David Goodwillie (3 Viewers)

13th_choice_seamer

Well-Known Member
(firstly let's get the joke out of the way - yes, his surname is rather inappropriate given his alleged actions)


Does anyone else think it's strange that there was outrage when he signed for Raith (and also now loaned to Clyde) but not whilst he was spending the first half of the season playing for Clyde and doing well? Has Sturgeon only just noticed that he's already been playing for Clyde for 4 years since the ruling went against him? Sounds like someone is jumping on a bandwagon....

A totally separate debate is whether he should be entitled to play but that's not the question I am asking here.
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
Imo he shouldn't play, but Luke McCormick, Lee hughes, Ched Evans, Marlon King, Marcus Alonso etc so many examples of scum who get a second opportunity. The argument is they've served their time and continue in other walks of life, but these are serious charges not petty crime.

On your point don't worry about Sturgeon, she'll pop up on any bandwagon for a sound byte and publicity.
 

David O'Day

Well-Known Member
(firstly let's get the joke out of the way - yes, his surname is rather inappropriate given his alleged actions)


Does anyone else think it's strange that there was outrage when he signed for Raith (and also now loaned to Clyde) but not whilst he was spending the first half of the season playing for Clyde and doing well? Has Sturgeon only just noticed that he's already been playing for Clyde for 4 years since the ruling went against him? Sounds like someone is jumping on a bandwagon....

A totally separate debate is whether he should be entitled to play but that's not the question I am asking here.

Clyde got rightly hammered when they signed him
 

13th_choice_seamer

Well-Known Member
I'm sure the various news outlets are checking the legals pretty carefully - after all, he has never been convicted in a criminal court. Not sure what the civil case verdict means for how he can be described (other than "not a racist") obviously.
 

napolimp

Well-Known Member
As a club it would at least make some sense if the situation was something like "we have the opportunity to sign last years ballon d'or winner, but he's a convicted rapist so there will be backlash". But when the situation is "we have the opportunity to sign a 32 year old lower league journeyman, who only has a decent scoring record in the pits of lower league Scottish football, but he's a convicted rapist" - I don't really get what the conundrum is.
 

13th_choice_seamer

Well-Known Member

Now all the womens' team have resigned and the council, who own the ground, intend to kick Clyde out of the ground if they pick him.

You do wonder if these people are aware he played for Clyde for 5 years after the rape verdict until he signed for Raith Rovers last month.
 

Jesse Carver

Well-Known Member

Now all the womens' team have resigned and the council, who own the ground, intend to kick Clyde out of the ground if they pick him.

You do wonder if these people are aware he played for Clyde for 5 years after the rape verdict until he signed for Raith Rovers last month.


Loan terminated after North Lanarkshire Council banned him from the stadium.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
You do wonder if these people are aware he played for Clyde for 5 years after the rape verdict until he signed for Raith Rovers last month.
I do agree with that. Not sure he should have been signed all that time ago, but he was also club captain for a while! There is an argument that late action is better than none at all, but it does seem a bit late!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top