Where will football clubs draw the line?

jsp

Well-Known Member
Top Poster Of Month
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
28,174

This story really is shocking given we are now in 2022 and football clubs still think it'll be ok to sign a player who's been found guilty in a civil court of rape.

Without going into the full detail the case wasn't taken to a criminal court due to a lack of evidence to support the claim but in a civil court the judge ruled that the victim was not in a fit enough state to consent to having sex with the two players involved. She was awarded damages.

I know convictions shouldn't be a life sentence for people in most cases a second chance is required but this club rule womens teams as well as mens teams. There can be no justification as a business to hire someone with that conviction and put him in an environment like a football club.

There's a really good bit of punditry from Gordan Strachan from the 2014 world cup when Saurez bit a player and the panel was talking about the consequences for him and he basically admitted football has no morals. If you are a good footballer your club will back you to the bitter end and give you endless chances.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about the Goodwillie case. He doesn't have a criminal conviction. A civil case doesn't rule beyond reasonable doubt it's similar to FIFA and the balance of Probabilities. So if it's 51% likely then they'd find him guilty. We could end a lot of careers if we go down that road without any convictions being made.

Ronaldo would certainly be on the chopping board. But he's great so we'll turn a blind eye.
 
Well Ronaldo has not faced charges in any court criminal or civil that’s not to say that the rumours aren't a huge worry and I know a few people who saw his signing as a reason to call it a day. it certainly didn’t sit well with me but until it goes through a court he’s an innocent man.

I think a civil case that has also been through an appeal is enough to say he is guilty of the crime obviously the threshold for conviction is different in the civil court balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt threshold in a criminal court. Their appeal against the original decision was unanimously rejected by three judges.

Given the clubs are supposed to represent their communities and fans I think we as fans have to demand higher standards of the people our clubs employ. For me a guilty verdict in a criminal or civil case that Involves any sort of violence should be a line that isn’t crossed.
 
I cannot agree any less. Whilst I may think Goodwillie is an idiot. We can't start condemning people that are found innocent in a court of law for the rest of their lives
 
I cannot agree any less. Whilst I may think Goodwillie is an idiot. We can't start condemning people that are found innocent in a court of law for the rest of their lives

He was found guilty though and again on appeal he has not received an innocent verdict in any court.

I admit his case isn’t totally clear cut he admitted to having sex with a drunk girl he claims she gave consent but the judges ruled she was in no fit state to give consent. This Is why he was never sent to prison for his crime as there was not enough evidence to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. The law in cases like this certainly leave a lot of people who have sex when drunk or with a person that you know is drunk exposed because of how consent works. He’s shown no remorse to the victim and offered no apology to her.

I‘m a firm believer in second chances in life I just think clubs should see the bigger picture and think how hiring that person impacts your staff and also how your fans will react. I don’t think I could cheer on a player with the conviction he has.
 
He was found guilty though and again on appeal he has not received an innocent verdict in any court.

He was never found guilty. If he does a DBS check it doesn't come up on his criminal record. He's not a convicted rapist. Any accusations or wordings of such are incorrect. He's never been found guilty or convicted of rape in the eyes of the law. If he was he'd have served prison time.

He was never found innocent in a court of law because it was thrown out before it got there, a Judge looked at the evidence and said there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty or even enough proof to take it further. Which in this country means he's innocent.

As I said do we really want to start deeming people of guilty without being found guilty. A civil law case doesn't mean you're guilty it means the probability is you may be.
 
[snip]

Given the clubs are supposed to represent their communities and fans I think we as fans have to demand higher standards of the people our clubs employ. For me a guilty verdict in a criminal or civil case that Involves any sort of violence should be a line that isn’t crossed.
I'm not so sure violence itself is a line that can't be crossed, at least not for me. Sexual violence, or sexual assault, or maybe even violence on a woman, then I could agree with you. Cantona kicking that Palace fan could have resulted in being done for assault (your laws are different than ours, but I'd think that would qualify), and Maguire fighting in Greece (or wherever he was) also. I think it depends on how serious the charge is (which you might be saying already and I missed it).
 
He was never found innocent in a court of law because it was thrown out before it got there, a Judge looked at the evidence and said there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty or even enough proof to take it further. Which in this country means he's innocent.
Forgetting this case, this a huge problem in law, rape is basically one persons word agaisnt another. And If the woman is drunk then this can cause further doubt.

Why is it the women has to prove she didn't consent, rather than the man proving he had consent.

Back to this case, so if a civil case has found him guilty, I would say there is enough doubt, just not enough for a court of law.

