Ex Royals (No not prince Andrew)

[From Despair To Where?]

I'd say Aluko was much the better footballer, you see the logic in the signing. Absolutely mystified why we ever bought Baldock.


Both were always way overpriced and a horrific waste of money.

[Hound]

Tbf neither should have been anywhere near as bad as they were. They both had decent careers and knew the champ.

No time at all for Aluko. Yes a couple of ok cameos last year, but really nothing special. And 3 years of misery before that.

Baldock had his moments, just kept getting injured when we needed him. And we’d moved on from a style that suited him last year.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'd say Aluko was much the better footballer, you see the logic in the signing. Absolutely mystified why we ever bought Baldock.


Both were always way overpriced and a horrific waste of money.

Absolute reverse for me. Aluko was always a nonsensical waste of a signing, a real aging show pony with no end product, while Baldock was a decent striker with a decent record.

[Snowflake Royal]

Tbf neither should have been anywhere near as bad as they were. They both had decent careers and knew the champ.

No time at all for Aluko. Yes a couple of ok cameos last year, but really nothing special. And 3 years of misery before that.

Baldock had his moments, just kept getting injured when we needed him. And we’d moved on from a style that suited him last year.

Think a season and a half of being.told he was surplus to requirements and to move on affected him. Agree we didn't really play a way that would suit him last year.

But he just looked a ghost of the player he was under Clement even. And that big miss just finished him off. Expect he's just as happy to see the back of us as we are of him.

[URZZZZ]

I'd say Aluko was much the better footballer, you see the logic in the signing. Absolutely mystified why we ever bought Baldock.


Both were always way overpriced and a horrific waste of money.

Absolute reverse for me. Aluko was always a nonsensical waste of a signing, a real aging show pony with no end product, while Baldock was a decent striker with a decent record.

Would probably agree more with this, although I’m really not sure Baldock‘s prior record to joining was particularly better than Aluko’s. Both had similar numbers of promotions, similar numbers of playoff campaigns and from an individual perspective, both had OK numbers without setting the world on fire

Forgetting the money aspect for a moment though, Aluko was bought in a position we never had or intended to play (at least under the manager at the time). Our formulation which had been so successful the season before was built on two wingers who hugged the touchline, consistent crossing into the box, an expansive game to tire the opposition (hence the number of late goals we managed to score). Yet we bought an attacking midfielder to try and play the same role? Utterly bizzare - and in reality was very unlikely to work

With Baldock, you could see the logic in some sense. Clement was trying to build a team, based on hard work and grit - transitioning to a 4-4-2 (shades of McDermott’s promotion campaign). Unfortunately the signing of Meyler turned out to be so bad that we had no option to revert to a 4-5-1 for more numbers in midfield (as we were only left with Kelly, Swift, Bacuna and later Rinomhota). At that point, Baldock (and McNulty) really struggled to get into the team

Aluko was a great example of mismanagement from Stam whereas I’d mainly sum up Baldock’s career here as unlucky with persistent injuries and constant upheaval

[SCIAG]

I'd say Aluko was much the better footballer, you see the logic in the signing. Absolutely mystified why we ever bought Baldock.


Both were always way overpriced and a horrific waste of money.

Absolute reverse for me. Aluko was always a nonsensical waste of a signing, a real aging show pony with no end product, while Baldock was a decent striker with a decent record.

Aluko joined us as a winger who had scored 19 in 98 at this level. Baldock joined us as a striker who had scored 33 in 136 at this level.

Would you rather have a winger who scores 1 in 5 or a striker who scores 1 in 4?

When you consider VFM then I think Aluko is the clear loser. He was our record signing and never nailed down a regular place in the side. But money to one side, Baldock was the worse player. If we were chasing a game and needed fresh legs, I would much rather have seen Aluko come on than Baldock.

[Snowflake Royal]

I'd say Aluko was much the better footballer, you see the logic in the signing. Absolutely mystified why we ever bought Baldock.


Both were always way overpriced and a horrific waste of money.

Absolute reverse for me. Aluko was always a nonsensical waste of a signing, a real aging show pony with no end product, while Baldock was a decent striker with a decent record.

Aluko joined us as a winger who had scored 19 in 98 at this level. Baldock joined us as a striker who had scored 33 in 136 at this level.

Would you rather have a winger who scores 1 in 5 or a striker who scores 1 in 4?

When you consider VFM then I think Aluko is the clear loser. He was our record signing and never nailed down a regular place in the side. But money to one side, Baldock was the worse player. If we were chasing a game and needed fresh legs, I would much rather have seen Aluko come on than Baldock.

My answer is Baldock.

[paultheroyal]

If rumours are true it’s not looking good for a former ex Reading fc
Star - only rumours mind

[Orion1871]

If rumours are true it’s not looking good for a former ex Reading fc
Star - only rumours mind

So about having the names of former players written all over the new kit...

[tidus_mi2]

I'll refrain from spreading the rumour, innocent until proven guilty and all that but absolutely horrendous allegations for a player to get involved with if it ends up being true.

