David Goodwillie ruling (not available for team selection)

[Biggs]

Just had a quick trawl through social media and some of the stuff being said is making the club look like a joke!

How so? What are Argyle meant to do?

Most tweets I've seen are by uninformed idiots making jokes about his name, hysterical statements or vile references to Luke McCormick.

 

[stanners222]

I'd say people calling the club 'vile' and 'scum' making reference to being a club who employ convicted criminals while tagging them to the clubs official pages is making the club look stupid.
Exactly the bad PR we don't need!

 

[Biggs]

I'd say people calling the club 'vile' and 'scum' making reference to being a club who employ convicted criminals while tagging them to the clubs official pages is making the club look stupid.
Exactly the bad PR we don't need!

Two points there...

1) those people are typical Twitter idiots and we shouldn't pander to them

2) Goodwillie is not a convicted criminal

 

[HC Green]

I'd say people calling the club 'vile' and 'scum' making reference to being a club who employ convicted criminals while tagging them to the clubs official pages is making the club look stupid.
Exactly the bad PR we don't need!

Are they doing the same for the other chap?

 

[stanners222]

I'd say people calling the club 'vile' and 'scum' making reference to being a club who employ convicted criminals while tagging them to the clubs official pages is making the club look stupid.
Exactly the bad PR we don't need!

Are they doing the same for the other chap?

Funnily enough he isn't, but I'm not bothered about someone who doesn't represent our club.

 

[German Shepherd]

Did Argyle employ him knowing this was hanging over his head ? Because if that were the case, they must have known this could be the outcome with the inevitable ensuing mess.

 

[monkeywrench]

Did Argyle employ him knowing this was hanging over his head ? Because if that were the case, they must have known this could be the outcome with the inevitable ensuing mess.

It was made public on here not long after.

 

[esmer]

What would appear to be damming in this case is the evidence of the nightclub bouncer that the woman could not talk or stand and was in his opinion compos mentis before she got in the taxi with Goodwillie and his friend. There was never such evidence in the Chet Evans case. There is drunk and there is drunk. On the other hand Goodwillie is guilty in the eyes of one man (the judge), not the law.

 

[HC Green]

I'd say people calling the club 'vile' and 'scum' making reference to being a club who employ convicted criminals while tagging them to the clubs official pages is making the club look stupid.
Exactly the bad PR we don't need!

Are they doing the same for the other chap?

Funnily enough he isn't, but I'm not bothered about someone who doesn't represent our club.

So you respect the views of nameless keyboard warriors who don't realise two people were judged calpable and are who just abusing one of them.

 

[Abbotts Ann Green]

Sorry Esmer but he is guilty under law, although it is civil law and not criminal law but that makes no difference.

I hate to say it but the sooner we are rid the better.

 

[Biggs]

Sorry Esmer but he is guilty under law, although it is civil law and not criminal law but that makes no difference.

Of course it does :banghead:

It could well still be enough for Argyle to cut ties, but there is a big difference between civil law and criminal law.

 

[Evilpilgrim]

The criminal court couldnt find enough evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt, but the civil court has decided he is 'probably' guilty? If £100k Is the penalty (and he pays it) then surely its the same logic as was applied to Luke except DG gets no criminal record. If 100k is deemed punishment enough by the court, then should he not be considered the same as a released prisoner who has served his time? I doubt he could be sacked on 'probably' without there being some legal comeback and big compensation. I am in no way defending or condemning him btw.

 

[stanners222]

I see the PASOTI legal 'experts' are out in force today!

 

[HC Green]

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.

The civil action against the two men started in 2013. A quick google search would have brought up a number of articles, plus he would have needed to tell the Club that he would need time off to go back to Scotland to attend hearings so it is inconceivable especially with Adam's reputation for being meticulous that the Club wasn't aware.

 

[Biggs]

I see the PASOTI legal 'experts' are out in force today!

Ah, I forgot. We don't like experts any more do we? Or people who are actually concerned with the facts, rather than frothing with rage at a keyboard.

In a previous post, you referred to Argyle looking stupid and a club that 'employ convicted criminals (plural)' so your opinion is worth precisely zilch :thumbup: