CLYDE FC Season 2017-18 Thread

[Clyde01]

Can't wait for you scumbags to be toiling in the lower tiers of the pyramid. Poetic justice

You been asleep the last 10 years champ?

[DeanMck]

Thought Inness spoke very well indeed. Sounds a great businessman.

He said Clyde are going to be taking on all the catering at match days now meaning all profit made from pie sales etc are ours. It’s taken us my whole life time for us to even get near that ! Bravo. 

All links to the colts and NLL are better than ever he says. 

We will engage further with local business’s and companies in Cumbernauld after new year. He is also keen to go visit local schools etc with Danny Lennon. 

Chapman had to go because the club are trying to set high standards on and off the park and the product on show wasn’t this. Therefore he had to get rid. Also Chapman signed these Annan duds and gave them more money with us than they got at Annan!

And Munro has already been talked about on this thread I see. 

[Only one David Marsh]

Has Lennon had contact with burbridge? Would hope he can convince him to return if it was Chapman that pissed him off 

[Clyde soccer trendy]

Can't wait for you scumbags to be toiling in the lower tiers of the pyramid. Poetic justice

Shut up ya Greenock tramp [emoji1360]

[BB_Bino]

Clyde are going to be taking on all the catering at match days now meaning all profit made from pie sales etc are ours. It’s taken us my whole life time for us to even get near that ! Bravo. 

As a regular visitor (as an away fan) that’s fantastic news. That Burger Van at the side of the pitch is/was rotten. Thankfully, the last couple of times at Broadwood I have managed to bring food in with me (mad dash from my sons football to games means little time for eating, if any) which has eased the pain.

[haufdaft]

He said Clyde are going to be taking on all the catering at match days now meaning all profit made from pie sales etc are ours. It’s taken us my whole life time for us to even get near that ! Bravo. 

Agreed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did he not also say that it wasn't just matchdays and that the club will take over all catering and hospitality at the stadium? This includes weddings and events.

Thus we'll get a cut financially in these too.

[FREDDYFRY]

He did say that; it was a surprise to me, but seems quite an innovative income stream if it works. 

[Homer Thompson]

17 hours ago, Clyde01 said:

There are so many elements of this case that don’t sit easily with branding someone a rapist as an outcome.

At no point throughout the evening of flirting, touching, enjoying each other’s company, did the victim seem concerned or attempt to leave the company.

The accused were drinking too and at no point was consent not given, so were they in an inebriated state to make that call (clearly yes but another grey area).

There is a distinct whiff of looking to absolve oneself of any responsibility about the whole thing. If I get hammered and murder someone, drive a car etc is the fact I was paralytic an excuse? What if a guy gets absolutely wasted has sex with a girl and then wishes he hadn’t done it when he sobers up? Where does a drunken misjudgement become something more.

Someone being raped is likely to be more distressed than ‘making normal sex noises’ and shouting things like ‘don’t cum inside me’.

Also where is the logic in the day after the appeal was lost getting involved in a front page national news article trying to lose the guy his job. You want the money but don’t want him to be able to earn?

Theres a victim blaming bingo full house right there.

[BrigtonClyde]

21 hours ago, Sarto Mutiny said:

Thanks. Whatever else I may have accused you of, I cannot fault your use of copy and paste. Textbook.

It's interesting that you use the fact that civil courts should not be competent to try criminal matters, given that this was an argument that not even the lawyers for the two footballers made. Indeed, (seeing as I can use copy and paste too) if you read the judgement, paragraph 267 explicitly states that neither party disputes that rape is an actionable civil wrong. You'd think that their lawyer might have at least tried to argue otherwise, given how sure you seem to be. In other similar cases, although admittedly there haven't been that many, lawyers generally will try to at least argue that the court should not be trying what is, as you say, essentially a criminal matter given that the burden of proof is no much lower in civil cases. I'm surprised someone as obviously clued up as yourself missed that tbh.

It was addressed and taken into consideration in the summing up, as you can see below. It's also worth remembering that three Court of Session judges saw nothing wrong with this application of the law, and I would suggest that they know a hell of a lot more about it that you or I.

Just to clarify a couple things in all of your post, I have never at any point said the accused was innocent or guilty.  I stated that I have no idea what happened that night, and that is also based on having read the verdict in full.  So it's wrong to suggest that I'm looking to specifically defend him, I was putting a case of this kind into the broader context of what is happening within our criminal justice system which should be of concern to everyone.

Secondly, I haven't copied and pasted anything.  I don't need to.

