David Goodwillie ruling (not available for team selection)

[Heathrow Green]

I'm with x isle on this. A very uncomfortable discussion and not something I think should be on the main forum. But then where do you put it.

From my point of view, criminally he's clean, but the civil action has gone against him. Which is a down mark but not a critical black mark against him.

Has he bought the club into disrepute? I don't think so. All these actions come from before he joins the club.

It is down to what he does next and what the legal bods at Argyle say. Even then it's now a legal mine field that that Argyle find themselves in. But given that the potential ruling was known a few months ago (he was warned to put the money aside) those with the legal knowledge should have been giving Argyle advise about what to expect.

 

[Verte]

Argyle knew this was in the pipeline when signing him. That speaks volumes. Horrible situation though.

 

[Cobi Budge]

Is this the end of the case? Can anything still happen from here?

 

[nick623]

Straight away Luke is being drawn into the Goodwillie story and comparisons made. This is very unfair as the two cases are completely different. I am not sure how long DG has left on his contract, but I believe it is up at the end of the season (stand corrected). I cannot see him being able to play for the club again with the ruling made, even if he has not committed a criminal act. He has been found guilty of a civil offence and is going to have to pay hefty damages to the victim (unless he appeals the decision and wins the verdict). A civil offence like this is a very serious matter. I am not a lawyer but if I was PAFC and wanted to resolve the matter fast I would pay up the remaining months on his contract. This would allow both parties to move on and for DG to make a fresh start somewhere else if he chose to do so.

 

[harry's sandwich]

Just had a quick trawl through social media and some of the stuff being said is making the club look like a joke!
I've always wanted him to do well at the club, but for me in these circumstances he will have to go.

So trial by social media, what a sad world we live in and what sad people that give such credence to ramblings on social media.

Well that's social media for you; giving a platform to a bunch of ill-informed fools with too much time on their hands..............Oh hang on.

 

[nick_PASTIE]

As this isn't a conviction and he isn't serving a prison term, and therefore no conviction will become "spent", I don't see how the employer can take action- wouldn't this be classed as constructive dismissal if the club closed his contract? However, Difficult grounds, as employers only have to have "reasonable belief" similar to this civil court, to dismiss someone for serious misconduct. And the normal rules of employment law don't seem to apply to football teams.

That's my only comment on this thread, I don't know all the facts.

 

[chunkymonkey78]

How can you dismiss someone for serious misconduct for an incident that occurred years before employment started?

 

[philmeboots]

Argyle knew this was in the pipeline when signing him. That speaks volumes. Horrible situation though.

Argyle may or may not have known this. Potentially though they may have only known that no charge was forthcoming with the case and that it was not deemed appropriate to take it to criminal court.

 

[philmeboots]

As this isn't a conviction and he isn't serving a prison term, and therefore no conviction will become "spent", I don't see how the employer can take action- wouldn't this be classed as constructive dismissal if the club closed his contract? However, Difficult grounds, as employers only have to have "reasonable belief" similar to this civil court, to dismiss someone for serious misconduct. And the normal rules of employment law don't seem to apply to football teams.

That's my only comment on this thread, I don't know all the facts.

Not constructive dismissal as that is when you make things tough enough for an employee that you in effect "force" them to resign. It would be unfair dismissal.

 

[chunkymonkey78]

I'm a bit confused.

Firstly, in the law. So there isn't enough burden of proof for a criminal case to be constructed. Yet you can still obtained a similar verdict in a civil case. The only difference is that a fine is paid, rather than a sentence being served. If he wasn't David Goodwillie the professional football and your "average joe" on the street then how is this system beneficial for a victim because surely the compensation is in relation to the earnings of the person convicted. So surely only high profile cases are pursued because how else will the victim get a reasonable amount of compensation? Yet how can you put an amount of money on acting as "compensation" instead of getting a criminal court verdict. Why is there a situation where you can be found guilty on a different level for a very serious offense.

Why does the burden of proof have to be different to result in the court calling this man "a rapist"? Whether it was a criminal or civil case the outcome seems to be that, should you lose, that is what results, even if there are different levels of proof required in a civil or criminal court.

Ched Evans always maintained his innocence. Even after a verdict and people in the media said he should say sorry to the victim. Yet he maintained he did not commit a crime. So my other issue is the compensation. It says in the article David Goodwillie has agreed to pay the compensation I believe? So maybe he wants the whole thing over with. However, if I was innocent I would be fighting it this tooth and nail and would refuse to pay. Is this an admission of guilt?

I would like to know in a statement from him why he has agreed to pay it. If in fact he has!!

I read about this case when we first signed him and have just been over some of it again, makes for some interesting reading.

The £100k he's paid is a legal bond according to one article, something he had to sell his house to raise.

 

[IJN]

Our resident lawyer is getting jumpy about this thread.

It may have to be pulled chaps.

We cannot out this site at risk.

Be careful please.

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

I'm a bit confused.

Firstly, in the law. So there isn't enough burden of proof for a criminal case to be constructed. Yet you can still obtained a similar verdict in a civil case. The only difference is that a fine is paid, rather than a sentence being served. If he wasn't David Goodwillie the professional football and your "average joe" on the street then how is this system beneficial for a victim because surely the compensation is in relation to the earnings of the person convicted. So surely only high profile cases are pursued because how else will the victim get a reasonable amount of compensation? Yet how can you put an amount of money on acting as "compensation" instead of getting a criminal court verdict. Why is there a situation where you can be found guilty on a different level for a very serious offense.

Why does the burden of proof have to be different to result in the court calling this man "a rapist"? Whether it was a criminal or civil case the outcome seems to be that, should you lose, that is what results, even if there are different levels of proof required in a civil or criminal court.

Ched Evans always maintained his innocence. Even after a verdict and people in the media said he should say sorry to the victim. Yet he maintained he did not commit a crime. So my other issue is the compensation. It says in the article David Goodwillie has agreed to pay the compensation I believe? So maybe he wants the whole thing over with. However, if I was innocent I would be fighting it this tooth and nail and would refuse to pay. Is this an admission of guilt?

I would like to know in a statement from him why he has agreed to pay it. If in fact he has!!

I read about this case when we first signed him and have just been over some of it again, makes for some interesting reading.

The £100k he's paid is a legal bond according to one article, something he had to sell his house to raise.

Fair enough. I'm just quoting the BBC article which states "The 30-year-old originally sought £500,000 in compensation, but damages were later agreed at £100,000 in the civil action at the Court of Session in Edinburgh."

Anyhow, if people are getting jumpy I guess its best to stop commenting.

 

[samjones]

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

 

[IJN]

This one is now locked overnight.

Our legal expert has advised us that this is the safest option.

It might get re-opened tomorrow at some stage.

 

[Site Manager]

Goodwillie has published a statement so we've re-opened this thread but will still monitor comments.

"I have spent the last six years and every penny I have fighting the allegations against me.

"I hoped that the Opinion of Lord Armstrong would allow me finally to draw a line under this and move on with my life. I am devastated by his Opinion.

"Over two days in the witness box I spoke honestly and truthfully and gave a detailed account [including under cross examination] about everything that happened on the evening of January 1 and early morning of January 2, 2011.

"I am struggling to understand why the judge has discounted my evidence and all of the other evidence of those who have said what they saw or heard that morning. I am currently taking advice on what options are open to me regarding lodging an appeal.

"As a 21-year-old I acted immaturely, naively and probably not as respectfully or with the same consideration towards someone I was with as I could have, and if that was the case I apologise for that.

"However, everything that happened that night happened consensually. I would not and did not take advantage of Denise Clair and I did not rape her because she was too drunk to consent."