I know Flanagan has a public function, but should every person convicted for assault have their labour agreement terminated?
4 Likes
Well perhaps, depends on the job/crime etc. Itās a case by case basis. You canāt 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 - itās not good for Liverpoolās image to be seen supporting this kind of behaviour. Though iām aware theyāve 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?
1 Like
I get where youāre coming from but I personally donāt think itās fair to terminate someoneās 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.
1 Like
Fair enough. But this isnāt 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.
1 Like
Football is a bit weird as itās all in the public sphere. I personally canāt see Liverpool playing him again due to this as it would draw quite a lot of criticism Iād imagine, that and he isnāt really that good anyway 
Not that I like to write people off after committing an offence but if he was an Arsenal player I wouldnāt want to see him play in the shirt again.
2 Likes
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 itās a public role.
@sevchenko We have criminal law to deal with these kind of situations. That should do the trick. But thatās how I look at it.
I donāt 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.
4 Likes
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 sheād been abusing him at home and then he finally snapped on that night out.
Iād say itās up to the club to make the final decision, Iām 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.
5 Likes
That wouldnāt mitigate his actions at all.
White knight comments etc incoming, but the situation as you describe it isnāt self defence on his part, that would be him taking revenge/losing his rag and hitting a woman.
If youāre 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 ātwo sides to every storyā, and not one in which he is still nothing more than a woman beating cunt lol.
Also, lol at court of public opinion. Iām ok with people having opinions when someone has actually plead guilty in an actual, literal court.
3 Likes
Some footballers are absolute dicks
1 Like
This is the key here. Multiple times in the same night is much different than āsnappingā and doing something once (to be clear, Iām not condoning or excusing that either). This idiot should be gone from Liverpool.
I couldnāt care less what pool do with him, I just hope he gets an appropriate sentence (Iām not saying what is/isnāt appropriate here as I donāt 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. Donāt know if youāve said it yourself, however the thought disgusts me.
No, obviously, given the choice, I would rather have a man who hadnāt āoverseen the torture and murder of at least one individual himselfā at my club. Who wouldnāt?!
And no I havenāt ever said I wanted a āshadyā owner here. Iāve said I want Kroenke out, but that is about as far as iāve gone with that.
Iām not sure all the Chelsea and Man City supporters would swap their success for playing in the Championship because they have dodgy owners, because thatās 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.
Itās 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 Iām sure they arenāt squeaky clean.
Unfortunately thatās the way things are.
1 Like
Would they?
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.
Iām 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 itās 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.
Itās true, they had good players but were in debt and if it hadnāt 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.
I agree.
The main reason Abramovich bought Chelsea is because it gave him a perceived respectability he couldnāt 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 couldnāt care less and certainly wouldnāt swap what the have for mid table mediocrity.