[Snowball]

I have two journo buddies (nationals) who "believe" it's XX


PLEASE don't let it be so

[Snowball]

Alleged to be arrested

Alleged to have committed offences


Everton star xxxxxxxx is alleged to have been arrested as police confirm an Everton player and the Club suspend him.

A statement from Greater Manchester Police reads: “Officers arrested a 31-year-old man on Friday 16 July 2021 on suspicion of child sex offences.

“He is on police bail pending further enquiries.”

The player’s club has confirmed to Global247news that a player has been suspended from the club.


The revelation comes after the player’s wife denied this to be the case.

Although football presenter Adam Brown stood firm today, insisting the Everton player had been arrested.

Brown, who presents Football With Brownie on YouTube, told Global247news tonight: “He’s defiantly been nicked; all my contacts on Merseyside have confirmed this all day.

Brown, who is based in Marbella, went onto say, “I confirm from my contacts both here in Spain, and at Everton football club, the arrest has been made of the Icelandic star xxxxxxxx.

[Stranded]

If it isn't him, then he is very unfortunate to be living in an area policed by Greater Manchester Police, whilst being a 31 yo married international and Premier League footballer at the same time a second player meeting those criteria has been arrested and released on bail.

[Pepe the Horseman]

Off the top of my head Piazon and Stack were both arrested and cleared of sex crimes, so I'm sticking by him until he's found guilty.

[Orion1871]

Tomás Esteves to leave Porto and sign for Braga on a three year contract.

[SCIAG]

If it isn't him, then he is very unfortunate to be living in an area policed by Greater Manchester Police, whilst being a 31 yo married international and Premier League footballer at the same time a second player meeting those criteria has been arrested and released on bail.

There is another Everton player who fits those criteria and has doubtless been asked a lot of difficult questions in the past few days.

That being said this just reinforces my belief that Paul and Snowball are complete dumbasses. We shouldn’t be talking about this until the trial is complete and those who identify the player have committed a serious criminal offence. Innuendo and “allegedly” are not defences. Would hope for the sake of justice that the moderators scrub both the conversations in their entirety.

[Snowball]

If it isn't him, then he is very unfortunate to be living in an area policed by Greater Manchester Police, whilst being a 31 yo married international and Premier League footballer at the same time a second player meeting those criteria has been arrested and released on bail.

There is another Everton player who fits those criteria and has doubtless been asked a lot of difficult questions in the past few days.

That being said this just reinforces my belief that Paul and Snowball are complete dumbasses. We shouldn’t be talking about this until the trial is complete and those who identify the player have committed a serious criminal offence. Innuendo and “allegedly” are not defences. Would hope for the sake of justice that the moderators scrub both the conversations in their entirety.

I cut and pasted directly from a newspaper, and I think you will find that referring to a name as an alleged offender is not an offence.

There is no anonymity when suspected or charged with a sexual offence. There SHOULD be, but there isn't.

[Snowflake Royal]

Do agree it's pretty classless to be rumour mongering about this sort of thing. Particularly those like Paul who insinuate stuff but don't actually name names. Not that I think they should be naming names either.

Seems like an excellent way to cause mistaken identity and grief unnecessarily.

At least as snowy said, he was just quoting a paper.

[Elm Park Kid]

It is a shame that this came out. The level of evidence required for an arrest isn't that high and the player does deserve anonymity at this point.

But when/if charged it becomes a different matter. Then the player does have a case to answer and it's useful to get the word out to the public that an valid accusation has been made. It encourages other victim to go to the police.

[SCIAG]

If it isn't him, then he is very unfortunate to be living in an area policed by Greater Manchester Police, whilst being a 31 yo married international and Premier League footballer at the same time a second player meeting those criteria has been arrested and released on bail.

There is another Everton player who fits those criteria and has doubtless been asked a lot of difficult questions in the past few days.

That being said this just reinforces my belief that Paul and Snowball are complete dumbasses. We shouldn’t be talking about this until the trial is complete and those who identify the player have committed a serious criminal offence. Innuendo and “allegedly” are not defences. Would hope for the sake of justice that the moderators scrub both the conversations in their entirety.

I cut and pasted directly from a newspaper, and I think you will find that referring to a name as an alleged offender is not an offence.

There is no anonymity when suspected or charged with a sexual offence. There SHOULD be, but there isn't.

If you’d read an actual newspaper rather than copying from “global247news.com” (which appears to be the equivalent of Heat Magazine but targeted at English ex-pats in Spain) then you would have seen that none of the reputable news sources are naming the player for legal reasons and the Attorney General has given this statement:

The attorney general, Michael Ellis QC, warned the public to be careful about discussing the case. “Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone deserves a fair trial,” he told the Guardian.
“A misjudged tweet or post could have grave repercussions and interfere with a trial. It could mean a trial is delayed or at worst stopped because a fair trial isn’t possible – so I would caution everyone, don’t get in the way of justice being done.
“The attorney general’s office will monitor the situation and we will review any contempt of court allegations made to us.”

No, the player doesn’t have a right to anonymity, but both they and the alleged victims should expect that a fair trial is granted. Online tittle tattle has endangered high-profile cases in the past and we should be careful not to contribute to such an occurrence here, just as our media have been.