David Goodwillie ruling (not available for team selection)

[metroace]

He has no criminal record as a result of this case as it was a civil matter. Not an easy decision for the club to make now. If they have no clause allowing employment to be terminated for being the losing defendant in a civil case, then perhaps he may stay. If on the other hand, it is considered to be bringing the club into disrepute, that 'action' in question was prior to his employment with the club. As I said, a difficult decision to make. Glad it is not me that has to make it.

 

[Andy Holland]

Not sure what there is to consider?

You could argue Argyle have set a precedent here and that once the fine has been paid, the case is closed and the situation is no different to LM once time served etc.

You could argue it, but I don't think we will. PR-wise it'd be a nightmare.

 

[Quinny]

I don't understand how he can be cleared by the courts but then told to pay compensation by another. Has he been found guilty or not?

Pretty much the same scenario as with OJ Simpson (except his did go to trial): he was found not guilty of killing his wife, but her family successfully sued him in a civil court case a few years later.

 

[Biggs]

He has no criminal record as a result of this case as it was a civil matter. Not an easy decision for the club to make now. If they have no clause allowing employment to be terminated for being the losing defendant in a civil case, then perhaps he may stay. If on the other hand, it is considered to be bringing the club into disrepute, that 'action' in question was prior to his employment with the club. As I said, a difficult decision to make. Glad it is not me that has to make it.

Very difficult. Personally I would look at the fact the incident was six years ago and look at his conduct since. The negative stories around him seem to have dried up since around 2012 so I'd hope he has changed for the better and Argyle offers him a chance of further rehabilitation.

That's part conjecture though, and clearly I'm biased as an Argyle fan who wants a firing David Goodwillie on our books :sigh:

 

[Penmaster]

Civil action the burden of proof is on 'balance of probabilities'. The CPS would have considered prosecution on getting a conviction based on 'beyond reasonable doubt' so it is much easier to get a verdict for the prosecution at civil court than it is at criminal court.

Edit - that's in England anyway. I assume it's the same in Scotland.

The burden of proof is lower but that doesn't mean it's easy.

It'd be dangerous to dismiss this ruling as not being "valid" in any way, it clearly is.

Yeah I agree which is why I said 'easier' rather than 'easy'.

It is an incredibly difficult one for the club. But this court result would technically never show on CRB check so legally I assume that an employer would not be allowed to prevent employment on the basis of this result. There may be a 'fit and proper' clause in a players contract which the club choose to exercise but aside from that I don't know how the club would stand legally if they chose to end DW contract.

And not dismissing that if it was my family member who had made and proved (all be it at a lower burden of proof than the criminal burden) at court that they were a victim of this allegation then I would be absolutely appalled if the club did not take a robust stance on the matter.

 

[Stan]

You sound relieved Andy, not a fan ?

 

[xmastree]

He has no criminal record as a result of this case as it was a civil matter. Not an easy decision for the club to make now. If they have no clause allowing employment to be terminated for being the losing defendant in a civil case, then perhaps he may stay. If on the other hand, it is considered to be bringing the club into disrepute, that 'action' in question was prior to his employment with the club. As I said, a difficult decision to make. Glad it is not me that has to make it.

Very difficult. Personally I would look at the fact the incident was six years ago and look at his conduct since. The negative stories around him seem to have dried up since around 2012 so I'd hope he has changed for the better and Argyle offers him a chance of further rehabilitation.

That's part conjecture though, and clearly I'm biased as an Argyle fan who wants a firing David Goodwillie on our books :sigh:

Whilst the offence may have been 6 years ago, the negative story around him now surrounds Argyle as well. We seek to be "a family club" and JB has gone on record as wanting to encourage women to attend. The re-signing of Luke McCormick tarnished Argyle's image in the eyes of some, so to offer DG "a chance of further rehabilitation" could put out a very negative message.

Very difficult for the club. They have done the right thing so far.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Not sure what there is to consider?

You could argue Argyle have set a precedent here and that once the fine has been paid, the case is closed and the situation is no different to LM once time served etc.

I thought the same. Once Goodwillie accepts the decision and pays the fine that should be the end of the matter.

Goodwillie seems a popular player amongst his team mates so hopefully this and any decision the club make does not affect team morale.

 

[Andy Holland]

You sound relieved Andy, not a fan ?

Don't be such an idiot.

 

[Biggs]

Whilst the offence may have been 6 years ago, the negative story around him now surrounds Argyle as well. We seek to be "a family club" and JB has gone on record as wanting to encourage women to attend. The re-signing of Luke McCormick tarnished Argyle's image in the eyes of some, so to offer DG "a chance of further rehabilitation" could put out a very negative message.

On the flipside, if we've signed Luke McCormick after what he had done, surely it would be more than double standards if we didn't continue to employ a player who is actually innocent in a criminal court.

And on a purely footballing level, he's damn sure to give 100% for a club that has stuck by him, if we do give him the chance.

 

[Frazer Lloyd-Davies]

Not sure what there is to consider?

You could argue Argyle have set a precedent here and that once the fine has been paid, the case is closed and the situation is no different to LM once time served etc.

Luke McCormick served time though and David Goodwillie won't. Whilst we can argue both the legal and the moral stand points, this is a difficult situation for the club. With the Ched Evans case fairly recent, I don't think people are just going to let this lie. If you take a look at Twitter, this case is already getting a fair amount negative traction and that's despite breaking during Theresa May's Brexit speech.

 

[Biggs]

Not sure what there is to consider?

You could argue Argyle have set a precedent here and that once the fine has been paid, the case is closed and the situation is no different to LM once time served etc.

Luke McCormick served time though and David Goodwillie won't.

He won't because in a criminal court he has been found innocent. Or rather, the case was dropped due to lack of evidence and Goodwillie himself pursued a defamation action.

 

[justanotherfan]

Did he? Didn`t he? Much the same as in penalty situations, the referee says spot kick so a penalty it is, in this case a Judge in a civil court says rape, so rape it is. Argyles` reaction sounds logical to me. From a footballing point of view I`m a fan, so disappointed. Goodwillie, the victim, all lose.

 

[xmastree]

Whilst the offence may have been 6 years ago, the negative story around him now surrounds Argyle as well. We seek to be "a family club" and JB has gone on record as wanting to encourage women to attend. The re-signing of Luke McCormick tarnished Argyle's image in the eyes of some, so to offer DG "a chance of further rehabilitation" could put out a very negative message.

On the flipside, if we've signed Luke McCormick after what he had done, surely it would be more than double standards if we didn't continue to employ a player who is actually innocent in a criminal court.

And on a purely footballing level, he's damn sure to give 100% for a club that has stuck by him, if we do give him the chance.

The footballing level is pretty irrelevant. It's really not about DG giving 100%, or the morale of the team.

 

[katkin]

This is really hard for the club and i think they've been swift on saying something.

I don't understand how you can be not gulty of having sex without consent criminally (i.e there is not enough evidence i assume) but the convict someone in a civil court. Either you had sex with someone without consent or you didn't