The thing is, unlike thousands of other people who have committed crimes similar or far worse, Marlon King is a professional footballer, a job which inspires adulation from young kids who would give their right arm to be a pro footballer, a job which attracts vast swathes of media attention, and consequently a very public spotlight on footballers' misdemeanours (see one Rooney, Wayne).
I'm not saying it's right, but it's fact: the media are more likely to invest more time in discussing the case of a professional footballer, than one in which a shop-worker was involved- it's only in the case of a really horrific crime (like the mass shootings in Cumbria and Raul Moat) that ordinary people are treated to the intense examinations that footballers occur.
In short, because of this increased media attention in Marlon King (or any other pro footballer, like Lee Bowyer, Lee Hughes e.g.), it's inevitable that more moral arguments are going to surface over a professional footballer and whether he should be given the chance to resume his career/
City Link getting cold feet is a plausible explanation for things being held up: after all, City Link is a high profile company which is looking to overtake mail delivery services like Royal Mail- because of their sponsorship of Coventry City, their profile could be damaged by way of some idiot journalist making the proxy connection: "A criminal plays for Coventry City, and as City Link sponsor Coventry City, ergo City Link must be as bad a company as the criminal playing for Coventry City is a bad man"...something like that, anyway.
There was a similar thing a few months back with WWE, the pro wrestling company.
During their biggest television show, a WWE-contracted wrestler took part in an 'invasion' storyline of the company. In the course of the attack, the wrestler in question 'strangled' a member of staff at ringside using the guy's own tie. Now, whilst initially there was no negative reaction, Mattel, a proud sponsor of the WWE, and makers of plastic toy wrestlers (a big merchandising money maker) saw what happened and immediately feared that by proxy, sales of their products would be threatened if they were seen to be associated with wrestlers who strangle people with their own ties (a particularly connotation especially considering the Chris Benoit murders- look it up on Wikipedia if you don't know what I'm talking about.)
Consequently, the wrestler was fired by the WWE, because of his actions and because of the bad reputation his actions were beginning to attract to the company. This is just a simplistic explanation (lots of other factors were involved), but the point is is that sponsors do have an effects on entertainment businesses: if City Link were to pull out, then Cov would lose a lot of money, and would in the end have to cut the playing staff.
But then again, the wrestler in question has since returned to the WWE, after a decent spell away, so it's entirely possible that if King signs, the whole saga could blow over.
For my part, though, I'm in two minds about the potential signing.
Coventry have wasted a hell of a lot of time on trying to attract King- time we could have spent on trying to secure a half-decent Premier League striker on loan (look at Barnsley's Garry O'Connor move, or Cardiff's acquisition of Andy Keogh/Craig Bellamy), or we could have taken a young foreign striker on, like Derby have done with A. Bueno.
Alternatively, we could have pursued our reputed interest in Anthony Le Fondre, or taken a punt on a proven young striker like Charlie Austin, a guy who deserves a step up to Championship level.
Yet, we've followed none of these options, investing instead on a player approaching the 30 years old mark who has spent considerable amount of time out of the game, due to circumstances that were nothing to do with injury- and, one who if we don't in the end sign him may go to another club altogether!
Plus, his wages appear to be a sticking point-could I suggest that considering King's track record over the years, he should consider forfeiting wages for a while, until his club can trust that he will serve them well, and not cause embarrassment to Coventry City, or whoever he plays for; or is this another case of the double standards tippex9 is railing against? It would save a lot of hassle, either way.
On the other side of the coin, his trial match suggests that he can still find the net, and could hopefully do very well for a club of Coventry's stature- King could adequately challenge all our strikers currently at the club for a place in the first team, encourage them to get their act together, perform well in training and as best they can in matches; he could even help a young striker like Lukas Jutkewicz (spelling?)- whom, whilst he's awesome at penalty taking, is pretty much anonymous on the field otherwise- to improve his game and ultimately the club would be better for that!
I apologise for this long post, but this debate has been raging internally for a long time and I'm sure most City fans are experiencing the same situation, the same problems as I am.
I just hope the whole saga finally ends positively, with a well disciplined Marlon King leading the City attack and scoring dozens of goals, shooting the Sky Blues up the Championship table- well, I can dream, can't I?
