David Goodwillie ruling (not available for team selection)

[Biggs]

I think that's a decent statement, especially if written himself. Ultimately it's the judge's opinion (he's capped it up twice) rather than a jury in a criminal court, as he says, and he's spent years fighting this because he believes he didn't do it. Does concede that he was 21-years-old and was naive as well. I would consider the fact that obviously none of this happened while at Argyle and he's undoubtably a much-changed person in six years.

I'm sure people will say he is showing no remorse, but if you didn't do anything wrong (as a criminal case found) then why would you show remorse?

I think Argyle should stick by their employee, but it's a tough decision.

 

[Andy Holland]

In a court it's been decided he DID do something wrong, that's the problem there. He's hardly the first person - rightly or wrongly - to think they've been wrongly judged.

This is a tag that will follow him around for the rest of his career, I'm afraid - I personally don't think we need the aggro that'll come with having him at the club, it's callous to say but he just isn't worth it.

 

[MarkMatthews]

I think the club have acted swiftly and correctly.

Totally correct, he should now be released

He has a contract. One of the issues Argyle will be looking into will be as to whether the civil verdict gives them grounds to dismiss him, should they wish to.

Argyle were presumably aware of this case when they signed him - if not they didn't research him properly. If they were aware, they must have realised that this verdict could come, and perhaps covered themselves accordingly, or agreed a strategy if the civil court held DG responsible.

This is a whole can of worms and I would be very surprised if Argyle have adequately covered themselves for this situation.
They may wish to let him go but find they can't or he would sue the club for unfair dismissal.

What a nightmare and to make it worse he has been pants and is not worth keeping IMHO

As has been stated football does seem to be a law to it self but I'm pretty sure you can't sue for unfair dismissal unless you've been working for the same employer for 2 years.

Criminal Court hasn't found he did no wrong either has it, its just not enough evidence to prove he did do wrong. At no point have they said she's done anything wrong. he's underperforming and this is a good chance to get rid if we can IMO. If he was on for 20 goals a season or if he was doing a lot of work for the club in the community (as McCormick did/does) then maybe stand by him.

I do think that is a mature statement he has made though.

 

[Biggs]

In a court it's been decided he DID do something wrong, that's the problem there. He's hardly the first person - rightly or wrongly - to think they've been wrongly judged.

This is a tag that will follow him around for the rest of his career, I'm afraid - I personally don't think we need the aggro that'll come with having him at the club, it's callous to say but he just isn't worth it.

Yes, in a CIVIL court, by one man. For an incident that occurred six years ago.

It's not good enough to just use the phrase 'in a court' because that implies to a lot of people that it's a criminal court with a jury. It wasn't.

 

[Andy Holland]

In a court it's been decided he DID do something wrong, that's the problem there. He's hardly the first person - rightly or wrongly - to think they've been wrongly judged.

This is a tag that will follow him around for the rest of his career, I'm afraid - I personally don't think we need the aggro that'll come with having him at the club, it's callous to say but he just isn't worth it.

Yes, in a CIVIL court, by one man. For an incident that occurred six years ago.

It's not good enough to just use the phrase 'in a court' because that implies to a lot of people that it's a criminal court with a jury. It wasn't.

And you're making that distinction, whereas most people won't.

The judge hasn't decided on a whim to hand this down - it would be dangerous to ignore the fact that a judge has considered evidence to an extent that NO-ONE on here has, and has then decided Goodwillie committed the act he was accused of. The judge knows more about this case than anyone else, and decided that - it can't just be dismissed as "one man's opinion" like it's just some guy down the pub.

 

[HaroldPWH]

Did anyone else hear James Brent discuss this when asked on 5Live this morning?

I caught the end of the interview but in essence he was saying the Club will not making any further comment or decision until they have read the full report. The report, according to JB, is 98 pages long and quite detailed.

 

[Stuart House]

No one's dismissing it as one mans opinion. They are clarifying the difference.

One judges opinion (clever use of the word by Goodwillie in his statement) is NOT the same as a jury of his peers.

 

[Biggs]

In a court it's been decided he DID do something wrong, that's the problem there. He's hardly the first person - rightly or wrongly - to think they've been wrongly judged.

This is a tag that will follow him around for the rest of his career, I'm afraid - I personally don't think we need the aggro that'll come with having him at the club, it's callous to say but he just isn't worth it.

Yes, in a CIVIL court, by one man. For an incident that occurred six years ago.

It's not good enough to just use the phrase 'in a court' because that implies to a lot of people that it's a criminal court with a jury. It wasn't.

And you're making that distinction, whereas most people won't.

This goes back to the trial by social media thing then. If most people won't make that big distinction between criminal and civil cases, then they're wrong.

Argyle shouldn't make a decision based on people's misinformation and indignation levels, no matter how big their pitchforks.

I note that over 11 pages on here, I can't see one person has come and said they don't want him playing for the club because he's an *insert insult* or an *insert insult*. It's almost all been about perception, PR and how Argyle would look. That says a lot, I think.

 

[Andy Holland]

In a court it's been decided he DID do something wrong, that's the problem there. He's hardly the first person - rightly or wrongly - to think they've been wrongly judged.

This is a tag that will follow him around for the rest of his career, I'm afraid - I personally don't think we need the aggro that'll come with having him at the club, it's callous to say but he just isn't worth it.

Yes, in a CIVIL court, by one man. For an incident that occurred six years ago.

