The New Raith Rovers Thread

[roverthemoon]

14 minutes ago, raith1974 said:

John Sim has done a great deal of good for the club.

Presume this is said with the caveat ‘up until he completely fucked the club last Monday night’ 

[craigkillie]

I think the idea of a "fit and proper person" test for every single signed player in Scottish football is one of these things that comes from a good place and sounds sensible on paper, but is totally unworkable. I can't see how it can be implemented in any sort of practical way.

[roverthemoon]

38 minutes ago, John MacLean said:

If you needed evidence that there is a institutionalised misogyny deep in the core of Scottish football you need only need to read some of the contributions on this thread.

You can tell yourself that society is becoming much more progressive and we’ll reach a point where this sort of shit is a thing of the past, or at least be confined to the margins, but the last 10 days has shown that’s not going to happen. It’s actually incredibly depressing.

[Beastie Russell]

9 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I think the idea of a "fit and proper person" test for every single signed player in Scottish football is one of these things that comes from a good place and sounds sensible on paper, but is totally unworkable. I can't see how it can be implemented in any sort of practical way.

Spot on

The definition of what would be acceptable or not would cause issues.

At a higher level would Marcos Alonso be allowed to play ?

[Michael W]

With respect, no-one asked John Sim to redevelop the railway stand. Doing so (whenever it happens) is so far removed from the club's priorities right now, quite frankly. And is the money genuinely coming from 'John Sim', or is it going to be yet another big entry in the liability column of the balance sheet of the club or Stark's Park Properties? 

It is acknowledged that Sim has done a lot of good for the club. As has been pointed out before, the club would not be here without him. Indeed, we owe him a lot of money as well, that he has not asked for to be repaid. Without him, the club wouldn't be here. 

This does not disqualify him from criticism - he has fucked up massively here and the damage he's done is in all liklihood going to extend to far more than the £200k this signing has cost the club. I get that the fans don't sign the players, but to ignore dozens of emails objecting to the signing of a rapist -let alone clear confirmation our main sponsor would withdraw backing - demonstrates a very unwelcoming insight into his thought process. It was a pig-headed, arrogant decision which he then doubled down on, only to capitulate with a mealy-mouthed statement two days later. I don't even believe he is genuinely sorry that this happened. 

This situation was entirely avoidable and no ifs and buts about what Sim has done in the past mitigate this let one make it an error that we can just forget about. It is a long way back from this one and the damage, financial and reputational are going to take a long time to recover from. 

 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Michael W
Typo

[Jacksgranda]

15 hours ago, foreverarover said:

17 hours ago, Jilted John said:

 Change can’t come from within the club without others being able and willing to step in. The whole board can’t walk away and leave no one funding and running the club. A few folk don’t seem to realise this.
Val is someone who has both the finances and the experience needed to help run the club. She’s made plenty of comments about how she loves the club, but is she going to be proactive in trying to turn it around? The same could be said of Gordon Brown. Has money, contacts and very good business sense.
These people have no obligation to help, but I find their supposed love of the club rather questionable when we are struggling and they are sitting on the sidelines watching.

Someone like Gordon Brown will not have the funds to take over a, club.

He should have siphoned off a few quid when he was chancellor...

[Bairnardo]

I think the idea of a "fit and proper person" test for every single signed player in Scottish football is one of these things that comes from a good place and sounds sensible on paper, but is totally unworkable. I can't see how it can be implemented in any sort of practical way.

Kind of already touched on this in the EPL thread due to discussions on other wronguns, but I dont think this should happen.

Im not sure what could even cause you to fail such a test. The whole idea of being a role model is completely subjective and doesnt apply equally to all players.

The test, as I said on the other thread, should really be left to whether or not the fams who are the customers of the clubs are willing to accept it.

[Florentine_Pogen]

What’s the Steve McClaren quote? “Two days in football is a long time and a week is very long time.” ? 
 
Raith Rovers: “Hold my beer”

This needs bumped.

[Binos]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Kind of already touched on this in the EPL thread due to discussions on other wronguns, but I dont think this should happen.

Im not sure what could even cause you to fail such a test. The whole idea of being a role model is completely subjective and doesnt apply equally to all players.

The test, as I said on the other thread, should really be left to whether or not the fams who are the customers of the clubs are willing to accept it.

The number of footballers who could fail it would be as long as your arm

Virtually all footballers to have come from stirling spring to mind

David Goodwillie 

Duncan Ferguson 

Billy Bremner

John bomber Brown (not sure technically committed illegal acts )

[Highlandmagar]

Your scumbag manager not resigned yet?

[Brashy's Boots]

Your scumbag manager not resigned yet?

Sit doon

[Ro Sham Bo]

6 minutes ago, Highlandmagyar Tier 3 said:

Your scumbag manager not resigned yet?

There is so little information coming from the club that's it's not entirely implausible that he resigned on Sunday and nobody has thought to tell us.

[Yoss]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I think the idea of a "fit and proper person" test for every single signed player in Scottish football is one of these things that comes from a good place and sounds sensible on paper, but is totally unworkable. I can't see how it can be implemented in any sort of practical way.

 

1 hour ago, Beastie Russell said:

Spot on

The definition of what would be acceptable or not would cause issues.

At a higher level would Marcos Alonso be allowed to play ?

 

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Kind of already touched on this in the EPL thread due to discussions on other wronguns, but I dont think this should happen.

Im not sure what could even cause you to fail such a test. The whole idea of being a role model is completely subjective and doesnt apply equally to all players.

The test, as I said on the other thread, should really be left to whether or not the fams who are the customers of the clubs are willing to accept it.

I'm unsure about this idea too, despite having floated the idea myself somewhere much earlier in the thread.

But it's not true that there'd be no way of doing it - the way already exists and is used in a variety of professions that we've classed as regulated work for which PVG clearance is required. It would need legislation, but it would not be difficult to add professional football (at, probably, SPFL level) to the list that required regulation.

[GordonD]

18 hours ago, true fan said:

If people don’t want sex offenders at their club that’s fine by me, especially the more significant offences and where there is a lack of contrition, but val - all this about special standards for footballers, come on. It’s not teaching or the medical profession is it?

football players are not role models. It’s a phrase that’s always trotted out but it’s absolute nonsense. If I asked my son whether footballers were his role models he’d wet himself laughing.

it’s a great game to watch but there’s a lot to question about players morally - cynical play like injuring others, feigning injury, diving, screaming in referees faces with bulging neck veins, time wasting. Off the field it’s Betting, boozing, backhanders.

please let’s put this to rest once and for all - they are not role models

So why do clubs sell replica shirts with a player's name on the back, if not because it's somebody the fans admire and look up to?

[LowerLeagueFC]

Just now, GordonD said:

So why do clubs sell replica shirts with a player's name on the back, if not because it's somebody the fans admire and look up to?

the answer to why they sell replica shirts with a players name on the back is... to make money.

[L. Brilliant]

See if you read that Courier article again, it becomes more logical that no one has said anything yet. 

It's inevitable that negative assumptions fill that void - so far by me as much as anyone and i am definitely winding that back somewhat - and this is just another consequence of the original mistake.  

The televised game is likely to be awkward but I don't think there's any way around that now.

[Bairnardo]

12 minutes ago, Yoss said:

 

 

I'm unsure about this idea too, despite having floated the idea myself somewhere much earlier in the thread.

But it's not true that there'd be no way of doing it - the way already exists and is used in a variety of professions that we've classed as regulated work for which PVG clearance is required. It would need legislation, but it would not be difficult to add professional football (at, probably, SPFL level) to the list that required regulation.

Yeah but that works where previous trouble is taken as an indicator that no chances can be taken on letting you work with the most vulnerable in society. 

I dont think this can be legislated in a reasonable way. Anyone convicted and time served has the "debt paid" argument which, though it may not apply to alloweing them to work in a school or a care home, is it appropriate to stop them playing football? 

Adidas might tell Man U they cant sign that guy, but should the government be telling Albion Rovers he cant play PT with them?

I mean, I want David Goodwillie hunted out of Scottish football, im just not convinced that legislation is the correct way to go about it. 

 

[craigkillie]

Goodwillie would presumably pass a PVG anyway given that the only criminal record he has is for some assaults a long time ago.

[Yoss]

4 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Yeah but that works where previous trouble is taken as an indicator that no chances can be taken on letting you work with the most vulnerable in society. 

I dont think this can be legislated in a reasonable way. Anyone convicted and time served has the "debt paid" argument which, though it may not apply to alloweing them to work in a school or a care home, is it appropriate to stop them playing football? 

Adidas might tell Man U they cant sign that guy, but should the government be telling Albion Rovers he cant play PT with them?

I mean, I want David Goodwillie hunted out of Scottish football, im just not convinced that legislation is the correct way to go about it. 

 

I agree it would be a conceptual extension of what constitutes regulated work - it'd be because of the influence we deem them to have over children (or vulnerable people) rather than because they were working directly with them. And I'm not sure how I feel about that either. I was just really responding to the suggestion that it isn't practical. It is, and could be done.

And let me turn it round - suppose someone has convictions or other relevant information on their record such that we already would bar them from certain jobs, such as working in care homes or driving school buses. Is that someone you're happy to allow to play professional football? I'd argue that in practice the profile in involves gives them far greater influence over children than at least some professions that are regulated already.

[Yoss]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

Goodwillie would presumably pass a PVG anyway given that the only criminal record he has is for some assaults a long time ago.

That issue also came up, yeah. And it's not clear. PVGs can include non-conviction information. 

(As already noted, the law in this regard was tightened in response to the Soham murders - Huntley had several reports against him but none of them ended in convictions.)