"You have to understand, we've only done it because he's good at football."
Just fecking brilliant
Raith Rovers Controversy
- Thread starter SilentWitness
- Start date
Just fecking brilliant
Goodwillie has never been punished (barring a relative pittance of a fine) and even then has appealed it on numerous occasions, showing not only is he not rehabilitated but he firmly believes that he doesn’t need to be.
I guess it's some boomers in the board room, who want to stick it to "cancel culture". Reading some comments about Greenwoods case, it's not hard to imagine there are people out there, who see no problem with this and maybe lack touch with the wider world to anticipate the consequences. Since he was already at the club before there might also have been an element of "well I know him and he's a good lad."
This is my local side, It's a strange one as it was not so much over the media when Clyde signed him, I'm sure he gets pellters off the fans. One of his assault charges was sticking up for a team mate who was assaulted on a night out proper blind attack on the said teammate goodwille was protecting his team mate, the other was a rugby player
Bumping this so someone answers. Is there a list of professions ex-convicts are allowed to pursue?
I absolutely believe in rehabilitation but do we really want footballers who are idolized, cheered for and let's face it are in a privileged position because they make very good money for kicking a ball return to what they love to do just like that? Has he done any kind of therapy? Is he truly sorry for what he did? I doubt it. He didn't went to jail, he paid the victim and that's it.
Interesting decision to double down on this. I don't understand their willingness to be associated and represented by a person like that.
in this scenario the crime that was committed they have shown zero remorse for and it’s not a crime which someone commits by accident. You don’t accidentally rape someone. I don’t understand why someone as evil as that should be allowed the privilege of being a footballer or we as a society would want them in a position of power/as a role model in an environment of young men and women.
The civil court judgement was in 2017 when he signed for Clyde and Clyde faced alot of criticism in Scotland, but he played well for them and it slowly faded sadly.
It's a bit like Rix going straight back to his job at Chelsea after spending time in jail for unlawful sex with a 15 year old and indecent assault.
Marlon King played for Coventry, Birmingham and Hull I think after being jailed for sexual assault and punching a woman so hard in the face he broke her nose on a night out.
I'm sure there are others, Ched Evans couldn't get a club for about three years I think until his rape conviction was overturned at retrial, he's now at Preston.
So, while I’m genuinely not disagreeing with you (I’m unsure what my stance is on this), what ARE they allowed to do as work?
What if they’re not allowed to be a footballer anymore, but are allowed to be an engineer, but they excelled at it and became famous… do we then say, ‘ok that’s enough of that’, and make them start again in yet another profession?
It's a weird conundrum because if a person has served sentence he/she was given, then I have no issues with them pursuing a career in the field they're the most skilled in. They should be allowed to make a living in society in peace. But I also can't help but look negatively upon any club that willingly allows a person like that into their community/organisation.
Well it's often said that if you have prison on your record that it prevents you doing certain jobs. Football always seems to be one that evades the list as seen from the drink drivers, Marlon King, Duncan Ferguson type lot coming straight back in.
Although this guy technically didn't get convicted or go to prison.
On one hand yes, but obviously any personal link to the crime or victim would quickly make you feel different.
And I remember Lee Hughes, booze guy in a tragic crash strolling back into football and celebrating goals in front of opposition fans.
That doesn't quite feel right somehow.
I suppose it depends on the capacity of their role. Teachers that go to jail for inappropriate relationships with students won’t be allowed to teach anymore so with other criminals there can be restrictions on what professions they can also do. As you said before it does require individual nuance for each case. In particular for Goodwillie as we have said before, he doesn’t care or has shown any care for his victim or how he is seen in regard to the rape he committed and with people like that, it is hard to say that they deserve any type of job.
Yeah, it’s like Alonso actually killed a woman while speeding in his car after drinking and is now enjoying his career at a top PL club…
Meanwhile, it’s becoming mob law that the young Utd player yet to be found guilty of anything must never play again AS WELL AS whatever punishment and rehabilitation he might be given.
I feel consistency and calmness is key with this type of stuff.
You did not answer my question.
A footballer is someone who gets paid to play football. And a footballer is not automatically a role model.
Regardless of remorse, if a person is convicted of a crime in criminal court, the penalty is that they do their time in prison (and pay a fine possibly). If a person is found liable in civil court, then they pay a fine. Once that is done, they are free, apart from having the tag of ex-convict.
So again, what jobs are ex-convicts allowed to pursue? Because it would be much more honest if people admitted they don't see any use for ex-cons making a honest living.
I'll add the caveat that people accused of certain crimes (like child molestation) are rightly barred from becoming teachers... And so on.
Yeah obviously there are careers where the crime directly interferes with the ability of the individual to do the job.
In Goodwillie’s case (what a name…) it appears he’s not served any rehabilitation, which for me would be key I think.
