I know Flanagan has a public function, but should every person convicted for assault have their labour agreement terminated?
Well perhaps, depends on the job/crime etc. It’s a case by case basis. You can’t work where I work with any kind of criminal conviction. But in this situation, I think the fact that he is a public figure is important - it’s not good for Liverpool’s image to be seen supporting this kind of behaviour. Though i’m aware they’ve sided with their players before.
Jon Flanagan is pretty expandable anyway. But I wonder what the decision/reaction would be if it was someone like Mane who had behaved in this manner?
Similar with the Suarez racism storm, would they have been so supportive had that been someone like Danny Ings?
I get where you’re coming from but I personally don’t think it’s fair to terminate someone’s employment because they were convicted of assault. He has no prior history and there is no evidence of any domestic abuse having taken place prior to the incident in question. He made a mistake and I think his employer would do better to support him and provide him with the appropriate tools to manage his behaviour.
Fair enough. But this isn’t something I could personally support.
The district judge, Wendy Lloyd, said she had been given a breakdown of the CCTV, which showed Flanagan assaulting Wall on several occasions that night and kicking her at one point.
That decision should be up to the employer.
Football is a bit weird as it’s all in the public sphere. I personally can’t see Liverpool playing him again due to this as it would draw quite a lot of criticism I’d imagine, that and he isn’t really that good anyway
Not that I like to write people off after committing an offence but if he was an Arsenal player I wouldn’t want to see him play in the shirt again.
Imo, not firing him is different than supporting him. Obviously being a convict is not done in certain jobs but being a footballer is not one of them. Even if it’s a public role.
@sevchenko We have criminal law to deal with these kind of situations. That should do the trick. But that’s how I look at it.
I don’t care. Someone who hits and kicks their girlfriend numerous times in the middle of the street is not someone I would want playing for my football club. But each to their own.
I guess. This is as valid a reason for not wanting a player to play for your club as saying a footballer is too shit for play for the club.
To have him fired whilst being already punished via criminal law etc (like it should be) is a different discussion.
Two sides to each story I suppose, no idea if she’d been abusing him at home and then he finally snapped on that night out.
I’d say it’s up to the club to make the final decision, I’m not a huge fan of the court of public opinion that has become so powerful on social media these days.
Domestic violence is a huge no-go though.
That wouldn’t mitigate his actions at all.
White knight comments etc incoming, but the situation as you describe it isn’t self defence on his part, that would be him taking revenge/losing his rag and hitting a woman.
If you’re going to invent scenarios to offer a hypothetical scenario in which what he did might have been ok at least come up with one that actually fits the notion of “two sides to every story”, and not one in which he is still nothing more than a woman beating cunt lol.
Also, lol at court of public opinion. I’m ok with people having opinions when someone has actually plead guilty in an actual, literal court.
Some footballers are absolute dicks
This is the key here. Multiple times in the same night is much different than “snapping” and doing something once (to be clear, I’m not condoning or excusing that either). This idiot should be gone from Liverpool.
I couldn’t care less what pool do with him, I just hope he gets an appropriate sentence (I’m not saying what is/isn’t appropriate here as I don’t know the full facts).
So do you hold the same standard when it comes to football clubs and where their funding comes from? City has an owner involved in war mongering, has blood on his hands from the innocent ppl of Yemen, and has overseen the torture and murder of at least one individual himself. Yet I hear a lot of people on this forum crying out for shady characters of the same ilk to take over Arsenal and spend their dirty money to help our club win trophies. Don’t know if you’ve said it yourself, however the thought disgusts me.
No, obviously, given the choice, I would rather have a man who hadn’t “overseen the torture and murder of at least one individual himself” at my club. Who wouldn’t?!
And no I haven’t ever said I wanted a “shady” owner here. I’ve said I want Kroenke out, but that is about as far as i’ve gone with that.
I’m not sure all the Chelsea and Man City supporters would swap their success for playing in the Championship because they have dodgy owners, because that’s where both clubs would be.
In this country we have a government that regularly sells arms to the highest bidder and then fights in wars where those same weapons are used against our army, and not many people move to another country just because we have dodgy politicians.
It’s all very well taking the moral high ground but any multi billionaire is not going to have accumulated all his wealth and power by being a nice guy.
They will have been ruthless and walked over anyone who steps in their way.
We are sponsored by The Emirates, who are state funded in Dubai and I’m sure they aren’t squeaky clean.
Unfortunately that’s the way things are.
Chelsea were basically like we are now before Abramovich came along. In the six seasons pre-Roman for example, their finishing positions were as follows: 4th, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 4th.
I’m not sure why people have this perception of Chelsea being shit before him. Sure, they might not have gone on to be PL and CL Champions, but it’s quite a stretch to suggest they would be in the Championship.
And in terms of the current owners and sponsors, many fans are probably not even aware of the ins and outs of their business. Ignorance is bliss.
All good points but it just rings a little hollow when people quote said dodgy owners having lofty football ambitious owners.
It’s true, they had good players but were in debt and if it hadn’t been for Abramovich they could have done a Leeds and had to sell their best players.
I certainly agree with this.
Anyone who owns a top club has to have a bit of a dubious background but as long as they are buying the best players and are successful, m,most supporters would tolerate it.
The main reason Abramovich bought Chelsea is because it gave him a perceived respectability he couldn’t have got through being a Russian oil billionaire who got his wealth through extremely dodgy deals and knowing even more dodgy people in very high places.
I have a few Chelsea mates, and they couldn’t care less and certainly wouldn’t swap what the have for mid table mediocrity.