Leicesterlichtie Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Could only think that Clyde would likely be the only club to take him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 14 minutes ago, Michael W said: Don't really see how sponsors associated with Clyde can now be repulsed with this since he played there five years and they tolerated it. Maybe not repulsed (your term) but the stink will be bigger now and this is the important part, it's spread beyond the football community there's no going back to January, sponsorship is about generating goodwill (sic) and if it starts to have the opposite effect then sponsors may change their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Against The Machine said: Just for clarity, in no way does this make any kind of amends for the decision makers at Stark's Park. It's about as satisfactory a way as possible to draw a line under the whole affair, but questions must still be asked of the board and they must still be held accountable. I know you've partly addressed this with saying questions still need to be asked and in any case there's no hive mind of Raith fans so opinions will differ, but do you reckon this does draw a line under the whole thing for most fans who were still staying away? Obviously some fans and volunteers had already returned on the grounds that he was never going to play for the club regardless of him leaving or not, but d'you reckon there will still be people staying away until McGlynn and/or board members go as well having made the decision in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raith Against The Machine Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 3 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said: I know you've partly addressed this with saying questions still need to be asked and in any case there's no hive mind of Raith fans so opinions will differ, but do you reckon this does draw a line under the whole thing for most fans who were still staying away? Obviously some fans and volunteers had already returned on the grounds that he was never going to play for the club regardless of him leaving or not, but d'you reckon there will still be people staying away until McGlynn and/or board members go as well having made the decision in the first place? I was back at my first game at Stark's on Saturday, and it didn't feel noticeably sparser than usual. I think for most people who abstained, it was Goodwillie's presence in the team that was the red line. All power to those who won't be back until everyone involved is gone, though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Personally I think we’ve torched the goodwill/occasional supporter, at least until either time passes or we do something good on the park. The hardcore are virtually all back, in varying degrees of reluctance. Saturday was also my first game back and I really enjoyed it. If season tickets were on sale tomorrow, would I be snapping one up? Less sure. Probably but I think I’d like to see some change in the boardroom first - plenty time for it to be sorted out. Today is another small step forward for the club I’d say. Thus far I’ve been surprised at the level of backlash at Clyde - I expected a bit of a shrug from the general media with more important stories to cover, but seeing it as the second story on Reporting Scotland behind war in Ukraine feels surreal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 32 minutes ago, btb said: Maybe not repulsed (your term) but the stink will be bigger now and this is the important part, it's spread beyond the football community there's no going back to January, sponsorship is about generating goodwill (sic) and if it starts to have the opposite effect then sponsors may change their views. It looks like I am wrong. Fair play to them, but they ought to reflect on why it rook an outrage for them to realise there might be an issue. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainkev Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Broken Algorithms said: I've noticed that Dundee United fans still absolutely adore him. There were more than enough jumping in saying that we were a joke and that they hoped he'd take us to town after signing us. Absolutely oddball behaviour. Unfortunately that's really no surprise. Back at the start of 2020 there was a 10 year anniversary dinner to celebrate our Scottish cup win. Not only was Goodwillie invited but our fans gave him a hero's welcome, chanting his name when he arrived. There's videos of it online easy to find. No doubt the same reprobates who were singing "He does what he wants" or "scores when he wants" after he was charged in the first place. They might represent a minority of our fanbase, but it's still a disturbingly large number of people who continue to idolise a rapist simply because he scored some goals for their football team. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 30 minutes ago, Michael W said: It looks like I am wrong. Fair play to them, but they ought to reflect on why it rook an outrage for them to realise there might be an issue. So why did they have a commercial partnership with Clyde when whilst Goodwillie was in the team? Sanctimonious hypocrisy IMO. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevoraith Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Val is coming across as a bit of a dick in that tweet to be honest. She’s directing her anger to the wrong football club surely?Why is she not angry at Clyde for signing him?Comes across as “I’ve still got beef with Raith” rather than anything else. From a selfishly Raith point of view I think this is the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. A chunk of his wage will now be paid for by someone other than us and if that article is to be believed he’ll be off to Clyde permanently in the summer and we won’t have to pay him at all any more. Amazed that Clyde have agreed to take the horrible rapist arsehole back but simultaneously delighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: So why did they have a commercial partnership with Clyde when whilst Goodwillie was in the team? Sanctimonious hypocrisy IMO. Perhaps, but not everyone is interested in football and maybe Goodwillie's conviction (and the abhorrant details) had flown under their radar, like I said above there's no going back to January, and I am not surprised at the council's decision. Edited March 1, 2022 by btb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 So why did they have a commercial partnership with Clyde when whilst Goodwillie was in the team? Sanctimonious hypocrisy IMO.Why was being gay illegal in this country and then suddenly became legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 4 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Why was being gay illegal in this country and then suddenly became legal? Totally irrelevant. The law on gay sex has not changed over the last few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 I think a change of opinion is fine from North Lanarkshire Council, but to go from happily starting to sponsor the shirts when Goodwillie was captain, including in a live TV match against Celtic, to withdrawing support definitely screams ‘council election in May’ rather than anything else doesn’t it? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 19 minutes ago, btb said: Perhaps, but not everyone is interested in football and maybe Goodwillie's conviction (and the abhorrant details) had flown under their radar, like I said above there's no going back to January, and I am not surprised at the council's decision. Goodwillie has not been convicted in a criminal court. His victim successfully sued him in a civil court IIRC it was well publicised at the time and did not "fly under the radar". Clyde were rightly criticised for signing him. If the council's officials was not aware of that very obnoxious decision, they have very serious questions to answer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Totally irrelevant. The law on gay sex has not changed over the last few months.But there was a period of time where it had changed in the last few months. Society moves on, and rather than asking why it didn't sooner you should instead embrace positive change. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Incredible how many folk seem to think that the only definition of rape is via jumping someone and dragging them kicking and screaming into the bushes 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverarover Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 Val is coming across as a bit of a dick in that tweet to be honest. She’s directing her anger to the wrong football club surely?Why is she not angry at Clyde for signing him?Comes across as “I’ve still got beef with Raith” rather than anything else. From a selfishly Raith point of view I think this is the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. A chunk of his wage will now be paid for by someone other than us and if that article is to be believed he’ll be off to Clyde permanently in the summer and we won’t have to pay him at all any more. Amazed that Clyde have agreed to take the horrible rapist arsehole back but simultaneously delighted. Tbh Val needs to pipe down. It's not her club anymore, she has the woman's team named after her. -4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raith1974 Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 5 hours ago, Homer Thompson said: 5 hours ago, raith1974 said: No smoke without fire, but will anyone really know other than the 3 there that night. Anyway my opinion is irrelevant as we go with what law states. He was never taken to criminal court so in the eyes of that court he is not. Anyway now that he has moved on, let's see what public outcry there is and outcry from Val and her pal Nicola. This should make tonight's Scottish news but I doubt it will as Val won't care the same way she didn't give a jot when he played against us. Maybe you should consider switching teams and supporting Clyde No thanks supported Raith for 38 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raith1974 Posted March 1, 2022 Share Posted March 1, 2022 44 minutes ago, stevoraith said: Val is coming across as a bit of a dick in that tweet to be honest. She’s directing her anger to the wrong football club surely? Why is she not angry at Clyde for signing him? Comes across as “I’ve still got beef with Raith” rather than anything else. From a selfishly Raith point of view I think this is the best possible outcome we could have hoped for. A chunk of his wage will now be paid for by someone other than us and if that article is to be believed he’ll be off to Clyde permanently in the summer and we won’t have to pay him at all any more. Amazed that Clyde have agreed to take the horrible rapist arsehole back but simultaneously delighted. She doesn't have beef with Raith she has beef with John Sim. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts