Can we talk about Cristiano Ronaldo?

eagle eye

irishman86 wrote: »

Ah stop buddy, the opposition will be doing that anyways. It wont change if hes not charged, hence why superstar players often just pay women who say they will go to the press
I think you dont fully understand the Italian mind set to them this is meh, look at there former leader

He won't play in the next our internationals for his country. He was rested midweek in the Champion's league, see what happens tomorrow on that front. Nike has expressed serious concerns over this, EA sports have expressed their concerns also.
You do know that Juventus shares took a dive after this news came out?

We will see how the fans react if he is on the field.

NIMAN

eagle eye wrote: »

We will see how the fans react if he is on the field.

I'd say they will cheer if he puts the ball in the net.

Away fans will, of course, get great mileage out of his problems. Thats the nature of football fans.

But isn't he innocent until he's charged with something?

eagle eye

NIMAN wrote: »

I'd say they will cheer if he puts the ball in the net.

Away fans will, of course, get great mileage out of his problems. Thats the nature of football fans.

But isn't he innocent until he's charged with something?

Ah come on, you know what football fans are like. This isn't a court of law.



Do you remember Paul Dickov? He got an awful time after an accusation that something happened in Spain. He didn't play for quite a while and when he came back he got an awful time. As it turns out it was proven that him and the others were innocent of all the accusations.

NIMAN

eagle eye wrote: »

Ah come on, you know what football fans are like. This isn't a court of law.



Do you remember Paul Dickov? He got an awful time after an accusation that something happened in Spain. He didn't play for quite a while and when he came back he got an awful time. As it turns out it was proven that him and the others were innocent of all the accusations.

I have no doubt he'll get stick, but not from the Juve fans.

snowblind

Juve fan since 1990 here and I really don't want to be looking at CR7 in the Juve kit, makes me nauseous. Opinions in my juve twitter bubble are divided but slightly more are angry. Definitely not representable of the average Juve fan base BUT still not complete approval of the lad & how team is handling the situation....

NIMAN

Do we think that Madrid knew this was coming and thats why they allowed him to leave?

HandsomeBob

NIMAN wrote: »

Do we think that Madrid knew this was coming and thats why they allowed him to leave?

Not for me as it would make Juve look like absolute twats. I'd be surprised if an Italian team would spend that kind of money without doing all sorts of checks.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

Do we think that Madrid knew this was coming and thats why they allowed him to leave?

This story was being reported by Der Spiegel over a year ago b4 the transfer. Juve probably dismissed it as a "story" or just didn't look into it.

irishman86

eagle eye wrote: »

He won't play in the next our internationals for his country. He was rested midweek in the Champion's league, see what happens tomorrow on that front. Nike has expressed serious concerns over this, EA sports have expressed their concerns also.
You do know that Juventus shares took a dive after this news came out?

We will see how the fans react if he is on the field.

Uh he was banned buddy
He isnt playing for Portugal as hes 33 as he has a agreement with the coach to take time off
Nike & Ea both said they are watching
Juve shares have nothing to do with fans, i dont think you understand how any of this works

garra

cjmc wrote: »

Am I the only one surprised that CR7 was into women ?

Considering the nature of the alleged act, this fact is not substantiated.

eagle eye

irishman86 wrote:

Uh he was banned buddy He isnt playing for Portugal as hes 33 as he has a agreement with the coach to take time off Nike & Ea both said they are watching Juve shares have nothing to do with fans, i dont think you understand how any of this works

Lmfao

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

There's a simple solution, ban the use of NDAs in criminal matters...

There is a simple way around that. The ND part would not refer to a crime (rape) but a legitimate act (sex). So she agrees to keep a legitimate and legal act confidential.

If we go on to say ban NDAs for all acts that could be criminal, well you kinda undermine settlements left right and centre. 2 neighbours settle a dispute about boundaries, agreement is to remain confidential...but trespass can be a crime so they can't effect what both want.

JP Liz V1

Did he pay her off to drop the charge in 2009?

Mr.H

If the granny boinker raped her he deserves to hang. If she made it up i hope she pays for it.

But right now it doesnt look good for him.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a simple way around that. The ND part would not refer to a crime (rape) but a legitimate act (sex). So she agrees to keep a legitimate and legal act confidential.

If we go on to say ban NDAs for all acts that could be criminal, well you kinda undermine settlements left right and centre. 2 neighbours settle a dispute about boundaries, agreement is to remain confidential...but trespass can be a crime so they can't effect what both want.

I've no legal backround so you could well be right.

But, an NDA would still exist, referring to an incident that may or may not be considered criminal...that NDA would not be legally binding or enforceable in any way.

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

If the granny boinker raped her he deserves to hang. If she made it up i hope she pays for it.

But right now it doesnt look good for him.

don't get the reference here - thought that was Rooney's preference, not Ronaldo?

JP Liz V1

glasso wrote: »

don't get the reference here - thought that was Rooney's preference, not Ronaldo?

Yes Wayne Rooney was the granny lover

MD1990

2nd women has come forward

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/2nd-woman-accuses-ronaldo-sexual-assault-report-1.4854128

CSF

MD1990 wrote: »

2nd women has come forward

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/2nd-woman-accuses-ronaldo-sexual-assault-report-1.4854128

I’m not gonna try state what’s true or not, but this is one of the dangers of paying out money to silence people. More people will come looking for money. On the flip side of if both stories are true this is horrendous.

Hector Savage

CSF wrote: »

I’m not gonna try state what’s true or not, but this is one of the dangers of paying out money to silence people. More people will come looking for money. On the flip side of if both stories are true this is horrendous.

Indeed, but I would tend to believe that both stories are complete and utter bollocks

CSF

Hector Savage wrote: »

Indeed, but I would tend to believe that both stories are complete and utter bollocks

I think we need to wait and see what comes out. Whether that survey of his is verified, further evidence etc. In reality, we know very little about the actual character of both parties.

gimli2112

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6251819/Three-claims-against-Cristiano-Ronaldo-probed.html


One woman claims she was raped after a party, one says she was 'hurt by Ronaldo' and another says she signed a non-disclosure agreement with the footballer in 2009, according to a lawyer.


Makes you wonder how many NDAs there are out there, although just because someone says they agreed to one doesn't mean it existed, in the case of this new accusation.

ELM327

MD1990 wrote: »

2nd women has come forward

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/2nd-woman-accuses-ronaldo-sexual-assault-report-1.4854128

I will also come forward.
Cristiano Ronaldo raped me and made me sign an NDA.




(The point is, anyone can "come forward"... unless it's corroborated somehow, it's meaningless.)

Turtwig

You can bet your soul that Mayora's lawyer will attempt to corroborate any of these claims. If so much as one is plausible then Ronaldo is in a heap of sh1t.

Shanotheslayer

ELM327 wrote: »

I will also come forward.
Cristiano Ronaldo raped me and made me sign an NDA.




(The point is, anyone can "come forward"... unless it's corroborated somehow, it's meaningless.)

What a stupid post.

~Rebel~

ELM327 wrote: »

I will also come forward.
Cristiano Ronaldo raped me and made me sign an NDA.




(The point is, anyone can "come forward"... unless it's corroborated somehow, it's meaningless.)

That's not even remotely a true reflection of reality though. Very flippant pov on something pretty consequential.

Coming forward like this invites international scrutiny that in itself is a massively invasive and horrible experience. It takes serious bravery to do it, especially when its against a media darling like Ronaldo. These women will get death threats, face horrible abuse, and their lives will never be the same.

Now, that's not to say any allegation should be taken as fact - but it should be taken seriously and treated with respect.

LiamoSail

ELM327 wrote: »

I will also come forward.
Cristiano Ronaldo raped me and made me sign an NDA.




(The point is, anyone can "come forward"... unless it's corroborated somehow, it's meaningless.)

That's the sort of tone Trump took last week in mocking Brett Kavanagh's accuser. That's the level you're appealing to.

DM_7

The validity (or ability to prove they are legit) of the documents showing any guilt was something I wondered about, considering the sources provided. Ronaldo and his lawyers have now said they are outright fabrications. To say that they must, at the very least, believe they cannot be validated.


https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/1010/1002331-cristiano-ronaldo/

"To be clear, Mr Ronaldo vehemently denies all of the allegations in the complaint and has consistently maintained that denial for the last nine years," Mr Christiansen said on gestifute.com.


"The documents which purportedly contain statements by Mr Ronaldo and have been reported in the media are complete fabrications."

He added material "irresponsibly published" from "stolen documents" included large sections which were "altered and/or completely fabricated".

The statement continued: "To absolve any doubt, Mr Ronaldo has always maintained, as he does today, that what occurred in 2009 in Las Vegas was consensual in nature.

"While Mr Ronaldo does not deny the existence of the mutual agreement and release, his motivations for agreeing to that resolution have been twisted to say the least.

"Far from any admission of guilt or any ulterior motive, Mr Ronaldo was advised to privately resolve the allegations against him in order to avoid the inevitable attempts that are now being made to destroy a reputation that has been built upon hard work, athleticism and honour.

"Unfortunately, he now finds himself embroiled in the type of litigation that is all too commonplace in America."

Mr Christiansen's statement concluded: "Mr Ronaldo will leave future discussion of any and all legal matters to his attorneys here and in Europe.

"He is confident that the truth will survive this frenzy and the laws of Nevada will be upheld and enforced."

It's a far more sensible statement.

Not sure why it took so long.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a far more sensible statement.

Not sure why it took so long.

He is claiming that he was either legally advised to admit to a rape on a questionnaire or that the document has been falsified...therefore exposing every media outlet in the world that has published it to litigation and/or criminal charges...despite Der Speigel spending two years pursuing this, with his full knowledge, you have to ask why did he wait until this entered the public domain, becoming a global story threatening his many many sponsorships, this statement asks way more questions than it answers.

MD1990

DM_7 wrote: »

The validity (or ability to prove they are legit) of the documents showing any guilt was something I wondered about, considering the sources provided. Ronaldo and his lawyers have now said they are outright fabrications. To say that they must, at the very least, believe they cannot be validated.


https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/1010/1002331-cristiano-ronaldo/

"To be clear, Mr Ronaldo vehemently denies all of the allegations in the complaint and has consistently maintained that denial for the last nine years," Mr Christiansen said on gestifute.com.


"The documents which purportedly contain statements by Mr Ronaldo and have been reported in the media are complete fabrications."

He added material "irresponsibly published" from "stolen documents" included large sections which were "altered and/or completely fabricated".

The statement continued: "To absolve any doubt, Mr Ronaldo has always maintained, as he does today, that what occurred in 2009 in Las Vegas was consensual in nature.

"While Mr Ronaldo does not deny the existence of the mutual agreement and release, his motivations for agreeing to that resolution have been twisted to say the least.

"Far from any admission of guilt or any ulterior motive, Mr Ronaldo was advised to privately resolve the allegations against him in order to avoid the inevitable attempts that are now being made to destroy a reputation that has been built upon hard work, athleticism and honour.

"Unfortunately, he now finds himself embroiled in the type of litigation that is all too commonplace in America."

Mr Christiansen's statement concluded: "Mr Ronaldo will leave future discussion of any and all legal matters to his attorneys here and in Europe.

"He is confident that the truth will survive this frenzy and the laws of Nevada will be upheld and enforced."

Interesting considering Der Spegial have said Ronaldo's lawyers have never filed a lawsuit & are confident the documents are real.

But maybe they will now that it has gained so much attention?

