Adam Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 Mate, I totally agree, but surely if we’re looking at saying Ally Love is undesirable, without a criminal conviction, then we will be saying Griffiths is a step beyond that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorky Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 53 minutes ago, Adam said: Neither was Goodwillie. NLC are setting a precedent, that is potentially difficult to return from. Leigh Griffiths was convicted, in a criminal court, of racial abuse. He has been accused, although not convicted of, soliciting a child under 16. If that isn’t an undesirable individual I don’t know what is. I hope NLC think seriously about allowing Griffiths access to Broadwood tomorrow given the precedent now set by them. My point was Griffith was not charged with any offence related to children. Given that he can’t be labelled the way he has been above. I’m not trying to defend him as an individual. Look at it this way if a neighbour of yours accused you of offences against underage children and you were not charged with it would you be happy being labelled that way ?. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 minute ago, Adam said: Mate, I totally agree, but surely if we’re looking at saying Ally Love is undesirable, without a criminal conviction, then we will be saying Griffiths is a step beyond that? So are you saying NLC should ban any fan who also has a criminal conviction? That’ll take out the majority of Cumbernauld. Some amount of whatabouterry going on. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 My point was Griffith was not charged with any offence related to children. Given that he can’t be labelled the way he has been above. I’m not trying to defend him as an individual. Look at it this way if a neighbour of yours accused you of offences against underage children and you were not charged with it would you be happy being labelled that way ?. I’m not really talking about the alleged messages between Griffiths and a child, I’m looking at the undesirable viewpoint NLC are looking at. Whether he sent these messages or not, Griffiths is a convicted, racist scumbag who, if we’re now looking to bar people from Broadwood, should be top of the list. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 So are you saying NLC should ban any fan who also has a criminal conviction? That’ll take out the majority of Cumbernauld. Some amount of whatabouterry going on. I’m basically saying that NLC need to keep the playing field even. Do we have a tier logic behind this? Rape - life ban from Broadwood and other NLC facilities, assault - perhaps a 6 month ban? It needs to be clear, for all clubs that are in council owned stadia, so they know who they can and can’t sign. -6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gav-ffc Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 23 minutes ago, Adam said: I’m basically saying that NLC need to keep the playing field even. Do we have a tier logic behind this? Rape - life ban from Broadwood and other NLC facilities, assault - perhaps a 6 month ban? It needs to be clear, for all clubs that are in council owned stadia, so they know who they can and can’t sign. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 hour ago, Adam said: Neither was Goodwillie. NLC are setting a precedent, that is potentially difficult to return from. Leigh Griffiths was convicted, in a criminal court, of racial abuse. He has been accused, although not convicted of, soliciting a child under 16. If that isn’t an undesirable individual I don’t know what is. I hope NLC think seriously about allowing Griffiths access to Broadwood tomorrow given the precedent now set by them. I thought Goodwillie and Robertson were charged by the police. It was the Fiscal who decided not to proceed with the prosecution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 12 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: I thought Goodwillie and Robertson were charged by the police. It was the Fiscal who decided not to proceed with the prosecution. I had a look there and Goodwillie was charged but later dropped. Robertson was never charged. Not really sure what the legal difference is. Also found out that Goodwillie tried to represent himself so that he could personally interrogate his victim, but the judge wouldn’t allow it. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/17/david-goodwillie-david-robertson-judge-rules-raped-woman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenmavis Diamond Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 Just be grateful that you don't have a club name that can easily be altered to something unforgettable such as Rape Rovers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 3 minutes ago, Glenmavis Diamond said: Just be grateful that you don't have a club name that can easily be altered to something unforgettable such as Rape Rovers. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Sark Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 Whatever your view on David Goodwillie or the fact he's played with us the last 5 years... we all know the decision to bring him back after the Raith social media furore last month was ridiculous. The understatement of the century. The club has been led in a terrible direction by incompetent board members and a "supporters" club which only cares about their favourite player. The only way forward for us is to have a clear remorseful stance on the whole situation and those who made these decisions held accountable with immediate comment and resignations when the correct replacements are found. The termination of Mr Goodwillies contract was inevitable after the councils stance but was relieved to see we finally made a correct decision, albeit a forced one. The club has been dragged through the mud enough, it's time we got rid of those who put the future of the club at risk and move on from this whole nightmare. Better hope those relocation working groups have been busy... 