Prince Andrew hasn't even got to his civil case yet, a lot of people are saying he's guilty already, and he's been stripped of all his roles and titles.

The club should have stayed away from this player.

But we all know, someone will pick up Greenwood eventually.
 
He was never found guilty. If he does a DBS check it doesn't come up on his criminal record. He's not a convicted rapist. Any accusations or wordings of such are incorrect. He's never been found guilty or convicted of rape in the eyes of the law. If he was he'd have served prison time.

He was never found innocent in a court of law because it was thrown out before it got there, a Judge looked at the evidence and said there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty or even enough proof to take it further. Which in this country means he's innocent.

As I said do we really want to start deeming people of guilty without being found guilty. A civil law case doesn't mean you're guilty it means the probability is you may be.
The fact he has been charged with assault multiple times, coupled with this case means he’s a bad apple. This is not the sort of person that young kids should be looking up to as a football player and role model. I can see why a portion of Raith fans/sponsors are up in arms about this.
 
Oh I fully agree the man is clearly an idiot. It just doesn't sit easy that we are taking away his livelihood when he's not been criminally prosecuted. Had he been plumber not a footballer would we still be denying him the right to work?

Would I want him at United? No. But as I said none of us mind Ronaldo who definitely enters that gray area having paid off someone whose accused him of rape.
 
Why is it the women has to prove she didn't consent, rather than the man proving he had consent.

Firstly it's both parties that need consent. I've definitely been in too drunk a condition to consent to anything at times.

Secondly the dodgy issue becomes you've got two drunk people both of whom want sex neither are in a state to consent and they have sex but the following day one of them decides they didn't want sex last night. And the idea is to decide the one who woke up thinking they've made a mistake should have got their phone out and recorded them asking for consent?
 
Didn't someone on here say there were two lads? which surely raises alarm bells.

Far too few rape cases get to court, something needs to change. I imagine if she hadn't taped it Greenwood would not be up on rape charges.
 
He was never found guilty. If he does a DBS check it doesn't come up on his criminal record. He's not a convicted rapist. Any accusations or wordings of such are incorrect. He's never been found guilty or convicted of rape in the eyes of the law. If he was he'd have served prison time.

He was never found innocent in a court of law because it was thrown out before it got there, a Judge looked at the evidence and said there wasn't enough proof to find him guilty or even enough proof to take it further. Which in this country means he's innocent.

As I said do we really want to start deeming people of guilty without being found guilty. A civil law case doesn't mean you're guilty it means the probability is you may be.

I wasn't aware of that I assumed a civil case would show up and held some weight as a concviction. Maybe from a legal standing it's not enough to call him a rapist but I've got no problem doing it.

It wouldn't even make it to a judge though it would be a CPS decision the evidence just wasn't there for a criminal conviction because of the complexity of consent and the criminal threshold being set so high for obvious reasons.

If it was your club as the owner would you have a problem hiring him?
 
If it was your club as the owner would you have a problem hiring him?

From a personal stand point, I wouldn't want him but then I wouldn't want him sitting in my office at work either, however he's got the right to work. And then I wouldn't want the club signing a player who can't go to America on tour because he faces certain legal issues either under normal circumstances.

I am not on Goodwillies side by any means I just think, taking personal feelings out of it and considering there wasn't enough evidence to bring a charge maybe he shouldn't be sentenced for the rest of his life considering charges were never bought forward.

It's a difficult subject matter, much like the Ched Evans incident. I fell out with a few people at the time for thinking he had a right to work.

Would I want him? No. Should he be allowed to make a living? For me, yes.
 
I think losing a civil case is a pretty sure sign of guilt. More so if you then lose an appeal and the judge also awards significant damages against you.

In this Raith case, it boils down to a simple question: do you believe the woman? The judge did. I do.

We urgently need to reform how we deal with such cases. So many accusations do not make it to court. Ask yourself, do you think most of these accusations are false?
 
From a personal stand point, I wouldn't want him but then I wouldn't want him sitting in my office at work either, however he's got the right to work. And then I wouldn't want the club signing a player who can't go to America on tour because he faces certain legal issues either under normal circumstances.

I am not on Goodwillies side by any means I just think, taking personal feelings out of it and considering there wasn't enough evidence to bring a charge maybe he shouldn't be sentenced for the rest of his life considering charges were never bought forward.

It's a difficult subject matter, much like the Ched Evans incident. I fell out with a few people at the time for thinking he had a right to work.

Would I want him? No. Should he be allowed to make a living? For me, yes.

My point was empoyers in this case football clubs I think need to set higher standards over who they employ you can't just judge a footballer based on his ability that's not good enough anymore.