Silentcorner

Silentcorner wrote: »

He is claiming that he was either legally advised to admit to a rape on a questionnaire or that the document has been falsified...therefore exposing every media outlet in the world that has published it to litigation and/or criminal charges...despite Der Speigel spending two years pursuing this, with his full knowledge, you have to ask why did he wait until this entered the public domain, becoming a global story threatening his many many sponsorships, this statement asks way more questions than it answers.

It did sound frankly bizarre that he would have admitted rape, almost always a settlement is made without admission of guilt. It's kinda the whole point of a settlements, one side does not need to prove liability, so the other side doesn't say "you got me".

Not sure what the criminal charges might be. The obvious issue would be defamation...but that might lead to opening up the story and the Streisand Effect. Afair it was in taking litigation that Ryan Giggs' affair came to public attention.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

It did sound frankly bizarre that he would have admitted rape, almost always a settlement is made without admission of guilt. It's kinda the whole point of a settlements, one side does not need to prove liability, so the other side doesn't say "you got me".

Not sure what the criminal charges might be. The obvious issue would be defamation...but that might lead to opening up the story and the Streisand Effect. Afair it was in taking litigation that Ryan Giggs' affair came to public attention.

I couldn't agree more, even if he did do it, why would his legal team allow him admit to one of the most serious crimes on the statute books, it certainly seems a bit off, doesn't say much about him either...if I felt I was innocent there is no way I'd sign that, if I felt I wasn't innocent I'd take the advice of my very expensive legal team...I'd imagine.

If someone has falsified a legal document I'd imagine there would be a criminal charge of some description, I could be wrong of course.

gimli2112

am I reading it wrong, the statement doesn't say he admitted to rape, it says they are fabrications? They only admit to an NDA which they say has been altered and parts of it made up.

I do agree the timing is odd - why now and why so late from when the story broke? Lawyers are going to get very rich from this one.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

. Afair it was in taking litigation that Ryan Giggs' affair came to public attention.

The papers were going to publish it, but he got an injunction. Might have delayed it a couple of days and resulted in everyone telling their mates it's was Giggs, but it was coming out anyway.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The papers were going to publish it, but he got an injunction. Might have delayed it a couple of days and resulted in everyone telling their mates it's was Giggs, but it was coming out anyway.

He got a super injunction against the British media, the accusation appeared on Twitter, he sought an injunction against Twitter and the British media were able to report, not the contents of the initial gagged story, but that he was taking proceedings against Twitter. Then the dam burst on the allegation, Scottish and US media ran the story, and the super injunction became pointless. He whipped up the frenzy instead of letting it lie as one of the million rumours that swirl around Twitter.

There are many reasons why Ronaldo might not want the story to be analysed that do not amount to an admission of rape, say that he liked anal sex, or rough sex, or was impotent. He might feel it was worth a few hundred grand to keep that quiet. Or not want to pursue the accusations made by Der Spiegel because it would reveal that issue and he'd only make what he could earn in a day or 2.

On the other hand, he may be guilty of rape...

CSF

I mean the onus is clearly on those accusing (both on the accusers side and those reporting this) to validate the documents and allow it to become a real thing.

LiamoSail

If the leaked admission of guilt, I think they referred to it as the survey, was in fact a fake, you'd have expected an instant rebuttal. Seems strange to wait this length of time to refute having previously only threatened legal action on the basis of how the info was obtained, rather than its contents.

LuckyLloyd

Has an actual criminal investigation got underway? Are there actual legal proceedings underway in Nevada? Or is it just investigative reporting at this stage?

MD1990

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Has an actual criminal investigation got underway? Are there actual legal proceedings underway in Nevada? Or is it just investigative reporting at this stage?

The actual case has actually been re opened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45712777

LuckyLloyd

MD1990 wrote: »

The actual case has actually been re opened.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45712777

I reckon the outcome of that is really the only relevant thing here then. Let's see what comes of it.

StringerBell

They reopened the case after the article was published. Public pressure in the metoo age would have demanded such.

