Sergeant Wilson Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, zicoromaines said: Quite interesting that the last time we played Clyde at Broadwood on 19thOct’19 there is a 17 page thread on here filled with the usual suspects who post on here as Raith supporters constantly about how they are looking forward to it, ticking Broadwood off the list, best place to drink beforehand? Not one single mention of anybody not wanting to go and pay Goodwillie’s wages that day, jolly old time had by all it seems lol Did they find anywhere? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, Yoss said: I'm not sure you're right there, given that he was reported and investigated. Non-conviction information can also be included on PVGs, though I'll admit I'm a bit vague on the full detail of what. (That was largely a response to the Ian Huntley case, where there had been several reports about him but none had resulted in convictions.) It can if the authorities deem it relevant. That’s of course open to interpretation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: I thought it depended on the level of check. Matters of character and records of engagement with police and services could appear. Maybe a neighbour dispute that involves a few police visits or the antisocial team would show up, even if there was no formal charges. That would be an enhanced disclosure which is only for specific things like adoption etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, Trogdor said: Has your board been forced out yet? No. There are 4 left and they all voted to sign Goodwillie. The two that voted against resigned yesterday. John Sim has almost complete control over the club so getting rid of them will be a fucking nightmare. It's the only way, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, Left Back said: It can if the authorities deem it relevant. That’s of course open to interpretation. Thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanStarko Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 Only just seen the courier article from after the game on Tuesday with this part; Asked directly if he had a message for those who feel unable to support the club following the signing, McGlynn simply said: “All I can say is: I understand.” Astounding, he understands, but it didn't stop the fud recommending him as a player we should sign. Crazy that he's went from a guy I'd have been happy for the club to give a new contract for as long as he wanted, to a guy who I can't wait to see the back of. Seeing as our club clearly have no intention of backing down, hopefully one of us wins the Euromillions on Friday so we can buy the club and chuck all these fuckwits out the club. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 6 minutes ago, Yoss said: I'm not sure you're right there, given that he was reported and investigated. Non-conviction information can also be included on PVGs, though I'll admit I'm a bit vague on the full detail of what. (That was largely a response to the Ian Huntley case, where there had been several reports about him but none had resulted in convictions.) There is no way that a professional footballer is going to be subject to.a PVG check. The only reason they would be is if they were coaching vulnerable adults or children. It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, football clubs and authorities could only use the disclosure scheme. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 (edited) Not that anything would make signing a rapist OK, obviously, but when he signed for Clyde their statement tried to shine it as part of his rehabilitation. They tried to make them look like the good guys for helping someone better themselves from who he was before. I'm sure we all saw through it but at least they pretended. Raith's statement has been "Lol. Don't care. He scores goals." It's the most tone deaf thing I've ever seen in Scottish fitba. Makes Falkirk's Q&A look sensible. Edited February 2, 2022 by AsimButtHitsASix 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagar Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 19 minutes ago, kingjoey said: He lost the civil case in January 2017 and I think he signed for Clyde a couple of months later. He was at Plymouth then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zicoromaines Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 6 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: Did they find anywhere? nowhere near ground and nowhere good I’m afraid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, strichener said: That would be an enhanced disclosure which is only for specific things like adoption etc. PVG checks include that as well. I think PVG is more stringent as your continually monitored rather than it being a point in time check. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, Michael W said: John Sim has almost complete control over the club so getting rid of them will be a fucking nightmare. It's the only way, though. It'll be a war of attrition but you'll win it. Vote with your feet, keep your money in your pocket and hold the line. They'll only do something when it's hitting them in the pocket. Their double down statement showed that. All the best, I quite like the Rovers and I hope you get your club back. It's horrendous from the outside looking in, I can only imagine how I'd feel if it were Ayr. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_bully_wee Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, strichener said: That would be an enhanced disclosure which is only for specific things like adoption etc. There's also the fact that all the evidence on a file is reviewed to determine a person's suitability for whichever role they're applying to, and there would have to be more arbitrary lines drawn based on what kind of conviction history was deemed acceptable and unacceptable to earn a living from the game with. Given the fact that there is no direct contact with children or vulnerable adults required to be a professional footballer, it would be a colossal can of worms to force through any kind of requirement like this and would cause many more arguments than it'd solve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 3 minutes ago, strichener said: There is no way that a professional footballer is going to be subject to.a PVG check. The only reason they would be is if they were coaching vulnerable adults or children. It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, football clubs and authorities could only use the disclosure scheme. As it stands they could only use basic disclosure. Standard and enhanced are limited to specific professions 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoss Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 5 minutes ago, strichener said: There is no way that a professional footballer is going to be subject to.a PVG check. The only reason they would be is if they were coaching vulnerable adults or children. It is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, football clubs and authorities could only use the disclosure scheme. Well, yes you're right as the law stands. That's why I was suggesting changing or extending it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 7 minutes ago, zicoromaines said: Quite interesting that the last time we played Clyde at Broadwood on 19thOct’19 there is a 17 page thread on here filled with the usual suspects who post on here as Raith supporters constantly about how they are looking forward to it, ticking Broadwood off the list, best place to drink beforehand? Not one single mention of anybody not wanting to go and pay Goodwillie’s wages that day, jolly old time had by all it seems lol I was there (probably the person who said ticking Broadwood off) and shouted abuse at the sex offender. I’d have no problem if away fans chose to follow their team against us it’s hardly their fault we’ve signed an utter scumbag. I’ve also no problem if some choose to boycott and not fund his salary. I have a problem that my club has chosen to employ this scumbag. There’s a bit of a difference giving Clyde £15 to watch my team when they’ve got a scumbag in their team and supporting a team week in week out with the same scumbag playing for you. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 For the legal eagles contributing at the moment. If in future, would it be sensible to ask a prospective signing to disclose any possible skeletons that might be hiding in their bedroom furniture, failing to do so should it arise later be grounds for termination due to harm to reputation of the employer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 1 minute ago, Left Back said: As it stands they could only use basic disclosure. Standard and enhanced are limited to specific professionals. As previously mentioned, they could use PVG. I still need to have a PVG for my job, even though it's at least a couple of years since I've worked directly with a child or vulnerable adult. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 There’s a bit of a difference giving Clyde £15 to watch my team when they’ve got a scumbag in their team and supporting a team week in week out with the same scumbag playing for you. Financially there is a difference. Morally, I beg to differ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1885 Posted February 2, 2022 Share Posted February 2, 2022 For the legal eagles contributing at the moment. If in future, would it be sensible to ask a prospective signing to disclose any possible skeletons that might be hiding in their bedroom furniture, failing to do so should it arise later be grounds for termination due to harm to reputation of the employer.Aye but it was hardly a secret in this case.Had they signed a player and then all this came out, you'd have sympathy. 0 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.