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde01 Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 I’ve made my position on DG coming back to Clyde abundantly clear on this thread but I’ve been thinking more about the NLC statement.Aren’t all player registrations ratified by the SFA? If so then the SFA have no objection to DG being a footballer at one of their member clubs.Do the SFA vet players before giving their registration the green light? If the SFA have signed off on DG as a footballer surely NLC can’t block him from doing his job. What do the SFA make of this?Is DG a PFA member?Surely the PFA can also make a case that one of their members is being blocked from working.I’m not sure the NLC threat actually holds any water and I’m not sure it would stand up to any form of challenge. It just seems like cheap opportunism from them more than anything.In saying that I am extremely glad we didn’t double down on challenging it, he should never have been back here in the first place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 Whatever your view on David Goodwillie or the fact he's played with us the last 5 years... we all know the decision to bring him back after the Raith social media furore last month was ridiculous. The understatement of the century. The club has been led in a terrible direction by incompetent board members and a "supporters" club which only cares about their favourite player. The only way forward for us is to have a clear remorseful stance on the whole situation and those who made these decisions held accountable with immediate comment and resignations when the correct replacements are found. The termination of Mr Goodwillies contract was inevitable after the councils stance but was relieved to see we finally made a correct decision, albeit a forced one. The club has been dragged through the mud enough, it's time we got rid of those who put the future of the club at risk and move on from this whole nightmare. Better hope those relocation working groups have been busy... Good post.My only worry would be some of the same idiots would be on the relocation working group and we'd end up in Ukraine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBR Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 52 minutes ago, Zen Archer (Raconteur) said: That’s astonishing (assuming it’s for real, though it looks genuine). Wrong war and wrong side or is it just being “inclusive”? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz5 Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 I’ve made my position on DG coming back to Clyde abundantly clear on this thread but I’ve been thinking more about the NLC statement.Aren’t all player registrations ratified by the SFA? If so then the SFA have no objection to DG being a footballer at one of their member clubs.Do the SFA vet players before giving their registration the green light? If the SFA have signed off on DG as a footballer surely NLC can’t block him from doing his job. What do the SFA make of this?Is DG a PFA member?Surely the PFA can also make a case that one of their members is being blocked from working.I’m not sure the NLC threat actually holds any water and I’m not sure it would stand up to any form of challenge. It just seems like cheap opportunism from them more than anything.In saying that I am extremely glad we didn’t double down on challenging it, he should never have been back here in the first place.I said it earlier in the thread, this is a simple contractual dispute between supplier (ground) and consumer (Clyde). It's nothing to do with registrations or the SFA.NLC aren't saying Clyde can't sign or register anyone, they're saying that one of said players is not welcome inside their premises and that it would be considered a breach of current contract if he did, resulting in termination.Like it or not, if you have a supplier you're bound by their terms with the leverage they have over you being termination if you don't adhere. Dont like the contract, find another supplier or buy your own supply. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 1 hour ago, WBR said: That’s astonishing (assuming it’s for real, though it looks genuine). Wrong war and wrong side or is it just being “inclusive”? It is genuine; it was a mistake for which they apologised profusely. (It was very funny.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kempes Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 The decision to sign DG in 2017 was ridiculous. The board of directors should have been forced to walk for that decision alone. They deserve everything that is coming their way and so do those who made excuses for a rapist on the basis that he could score some goals and save their club. Oh, the irony! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chapelhall chap Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Yoss said: It is genuine; it was a mistake for which they apologised profusely. (It was very funny.) I was at the game that day and had bought the programme and it was so obvious that some guy had no idea that it was Wermacht troops, probably our then chairman had sent an underling to search the internet. I may still have it somewhere in the loft. It did get the club some grief from my other footballing mates. Edited March 4, 2022 by Chapelhall chap Spelling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theroadlesstravelled Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 3 hours ago, Adam said: I’m basically saying that NLC need to keep the playing field even. Do we have a tier logic behind this? Rape - life ban from Broadwood and other NLC facilities, assault - perhaps a 6 month ban? It needs to be clear, for all clubs that are in council owned stadia, so they know who they can and can’t sign. Don't sign an unapologetic rapist. Seems clear tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 Don't sign an unapologetic rapist. Seems clear tbh.Sensational input mate, thanks for that. -7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.