I agree though that it's the only thing of actual interest when it comes to the allegation.

Turtwig

StringerBell wrote: »

They reopened the case after the article was published. Public pressure in the metoo age would have demanded such.

I agree though that it's the only thing of actual interest when it comes to the allegation.

This isn't correct. They were reopening prior to publication. Original article was published to coincide with the re open.

MD1990

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I reckon the outcome of that is really the only relevant thing here then. Let's see what comes of it.

I reckon that is obvious

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

It did sound frankly bizarre that he would have admitted rape, almost always a settlement is made without admission of guilt. It's kinda the whole point of a settlements, one side does not need to prove liability, so the other side doesn't say "you got me".

I don't think the settlement itself would have included admission of guilt - As I understood it, the 'survey' document on which he allegedly admitted to her having said no, and stop, was more of an internal document for his own legal team so they knew what they were dealing with. Never meant to be viewed by any other party, until it was leaked.

Jelle1880

His legal team really need to get their story straight. The documents are fake, but obtained illegal ?

Sky reporting this now:

A statement from lawyers, Larissa Drohobyczer and Leslie Stovall, representing Mayorga, said: "We thank Cristiano Ronaldo's latest lawyer for confirming and admitting in his October 10, 2018 statement that the 'Football Leaks' documents were obtained from Cristiano Ronaldo or individuals acting on his behalf.

"We look forward to reviewing any evidence that tends to prove, as Mr Ronaldo's lawyer asserts, that some of the 'Football Leaks' documents were altered, fabricated, or contain false/inaccurate information.

"In both civil and criminal cases, disputes regarding the accuracy of documents are generally questions of fact to be decided by the jury. A jury determines the accuracy of disputed documents by: 1) Comparing of the different versions of the disputed documents; 2) Listening to the testimony of the individuals who wrote, prepared, transmitted, and stored the disputed documents; 3) Considering the circumstances under which the documents were written, prepared, transmitted, stored and maintained; and 4) Listening to the testimony of forensic experts who have examined the disputed, and the devices upon which the documents were written, prepared, transmitted, and stored.

"In a civil case, discovery is conducted to obtain evidence regarding these matters through the exchange of disputed documents, the forensic examination of disputed documents and devices, and the examination of witnesses under oath. In criminal cases, the prosecutors rely upon investigator's review of disputed documents, the forensic examination of devices and disputed documents, and questioning of witnesses.

Liam McPoyle

LiamoSail wrote: »

If the leaked admission of guilt, I think they referred to it as the survey, was in fact a fake, you'd have expected an instant rebuttal. Seems strange to wait this length of time to refute having previously only threatened legal action on the basis of how the info was obtained, rather than its contents.

I would have thought that if his legal team tried to stop this being published in the first place then that automatically places an appearance of having something to hide on things ie Why would someone want a story stopped if there was no truth to it?

If he is innocent then let it come out and let it be proven in the courts. If he is guilty then I hope the book is thrown at him and that he doesn't buy his way out of it.

irelandrover

Business Cat wrote: »

I would have thought that if his legal team tried to stop this being published in the first place then that automatically places an appearance of having something to hide on things ie Why would someone want a story stopped if there was no truth to it?

If he is innocent then let it come out and let it be proven in the courts. If he is guilty then I hope the book is thrown at him and that he doesn't buy his way out of it.

I dont think its as simple as that, if the story comes out then it will affect his sponsorship possibilities. He could lose a lot more money than just paying off the woman.

Liam McPoyle

irelandrover wrote: »

I dont think its as simple as that, if the story comes out then it will affect his sponsorship possibilities. He could lose a lot more money than just paying off the woman.

He has more money than he could spend in 10 lifetimes so it's hard to believe that is a major motivator Imo.

irelandrover

Business Cat wrote: »

He has more money than he could spend in 10 lifetimes so it's hard to believe that is a major motivator Imo.

I thought you meant when he paid off the woman in 2009.