It's not good enough to just use the phrase 'in a court' because that implies to a lot of people that it's a criminal court with a jury. It wasn't.

And you're making that distinction, whereas most people won't.

This goes back to the trial by social media thing then. If most people won't make that big distinction between criminal and civil cases, then they're wrong.

Argyle shouldn't make a decision based on people's misinformation and indignation levels, no matter how big their pitchforks.

I note that over 11 pages on here, I can't see one person has come and said they don't want him playing for the club because he's an *insert insult* or an *insert insult*. It's almost all been about perception, PR and how Argyle would look. That says a lot, I think.

I think there's a decent chance people have tempered their comments and been sensible after being asked to by the mods, I certainly have.

And I've never mentioned social media once - the distinction is that a qualified judge who knows far more about this case than you or I has seen fit to call it like he did, and whether civil or criminal you can't ignore that just because he's an Argyle player - if this was an Exeter player this board would be full of "typical scum" type comments.

 

[Biggs]

Yes, this board could very well be full of 'typical scum' type comments. But we're biased, and some of us call Exeter players that anyway. It's not a basis to sack a popular player on.

The point is, that Argyle should look at the report rationally and make a judgment, bearing in mind heavily that this is a civil case and not a criminal one. They should NOT consider the opinions of people who use phrases like 'typical scum' and who don't give a damn about the context of the case.

 

[Fat_green_belly]

Difficult decision for both clubs. Perhaps they can contact cowdenbeath and make a joint
decision and announcement together if they can both agree on a solution first of course.
Problem for DA and argyle, whatever the rights and wrongs of his case, is that DG is not
likely to be at 100% anymore with this on his mind now. With opposition fans and maybe
some of our own, abusing him far worse than what luke has recieved. His game is
likely to suffer even more. His career has already gone downhill since this all occured.
Perhaps we could show some support for him if decided appropriate by keeping him on
until his contract runs out in the summer or by paying him off now so he can carry on his
legal battles?
Long term wise if he cannot reverse the judges decision then he probably needs to find another
less public way of earning a living. Pro football is only a short career after all.
Difficult though. I think I will just let PAFC decide whatever is in the best interest for the
club on this one.

 

[IJN]

The club have done exactly the right thing.

There's no need to knee jerk, no need to do anything but study what is front of them.

I see the usual 'young lads', Argyle fans giving it large on Twitter, getting embroiled in stupid debate.

This needs to be handled gently and sympathetically and ALL parties must be thought of.

Whatever the decision, it certainly needn't be rushed and it definitely doesn't need to take into account the populous comments on Social Media.

It doesn't have to be the easy decision either, it simply has to be the right one.

 

[Biggs]

Difficult decision for both clubs. Perhaps they can contact cowdenbeath and make a joint
decision and announcement together if they can both agree on a solution first of course.
Problem for DA and argyle, whatever the rights and wrongs of his case, is that DG is not
likely to be at 100% anymore with this on his mind now. With opposition fans and maybe
some of our own, abusing him far worse than what luke has recieved. His game is
likely to suffer even more. His career has already gone downhill since this all occured.
Perhaps we could show some support for him if decided appropriate by keeping him on
until his contract runs out in the summer or by paying him off now so he can carry on his
legal battles?
Long term wise if he cannot reverse the judges decision then he probably needs to find another
less public way of earning a living. Pro football is only a short career after all.
Difficult though. I think I will just let PAFC decide whatever is in the best interest for the
club on this one.

I'd argue - and this is on a purely footballing level - that he's likely to be extra motivated to play for Argyle IF we stick by him.

 

[Fat_green_belly]

Difficult decision for both clubs. Perhaps they can contact cowdenbeath and make a joint
decision and announcement together if they can both agree on a solution first of course.
Problem for DA and argyle, whatever the rights and wrongs of his case, is that DG is not
likely to be at 100% anymore with this on his mind now. With opposition fans and maybe
some of our own, abusing him far worse than what luke has recieved. His game is
likely to suffer even more. His career has already gone downhill since this all occured.
Perhaps we could show some support for him if decided appropriate by keeping him on
until his contract runs out in the summer or by paying him off now so he can carry on his
legal battles?
Long term wise if he cannot reverse the judges decision then he probably needs to find another
less public way of earning a living. Pro football is only a short career after all.
Difficult though. I think I will just let PAFC decide whatever is in the best interest for the
club on this one.

I'd argue - and this is on a purely footballing level - that he's likely to be extra motivated to play for Argyle IF we stick by him.

I dont know the guy to know of his character only that his career tailed off after
the incident. PAFC will know more about him than any of us and like i said above
i will trust the club on this and back the decision they make on it.

 

[Biggs]

The club have done exactly the right thing.

There's no need to knee jerk, no need to do anything but study what is front of them.

I see the usual 'young lads', Argyle fans giving it large on Twitter, getting embroiled in stupid debate.

This needs to be handled gently and sympathetically and ALL parties must be thought of.

Whatever the decision, it certainly needn't be rushed and it definitely doesn't need to take into account the populous comments on Social Media.

It doesn't have to be the easy decision either, it simply has to be the right one.

Spot on. I searched 'Goodwillie' on Twitter yesterday and had a quick look at the comments. It was enough to make me feel a little sick and very, very depressed.

Social media gives the stupidest and most dangerous people a platform. Most look quite ordinary in their profile pictures, too. Scary.