• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Some very judgemental people, a vulnerable person can be an elderly person, a woman, a handicapped person...many different possibilities. Yes, it was very wrong, but as has been said many times - we knew he was a **** up, he knew he was a **** up and that's why this has been largely publicised as "last chance saloon" for him. He's got a manager that he has a good relationship with and a great bunch of lads around him, he has not got the influences that he had when things were bad.

He's one of those who've taken a long time to grow up, and I think he's realistic enough to know that there were going to be consequences. Hubby doesn't reckon it'll be custodial and he's normally pretty good at second guessing the courts.
sounds about right. If the courts feel he will be rehabilitated as a free man they are probably basing part of that judgement on his current employment. Certainly if he needs to be kept away from bad influences then a job and community service sounds like the better option.
 
sounds about right. If the courts feel he will be rehabilitated as a free man they are probably basing part of that judgement on his current employment. Certainly if he needs to be kept away from bad influences then a job and community service sounds like the better option.

Ranger strikes me as someone who needs a preverbial arm round him to make him tick, I would imagine this has a massive effect on him and was clearly evident in the Sheff U game, however the players whom he describes as his brothers on Twitter and the support of the fans could be his saving from self destruction.

Maybe it would be a good time for Ranger to get his 1st RH goal on Saturday!
 
By the way, if you haven't seen his twitter account, check out the McGlashan goal video on there! :smile:
 
By the way, if you haven't seen his twitter account, check out the McGlashan goal video on there! :smile:
You mean the one where McG transforms into Ranger?!

That is great ! I do like Ranger's take on the world as it is. The nice thing his interaction with the fans, same with Lenny, Wordsworth and McL - had replies to post match tweets from them all :winking:
 
You mean the one where McG transforms into Ranger?!

That is great ! I do like Ranger's take on the world as it is. The nice thing his interaction with the fans, same with Lenny, Wordsworth and McL - had replies to post match tweets from them all :winking:

That's the one! :smile:
 
i think legally its a first offence and he has admitted to transferring the funds. nothing to do with making the call. There doesnot appear to be anything about making calls i the report. One of the other defendant had details of 500 bank accounts, NR just transferred money from one of them. There is no mention of whether details were purchased , obtained by hacking or scammed by phone and no details of who actually obtained the details. And as he has pleaded that wont come out in the corse of the case against him.
"first offence" in what respect?
 
Decent player and if he continues too get fit and improve then could take us up... he has and will continue to make us better going forward and on his day looks a class above anyone else....therefore like the rest of football he is immune to being sacked etc. I'm happy we will stand by him as it was a previous offence before he was here. Hopefully he will repay the club for the work and trust we have given him and perform on the pitch like we all know he can
 
i dont think he has a criminal record ie found guilty .
He has a couple of criminal damage convictions, since his street robbery conviction in 2007 (aged 15).
 
Good statement, that.

It's really not a good statement....I've been away for a few days....saw the link on facebook to a "club statement"
It begins "This misdemeanour occurred two years ago and therefore a long time before Nile Ranger joined the Club" but nowhere mentions anything about what the misdemeanour was.

I had to come on here to find out WTF was going on!
 
Some very judgemental people, a vulnerable person can be an elderly person, a woman, a handicapped person...many different possibilities. Yes, it was very wrong, but as has been said many times - we knew he was a **** up, he knew he was a **** up and that's why this has been largely publicised as "last chance saloon" for him. He's got a manager that he has a good relationship with and a great bunch of lads around him, he has not got the influences that he had when things were bad.

He's one of those who've taken a long time to grow up, and I think he's realistic enough to know that there were going to be consequences. Hubby doesn't reckon it'll be custodial and he's normally pretty good at second guessing the courts.

Agree with this...NR involved in criminal activity before he joined Southend is not news. It was quite apparent when we offered him a contract he had a criminal past. If we were going to bin him now, then why would we have given him the contract in the first place.

To sack him for this, would be hypocritical in the extreme, and also absolutely bonkers!

Also I'm amazed at the people (not you OBL, previous posters) that are more outraged because it was "a vulnerable person" ??? Of course it was a vulnerable person, the crime wouldn't have worked if the victim was not vulnerable...??
 
It's really not a good statement....I've been away for a few days....saw the link on facebook to a "club statement"
It begins "This misdemeanour occurred two years ago and therefore a long time before Nile Ranger joined the Club" but nowhere mentions anything about what the misdemeanour was.

I had to come on here to find out WTF was going on!

Yet again, it looks like it's been written by a 6 year old. In fact, a 6 year old would have done a better job. At least they would have put a title and explained what on earth it was all about
 
It's really not a good statement....I've been away for a few days....saw the link on facebook to a "club statement"
It begins "This misdemeanour occurred two years ago and therefore a long time before Nile Ranger joined the Club" but nowhere mentions anything about what the misdemeanour was.

I had to come on here to find out WTF was going on!

Yet again, it looks like it's been written by a 6 year old. In fact, a 6 year old would have done a better job. At least they would have put a title and explained what on earth it was all about

I must admit, when I read the first line, I did think it was going to be awful, like the last one, but it picked itself up and finished in the medal places. The writer has certainly matured since the last statement and is now preparing for senior school!

That said, the word "misdemeanor" is not a good choice of words. A big red cross and "see me" in the margin, for that one.

I guess it reads better if the reader knows what's going on in the first place*, so in that respect, the first line is a bit clumsy.

It's the sentiment that I applauded, not the phrasing, particularly.



*:smile:
 
Last edited:
No one else has mentioned it, but I hope there isn't anything else to come out of the woodwork. This must be playing on his mind and Is possibly affecting his game.
 
The most sensible outcome will surely be Community Service, explicitly him working with vulnerable or people with disabilities / learning difficulties. The club I would assume will also sit him down and make it abundantly clear that there will be zero tolerance if any type of issue arises again whilst he is a paid employee of SUFC.

This could have a positive outcome, by insuring he has the thought planted firmly inside his skull that this IS his last and only chance.

Now go and score on Saturday Nile !
 
Another thing;

Ranger is represented by Angus Bunyan, whom I believe is a top defence barrister (presumably paid for by Ron). You could therefore presume that based on the evidence he advised Ranger to plead 'guilty' to conspiracy to defraud, but not guilty to money laundering.

http://www.2harecourt.com/barristers/angus-bunyan/

The other 2 suspects, who I would expect have legal aid or are not even represented? Have pleaded 'not guilty' to both counts, despite one of them having bank details of 500 people on their phone and seemingly being the main culprit.

I'm no lawyer, but surely Ranger pleading 'guilty' to the lesser charge means he is more likely to be found not guilty for money laundering, which I would assume would carry a custodial sentence?

It will be interesting to see whether he gets off (ie: no prison) and the other 2 get send down for both crimes?
 

ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top