the issue Gylfi and others have is the Greenwood case, where there's some compelling evidence in the public eye but apparently the victim is no longer willing to testify and therefore the prospect of conviction was too low. That's a situation where I think it is right that people aren't waiting for a court of law. Greenwood is probably a better player than Gylfi right now, but I wouldn't want him at the club.

I think there's a genuine difference between Gylfi and Greenwood of course but I can understand why others would disagree.

[Elm Park Kid]

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I do also think that the character test for being a high profile footballer needs to be higher than the CPS standards for charging someone. I don't care if the guy installing my broadband or the women sorting my car insurance out is a bit 'dodgy'. But I don't really want to cheer on someone on the pitch who hasn't gotten himself involved in this sort of stuff that needed a 1.5 year investigation to resolve.

Look, maybe the whole thing is entirely bullshit. If so, Gylfi's representatives can put out details for why he was accused and why it was bullshit and everyone can just move on. But, if this is a question of not having evidence to determine either way whether a crime was committed then, sorry, but that's not good enough for me. For the average guy it is good enough - and if Gylfi wants to carry on in some other field then fairplay, i'm not interested in some mob mentality. But don't ask me to get emotionally involved in someone's career who has these question marks hanging over them.

[Chairman Mao]

The CPS have specifically stated that the evidence they have managed to accrue over the last two years does not meet their threshold.

Their threshold is "balance of probabilities", or "is it more likely than not". They do not have to get to the criminal standard for a charging decision.

So in other words, the CPS and police couldn't even get to a 50% chance of a crime being committed.

Which is incredibly rare in a criminal investigation.

Morons might hold the fact that he was investigated against him. Anyone with a mind capable of critical thought would have him back in a heartbeat if he's still up to standard.

agreed

[CountryRoyal]

I'll be in the minority but even if he was a pedo I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

[Crowbar6753]

I'll be in the minority but even if he was a pedo I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

The charges were dropped so he's innocent i guess, sign him up, he would be class and we need an Attacking midfielder.

[Orion1871]

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I do also think that the character test for being a high profile footballer needs to be higher than the CPS standards for charging someone. I don't care if the guy installing my broadband or the women sorting my car insurance out is a bit 'dodgy'. But I don't really want to cheer on someone on the pitch who hasn't gotten himself involved in this sort of stuff that needed a 1.5 year investigation to resolve.

Look, maybe the whole thing is entirely bullshit. If so, Gylfi's representatives can put out details for why he was accused and why it was bullshit and everyone can just move on. But, if this is a question of not having evidence to determine either way whether a crime was committed then, sorry, but that's not good enough for me. For the average guy it is good enough - and if Gylfi wants to carry on in some other field then fairplay, i'm not interested in some mob mentality. But don't ask me to get emotionally involved in someone's career who has these question marks hanging over them.

Probably can't do that if the rumours of an investigation into the accuser and those around them is going on.

[Dirk Gently]

I understood this was something to do with the difference in age of consent in Iceland (15) compared to here, which might cover the legality if not the morality of it all.

[CountryRoyal]

I'll be in the minority but even if he was a pedo I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

The charges were dropped so he's innocent i guess, sign him up, he would be class and we need an Attacking midfielder.

No, you misunderstood. I said even if he was a pedo I'd have him back in a heartbeat.

[Clyde1998]

The CPS have specifically stated that the evidence they have managed to accrue over the last two years does not meet their threshold.

Their threshold is "balance of probabilities", or "is it more likely than not". They do not have to get to the criminal standard for a charging decision.

So in other words, the CPS and police couldn't even get to a 50% chance of a crime being committed.

Which is incredibly rare in a criminal investigation.

Morons might hold the fact that he was investigated against him. Anyone with a mind capable of critical thought would have him back in a heartbeat if he's still up to standard.

It's for reasons like this I don't think the accused should be named until they are actually charged with something. There seems to be a trend (not sure if it's a recent thing, thinking past ten years or so, or something that's always been the case) where people seem to assume anyone who is accused of anything is automatically guilty, even if they were never charged or ended up being acquitted.

[Royal_jimmy]

I'd have him back if he still has his great strike. Never as good as he was but even if he's 50% of that player he'd tear league one a new one.

[MouldyRoyal]

The most gifted player I have ever seen in a Reading shirt, even if he still has a fraction of that talent he would destroy League 1. It'll never happen of course but just imagine.

[Silver Fox]

The CPS have specifically stated that the evidence they have managed to accrue over the last two years does not meet their threshold.

Their threshold is "balance of probabilities", or "is it more likely than not". They do not have to get to the criminal standard for a charging decision.

So in other words, the CPS and police couldn't even get to a 50% chance of a crime being committed.

Which is incredibly rare in a criminal investigation.

Morons might hold the fact that he was investigated against him. Anyone with a mind capable of critical thought would have him back in a heartbeat if he's still up to standard.

It's for reasons like this I don't think the accused should be named until they are actually charged with something. There seems to be a trend (not sure if it's a recent thing, thinking past ten years or so, or something that's always been the case) where people seem to assume anyone who is accused of anything is automatically guilty, even if they were never charged or ended up being acquitted.

TBF he wasn't named (was he?) but hello here's the internet

[South Coast Royal]

The CPS have specifically stated that the evidence they have managed to accrue over the last two years does not meet their threshold.

Their threshold is "balance of probabilities", or "is it more likely than not". They do not have to get to the criminal standard for a charging decision.

So in other words, the CPS and police couldn't even get to a 50% chance of a crime being committed.

Which is incredibly rare in a criminal investigation.

Morons might hold the fact that he was investigated against him. Anyone with a mind capable of critical thought would have him back in a heartbeat if he's still up to standard.

It's for reasons like this I don't think the accused should be named until they are actually charged with something. There seems to be a trend (not sure if it's a recent thing, thinking past ten years or so, or something that's always been the case) where people seem to assume anyone who is accused of anything is automatically guilty, even if they were never charged or ended up being acquitted.

Agreed but in reality , especially with a footballer, if he is not playing then questions are asked by fans about injuries and so on and as Foxy says there is the internet.
In some cases however , like the North London player, he has carried on playing although I wonder if, with the end of season approaching, his form may have gone off in the knowledge that his day of reckoning is not so far away.
He hasn't started the last couple of very important games for his club.

[Pepe the Horseman]

The CPS have specifically stated that the evidence they have managed to accrue over the last two years does not meet their threshold.

Their threshold is "balance of probabilities", or "is it more likely than not". They do not have to get to the criminal standard for a charging decision.

So in other words, the CPS and police couldn't even get to a 50% chance of a crime being committed.

Which is incredibly rare in a criminal investigation.

Morons might hold the fact that he was investigated against him. Anyone with a mind capable of critical thought would have him back in a heartbeat if he's still up to standard.

It's for reasons like this I don't think the accused should be named until they are actually charged with something. There seems to be a trend (not sure if it's a recent thing, thinking past ten years or so, or something that's always been the case) where people seem to assume anyone who is accused of anything is automatically guilty, even if they were never charged or ended up being acquitted.

TBF he wasn't named (was he?) but hello here's the internet

The papers basically went with "30yo Everton player. No, not Fabian Delph."

[Royal_jimmy]

The club should invite him to train with us even if he doesn't want to sign for us. Maybe he can teach some of our youngsters how to bang a free kick in!

[From Despair To Where?]

Wouldn't really want Gylfi teaching youngsters how to bang anything

[Royal_jimmy]

Wouldn't really want Gylfi teaching youngsters how to bang anything

Very funny