Page 2 of 2
Re: Charged
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:20 am
by The Romford Dagger
ARNU wrote:He probably did do it but I think the Stevenage fella was a bit rough with him cos they were losing.Cant see the club getting rid of him over it and to be honest I don't think they should now.Maybe the picture of the severed finger might change my mind....I somehow don't think one exists.This aint the Suarez incident is it ? Labadie is quite a lairy player,always getting in rows so that in itself is definitely a potential liability,then again you cant have passion and maximum effort without a bit of that.I didn't like him but hes grown on me.You cant sack him for that.
I can only imagine there's more evidence. How can they say there's a bite from the pictures we've seen. they must've seen bite marks at the time or something to sway them towards guilty.
Re: Charged
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:39 am
by its all good
matt_drfc wrote:I actually heard that Ronnie Henry wasn't taking it any further, but obviously makes no difference.
I guess this may be why the FA are now taking action. If Henry has told the police he doesn't want him charged with assault then it can be treated as simply a football issue
It would explain the delay
Unless there was a fairly serious injury it's doubtful he'd have been found guilty in court
Re: Charged
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:35 pm
by SUSSEX DAGGER
its all good wrote:matt_drfc wrote:I actually heard that Ronnie Henry wasn't taking it any further, but obviously makes no difference.
I guess this may be why the FA are now taking action. If Henry has told the police he doesn't want him charged with assault then it can be treated as simply a football issue
It would explain the delay
Unless there was a fairly serious injury it's doubtful he'd have been found guilty in court
If he denied it it would become an expensive prosecution. Firstly you had to find how any injury got there. Dare say there is expensive lawyers somewhere who would argue a case. Bite marks would be examined closely to see if they can be matched to the alleged assailant. You have a dogs dinner here Mr Prosecutor somebody trying to make a dogs dinner out of pan of boiling water, remains to be seen if they fail.
Re: Charged
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:58 pm
by Mike the Dagger
No doubt the FA have a very different level of proof required to that in a court of law.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
Re: Charged
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:09 pm
by matt_drfc
Mike the Dagger wrote:No doubt the FA have a very different level of proof required to that in a court of law.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
He's contracted here till Summer 2016
Re: Charged
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:17 pm
by Mike the Dagger
matt_drfc wrote:Mike the Dagger wrote:No doubt the FA have a very different level of proof required to that in a court of law.
Labadie has previous and if there is any kind of evidence of teeth marks, I would guess he's looking at a ban that takes him way past the end of the season, and he's plauyed his last game for us.
He's contracted here till Summer 2016
Given Labadie's history, I would hope that he has a very tight "gross misconduct" clause in his contract and we can just say goodbye. If there is not, we need to look at how we write player contracts. As noted when we signed him, we have offered him a second chance at the Daggers. If he's blown that then it should be curtains.
Re: Charged
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:46 am
by rebeldagger
He'll be no chunk out of the team....
Re: Charged
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:20 am
by Lcbdagger
Mark wrote:The FA can pretty much do what they like with little evidence. They don't have to prove anything beyond doubt they just have to think it probably happened. If there was evidence the old bill would've charged him.
Appreciate this side of it... But there are surely either bite marks or not. If there is no finger injury he can't be found guilty. If there is I can't see how he denies the charge.
Still amazed if he's banned for more than ten games and we can't get rid
Re: Charged
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:55 am
by ARNU
So basically if you want to get Labadie in trouble just say he bit you when hes run rings round you all day.I'd have given him man of the match that day.Id still like to see the pictures,then I could shut up about it.
Re: Charged
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:35 am
by Masked Man
Do we know exactly what the charges are?
Re: Charged
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:08 am
by its all good
Masked Man wrote:Do we know exactly what the charges are?
I think it's violent conduct for Labadie & failing to control players for the club
Re: Charged
Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 12:06 pm
by DaggerJoel11
Saw Thommo bundling Labadie into a room by the Players entrance yesterday and they emerged 5 mins later. Aldo despite making the bench he only emerged after the teams and didn't warm up.