Discussion in 'Bulletin Board' started by Muirsheen Durkin, May 12, 2018.
Forth fav... a No from me..
Done a cracking job of nearly getting Grimsby relegated back out the football league. It's a wholehearted yes from me.
Didn’t he come in and save them from almost certain relegation.
Has a somewhat unsavoury past.
Sorry, I thought he'd come in earlier than he did. Won 4, drew 3, lost 3 under him. We still want to be aiming a bit higher than that though.
OP, its Michael Jolley btw, not Martin...
We are not a charity, its not our job to rehabilitate. Why would you even consider getting involved... Lets please just look elsewhere..
The market is pretty stagnant so it may be his agent or someone putting £50 on and testing the water..
Sorry tis Michael..
At first I thought you meant Martin Jol.
A potentially solid League 1 manager by all accounts but we've just been relegated from the Championship, we need to be aiming higher like you've said.
We have to be more ambitious than this.
I'd fully expect we are. Just because he's appeared in some random bookie's odds list doesn't mean the club have even heard of him much less considered him. (He said with fingers firmly crossed)
Totally unproven. Would be ridiculous at this stage. No. No.
Michael Jolley - former Barnsley youth player who never really played pro, but with a masters in economics from Cambridge.
Martin Jolley - very average professional boxer.
I'm not sure which appointment would be more left field to be honest!
What about Stuart Gray.
Remember watching a feature about him on some football show somewhere, and they painted him as bit of a football pioneer and positioned him as a future management star. If I remember correctly, his debut management role in Sweden after Sean Dyche absolutely waxed lyrical about him to the clubs directors.
Wouldn't be against him taking charge of us at some point, but not sure he would be the right man at this point in time...
i'd have no objections at all to Stuart
Not sure what you mean. Putting aside the lurid headlines from the tabloid media like "Convicted sex offender, 40, who slept with a 15-year-old girl while he worked as a youth coach"..."vile beast has sex with 15 year old" it transpires it was in 2009 (so he was actually 32) not that age is relevant except 15-40 age gap sounds worse, there is a lot that goes unmentioned unless you investigate the actual events .
The Scottish Govt issued the following statement.....
Panel members noted the circumstances surrounding the offence. They acknowledged that Mr Jolley’s account of events was corroborated by Central Scotland Police. The panel took account of Mr Jolley’s explanation that he believed the girl to be 19 years old, and that he would not have had sexual intercourse with her if he had known she was 15 years old. The panel considers Mr Jolley’s belief to be credible given that he met the girl outside a nightclub in the early hours of Sunday morning, she had been drinking, and she told him that she was a 19-year-old college student. Panel members thought it important to note that Mr Jolley had no history of behaving inappropriately towards young women.
The Panel acknowledged that it was only during a police investigation into an assault against Mr Jolley that the girl’s true age came to light. The panel took account of the numerous positive character references from Mr Jolley’s previous employers and friends, which described him as an honest and responsible member of the community. Panel members acknowledged that Mr Jolley had acted in an open and honest way throughout the investigation, court proceedings, and referral process. Panel members took the view that Mr Jolley had demonstrated a strong moral understanding by tendering a guilty plea to the offence, despite mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all of the factors in this referral, the panel took the view that Michael Jolley did not pose a risk to children. Panel member agreed that they did not believe that Mr Jolley would have had sexual intercourse with the girl if he had known she was 15 years old. They considered that this was corroborated by his actions, which demonstrated an honest and responsible character; numerous positive character references; lack of any previous inappropriate behaviour; the finding of the Social Enquiry Report that Mr Jolley posed a low risk of re-offending; and the lenience shown by the court when passing sentence. Panel members concluded that it would be disproportionate to disqualify Mr Jolley from working with young people and unanimously agreed that Mr Jolley was not unsuitable to work with children”.
Given the fact that the original sentence was lenient, the Scottish Govt made the above judgement, his name was removed from the SOR, it was he who called the police after one of the girls at his flat had attacked him with a bottle after demanding money, it says far more about the girl, her parent(s)her upbringing, ( a 15 year old hanging around a nightclub in the early hours!!!), the company she kept, than the morals of Jolley.
Whilst his judgement may have been suspect (mitigated in part by considering he might well have had quite a lot to drink) anyone who says they could never have found themselves in that situation is deluding themselves. I am not arguing for one minute 'she' asked for it' but clearly she is not the innocent victim portrayed by certain media. Young immature (emotionally and intellectually) people need protecting from predators but I cannot see, in this set of circumstances how he can be regarded as such.
The man made a mistake but "a vile beast"?? Really???
THE BARNSLEY FC
BBS FANS FORUM
Separate names with a comma.