As an employer you have to consider the impact of that person has on your existing workers and how your customers might view that appointment which is where the club have probably gone wrong here.

He has the right to work it doesn't mean he has the right to get the job if that makes sense employers I think need to raise the bar in football and clamp down on some of the behaviour issues that clearly exist. A conviction criminal or civil will impact your life in any number of ways and your ability to work in certain places is probably one of them you can try and get those jobs but employers I think have to factor this into decision making.
 
I think they've come to the right decision not sure how they untangle the mess as Clyde probably can't take him back as he's now registered to Raith.

Leaves Goodwillie in a tricky spot as he's not really done anything wrong he took a job he was offered.
 
I think losing a civil case is a pretty sure sign of guilt. More so if you then lose an appeal and the judge also awards significant damages against you.

In this Raith case, it boils down to a simple question: do you believe the woman? The judge did. I do.

We urgently need to reform how we deal with such cases. So many accusations do not make it to court. Ask yourself, do you think most of these accusations are false?

No I don't think they're made up at all. I fully agree we need a reform regarding how these cases are handled. But we can't decide not enough people are being prosecuted so we'll take it amongst ourselves to decide whose guilty even if they haven't been found guilty in the eyes of the law?

There is something to innocent until proven guilty, I think that the country should hold on to that value and I certainly don't believe we should go the other way and castigate everyone before being found guilty on the basis of someones words we need to better manage how we get from an accusation to getting a correct result in court.
 
I think these cases are hard to convict on because they often only involved the victim and the accussed there's often very little evidence to go on either way.

In this case you'd assume if the two lads tell a very consistent story when questioned seperately then it's very hard to dispute there version of events especially if there's no obvious signs of struggle.

I have no idea what happened in this incident by the way just pointing out how hard it would be to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that she didn't consent. Her not remembering doesn't mean that at the time she didn't say yes for example.

I think what the Ched Evans case highlighted to a lot of young men especially is that you have to be very careful over the decisions you make when it comes to casual relationship or one night stands especially when alcohol is involved as you may end up being on the wrong side of the law without realising it.
 
This is where I don't think it's right though. So say for example you have the conversation drunk and record it. You're both battered and say you want to have sex.

But the following day one of you decides you only did it because you were drunk and the other should be done for rape?

It's unlikely that one's battered and the other one was sober. The most likely situation is both parties are drunk so why is it on one to make the correct sober decision?

(That's not related to this case but the perception of consent when drunk not counting, we're basing saying one night stands are now illegal even when both want to participate at the time)
 
I have no idea where the law goes in the case where both parties were drunk as really neither of you can be a totally reliable witness so who took advantage of who?

I imagine in these sort of cases they don't proceed to charges and it's unlikely to go to a civil court either.
 
It's just not as clear as cut as that, with all the date rape drugs.

I think the law needs tightening somehow that gives the victim more chance of getting justice than it currently does.

How that happens is for people more clever than me.
 
But in many situations it is as clear as that. I have been in a situation where I woke up the following morning and asked if we had sex. And she said yeah. If I was female it could have gone a lot further.
 
It's just not as clear as cut as that, with all the date rape drugs.

I think the law needs tightening somehow that gives the victim more chance of getting justice than it currently does.

How that happens is for people more clever than me.

The key in those cases is going straight to the police to report it they can get tests done that will be vital to secure convictions.
 
Another example of awful human behaviour today.

Kurt Zouma caught hitting and kicking his pet cat in a leaked video.

Starts tonight for West Ham after the club put out a public statement saying they are appalled by his behaviour and will deal with it internally.
 
Another example of awful human behaviour today.

Kurt Zouma caught hitting and kicking his pet cat in a leaked video.

Starts tonight for West Ham after the club put out a public statement saying they are appalled by his behaviour and will deal with it internally.
You have to be a certain type of lowlife scum to hurt a defenceless animal!

Someone should kick him across a room and see how he likes at. Absolute moron.
 
Not a good look by West Ham.
Terrible decision by the board. But it is West Ham I suppose
 
This is what I mean by standards not saying it’s a sackable offence but there has to be some consequence but for football clubs results will always come first.

A proper apology, a fine paid to an animal charity and he should be forced to give up the animals for their protection. That’s the minimum I expect in this situation.
 
Yeah but sadly football clubs put football first
 
He’s just an idiot. He was only sorry when the footage was leaked - probably didn’t have a care in the world after he did it.
 
I don't think it was leaked, they said on the news it was a tic toc vid
 

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
or Log in using
Don't have an account? Register now
Back
Top