There is consistency. Nobody wants these predators at their club. it’s that simple
from now on, known as ‘rape rovers’
Yes it is. The age of social media is just shining a light on those in power that use to be able to get away with things like this.
Ronaldo seems pretty welcome at Utd.
Goodwillies is wanted by the owners of Raith.
Robinho played on in his career, same with Ched Evans.
It requires the desire to talk about it calmly and logically, as far as is possible.
As I said above, it depends on the capacity of their role. I don’t think a role where Goodwillie is cheered on and looked up to by children / working with females is appropriate when they’ve had complete disregard for one with no remorse. If there is a role where they can have a profession without that then they can go ahead. Clearly multiple women have shown they feel uncomfortable working with him, as do some men.
They’re not just paid to play football. That’s the primary reason, but there are obviously other factors that are secondary. They’re ambassadors for their club, they represent them on and off the field and their conduct interferes with sponsorships / players at the club on both the male and female side. You know as well as I do that footballers are role models and it’s daft to try and argue people don’t see them as one. I’m not saying that people should, or that they automatically are when they become a footballer and it’s a mantle they have to take up, but it’s what happens. Maybe that’s on society / football culture to shift too, aswell as not wanting to have rapists etc. associated with it.
That statement from the club is unbelievable. To paraphrase, ‘We don’t care about morals and aren’t ashamed of that. Please understand’.
This is pretty much my thoughts on the matter. I wouldn't even mind if the club hired the guy in another role (groundsman, club shop etc), cos its just another job and he shouldn't be prevented from working. But being a player is different, it's not a normal job, it's a privilege and players are public personalities.
Yeah it's massively muddied water and it's difficult to know what the right move is. On principle I think people should be allowed to making a living in society in peace, but with obvious caveats.This guy seems to have served no prison time and by all accounts has shown zero remorse, and it's easy to a problem with a guy like continuing to prosper in a privileged industry like football.
And the paedos.
I know I shouldn't expect much after they signed him but by saying it's a footballing decision is even stupider
a) Football is not like regular jobs, clubs are more or less supposed to be community, they have fans and sponsors, who (pretend to) share certain values.
b) As far as I understand the man in question has served no time whatsoever, has not admitted to any wrongdoing and has appealed the ruling against him several times. So I don't really know why people should have any inclination to "welcome" him back into their circle. And there is a difference between letting someone walk free and inviting someone into your club or company or whatever. One is a right, the other a privilege.
In silence, none. With an associated level of outrage dependent upon the crime committed - all of them. Could you perhaps provide a list of crimes nobody's allowed to speak out about?
Well your question is disingenuous. Goodwillie is allowed to pursue a career as a footballer and is doing just that. The issue in the case of a footballer is that for want of a better description you are an entertainer and rely on the support of fans. Fans quite rightly can say they do not want to support someone capable of rape and sponsors can understandably choose not to associate their brand with rapists but that is not the same as saying he cannot work.
If he worked as a roadmender who would know or care but as fans we identify with our teams and the actions our team takes and the actions of the individual players reflect on us and our own ethical and moral viewpoints. We are all able to determine what we will or will not consider a deal breaker in that relationship so for example had the Saudis bought Manchester United I can honestly say my support would have ended the same day.
This is a though one for sure. I am for rehabilitation and second chances in life, but in some cases I am not. Depends on what type of crime tbh.
Either way, the clubs have a responsibility to make good calls. It’s not easy for them either.
Football is viewed as an extremely privileged industry. The idea of a person who has been ruled to have committed a horrific crime continuing to enjoy this privilege obviously won't sit well with people. As mentioned by someone else, there are other aspects to being a footballer than just playing football. They're ambassadors, take part in charity events, community events etc. Its not the same as securing a job in an office.
Last edited:
What a feck up that statement is.
“Football related decision”
The latter. Announced at 10.30pm, just after the newspapers go to print, and hoping to hide in the immediate aftermath of the Aaron Ramsay unveiling an hour earlier.
If only they’d shown the same tactical mindset when it came to assessing the reaction of fans and the wider public.
It’s quite simple really. It’s not a complex issue at all. We don’t want rapists and women abusers at our football clubs. I don’t think there’s much more to explain really.
People are judged by their actions, nothing wrong with that. Rehabilitation doesn't mean you get to live on as if nothing ever happened.
If the people around you know about your crimes then they're free to judge, that's the cost.
"in particular – his footballing ability. That is our foremost consideration"
Wow, what a mess. Surely the board couldn't possibly make things wor.......oh, oh no, they've made it worse.
Disgraceful decision. They deserve everything coming their way and more. Thunderc*nts.
Probably a good example of how different stakeholders would react if a club try to play someone who has been found guilty of these kind of crimes:
- Loss of sponsers
- Backlash from the women's football team
- Fan backlash
- PMs having their say