The fact that both the prosecution and defence agree that what has already been stipulated in law, ie that a civil court can consider such a case because the alleged offence is deemed to be a civil wrong is a formality.  That doesn't mean to say that it's "good law" given the severity of the allegation, relative lack of required evidence by comparison to a criminal case and therefore potential consequences at the very least in terms of reputation.  It's for that reason I've said that I don't believe civil courts are appropriate in a number of cases.  I didn't say that that they were ineligable to hear the case.  

So your many assumptions about my position are, again, mistaken.  For someone with a law degree, I'd expect you to at least be able to read.   

Where probably everyone is agreed is that all will have their own thoughts on it, many have had their say, and most have heard enough.  Time to return this to a football forum

 

 

 

 

 

[Harry Haddock]

Jeez and there was me thinking we had got back to talking about football issues.

It matters not what anybody says re Goodwillie.Time to get back to football matters.

[DeanMck]

5 hours ago, haufdaft said:

 

Agreed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but did he not also say that it wasn't just matchdays and that the club will take over all catering and hospitality at the stadium? This includes weddings and events.

Thus we'll get a cut financially in these too.

 

Correct that’s what he said ! Possibly quite a lot of money to be made from this although I don’t know how many weddings and events happen. 

[clyde_r_us]

19 hours ago, Finch road said:

Can't wait for you scumbags to be toiling in the lower tiers of the pyramid. Poetic justice

Why, what harm did we do to Morton??

[Sao Paulo]

There's been a nauseating amount of piety and self-purification indulged in over the course of the last four pages of this thread.

Some has come from Clyde supporters, childishly lording it over other Clyde supporters' ignorance of legal process and language; this was never done to make an important moral point, only to show off. And then there were contributions from supporters of other clubs, inviting Clyde supporters to do fatuously formalistic things like 'distance themselves' from Goodwillie. What's doubly pathetic is that these outpourings come now, following an unsuccessful appeal; readers of this thread are supposed to believe that the moral reasoning of football fans is so sophisticated and judicious that it waits for the opinion of an appellate court before revealing itself. Aye...

My moral opinion has only two simple strands. One: if you're a decent bloke, you wouldn't go near a lassie with a drink in her; drunk women are fantastically unattractive precisely by fact of being less inhibited and in-control than they otherwise would be. Two: if you think the state should be limited in its powers to remove or restrict liberty, it should probably follow that you don't think it - or an individual appealing to its power - should have more than one chance to prove the same point. In English: if a prosecution is implausible, unsuccessful or decided-against - with some extremely narrow exceptions - there oughtn't to be another state-sponsored means to the end of having a person punished for an alleged act. This is all the more true when the alleged act is something as horrendous as rape, and any successful 'second-try' results in someone having an ordinarily criminal libel attributed to him, without enjoying the protections of a criminal process. I'd invite anyone reading to think as much about the sickening injustice of rape without punishment as the sickening fear that someone had a right, exercisable at their will and at any time over a number of years, to have you hauled up before a court and ruined with only meagre evidence. Just as rape victims who aren't believed take their lives, so do accused persons; sometimes even after acquittal.

If there's anyone to condemn in certain terms here, it's those commentating with certainty about what happened. That lot would happily weigh the scales the other way: so that process erred on the side of the guilty, bringing as many innocents with them as was expedient.

[haufdaft]

Surely it comes down to one thing.

 

Should a professional footballer be prevented from carrying out his trade?

The answer is No

 

It's irrelevant whether he's been found guilty or not.

 

It's no different from a electrician, plumber or labourer.

 

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

58 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

Surely it comes down to one thing.

 

Should a professional footballer be prevented from carrying out his trade?

The answer is No

 

It's irrelevant whether he's been found guilty or not.

 

It's no different from a electrician, plumber or labourer.

 

 

Which was never the argument.

[haufdaft]

Which was never the argument.

Some have stated previously that they are uncomfortable with him playing for Clyde.

You're correct, though, in thinking it shouldn't be an argument.

[Sergeant Wilson]

45 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

 

Some have stated previously that they are uncomfortable with him playing for Clyde.

You're correct, though, in thinking it shouldn't be an argument.

 

I didn't say that.

[haufdaft]

I didn't say that.

So you think he should be prevented from playing?

[Sergeant Wilson]

Just now, haufdaft said:

 

So you think he should be prevented from playing?

 

Not necessarily.

[BullyWeeLad]

Whatever the fans say won’t make a difference it’s out of our control, the club have gave him a 2 year deal he’s here for at least 2 year.. if the club sacked him tomorrow I’d understand but if not he’s a Clyde player and I’ll cheer him like I do any other Clyde player.