We're debating what "the club" should do, but who are we talking about here? Who should be making this decision on the club's behalf? Sean Dyche? Gianfranco Zola? Gianluca Nani? Andrew Wilson? Stuart Timperley? David Fransen? Laurence Bassini? Scott Duxbury? Gino Pozzo? I guess what I'm really asking is whether it should be a football man (IMO that includes a director of football) or a corporate man? I genuinely don't know the answer, but I ask because the factors I would expect the two broad groups of people to consider are very different.
Deeney should be made to serve the full term of his sentence for this particularly brutal attack. Hopefully the club will also be able to punish him punitively as he has brought the club into disrepute as others have said. Once out of prison he should then be brought back into the fold. He will have served his time in the eyes of the law and I do not think it is right that he should be denied the right to earn a living. He has, after all, scuppered any possibility of gaining private endorsements from any self respecting business. He is a convicted thug after all. Who here will sponsor his kit? Not many for sure. Footballers are mercenary as a rule and if we don't employ him someone else will. It may well come back to haunt us on the pitch - worse still off the pitch should we discard him and his downward spiral continue as a result. This is the original family and community club and as unpalatable as it may be for some I think this club is the best place for him both on and off the pitch. Let's be clear though, there can be no more chances, no more excuses, no more incidents. He'll have to make a significant change in lifestyle to maintain that as other 'hards' will want to have a go at him. More time on the golf course and no time in the nightclubs is what it amounts to. Can he do it? Only time will tell, but he must serve his time first. I write this as the victim of a similar assult myself.
Short prison term - say 2 years then released to work off the amount that he stole from us (with interest). His employer should be made to pay directly out of his salary/wages. If he is unemployed then he should get no benefits. Harsh................but very, very fair.
Going back to Deeney, regardless of the morality of the situation, the financial aspects seem obvious. I understand Deeney has a year left on his contract (correct me if I'm wrong). He will be unable to work for nearly half that time - assuming he serves half his sentence and pre-season training is counted as "work". Surely it would make sense to terminate his contract right now?
I do agree with your comments Hornet-Fez, but the thing that gets to me is that in this type of case there never seems to be compensation by the offender to the victim. Deeney earns somewhere in the region of £250,000 pa, so in my eyes he is a rich young man. The student is going to be building up debts the whole time he is on his course and will finish with a disadvantage. It would be very difficult to put into practice, but it should be possible for Deeney to be ordered to pay him sufficient money to ensure that the student finishes up debt free. This is an example only of what might be done, but for offenders to be paying out at least might make them think about the suffering they have been responsible for.
You make a good point in terms of reparation for the victim, particularly in this manner. I do have little truck with the compensation culture but here we have a young man earning - sorry being paid - an extraordinary salary by everyday standards who has the financial ability to make a difference to his victim without seeming to be punished two or three times over for his crime. If the student wishes to persue a civil action he can but I cannot see how that is going to really benefit anyone other than the lawyers. To put this in pesrpective I lost several teeth, peed blood for three days and had over a month off work with concussion and other injuries (subsequently losing the job) - frankly I felt lucky to be alive - I got £1000 from the CICB and some free dental work. And the f*****s got away with it - which hurts more than the rest of it put together.
As keyboard judge and jury we're not in a position to give a final valid judgement but to me it goes on intent and underlying personality. If it was self defence and camera angles got things wrong and and and and in particular TD is really just a good guy in the wrong place at the wrong time then I see a place for just suspending payment whilst inside and see how it goes from there. If on the other hand there was intent, he and his mates were spoiling for a fight, he kicked on beyond the point of stopping his oppositions aggression and enjoyed mindless violence and is proud of it then I don't care if he's the new Messi, I wouldn't want to see him play again.
Do we know if TD was provoked or not? That does not excuse what was done but may explain how this event started.
As it stands, we have been told that the fight was already happening when the group (Troy, Elis and 2 others) arrived at the club and somehow Elise got swept into the fray and then Troy just jumped in to defend his brother. Provocation is not a defence in law these days, but loss of self control is. However, i find it unlikely any solicitor would have missed that defence if it were available. Aberdeen- He might argue that the original punch was in defence of Elis, but kicking a guy in the head when he is already on the floor is inexcusable.
And there is the crux of the matter, the threshold has been crossed from reasonable force to unjustifable thuggery. A professional footballer kicking a prone defenceless man in the head? Very lucky he didn't kill the fella.
That is true, but given that this is his first defence, he admitted his guilt at the first opportunity and he seems to be repentant and sorry for what he did i think it would be wrong to cast him out when a thug/woman beater/and all round criminal like Marlon King is happily playing for Birmingham. If this scum can get a contract at WFC (he had been convicted several times when he joined and had only recently been released from prison) and then can be convicted of sexually assaulting a young woman why should we cast Troy Deeney aside? King has shown, through repeat offending, that he has no remorse and does not care about the consequences or his actions.
my point exactly Dan. King is a lowlife...i don't believe Deeney is. One moment of madness...for which, if he shows remorse and is willing to help the community learn from it...he should get a second chance.
Me too. Plus there was no alcohol in Deeney's case. Unlike Luke McCormick who killed two people whilst drink driving. If he gets a second chance then Deeney should too. Yes we are a family club, but the club cannot control a players actions off the pitch, they can only ask that they behave with the utmost decency and professionalism.
If this scum can get a contract at WFC (he had been convicted several times when he joined and had only recently been released from prison) and then can be convicted of sexually assaulting a young woman why should we cast Troy Deeney aside? King has shown, through repeat offending, that he has no remorse and does not care about the consequences or his actions.[/QUOTE] Simply because one error of judgement doesn't justify another. Because I strike you twice on Monday and get away with it, is it then OK to strike you once on Tuesday?
Simply because one error of judgement doesn't justify another. Because I strike you twice on Monday and get away with it, is it then OK to strike you once on Tuesday?[/QUOTE] Im confused. Can you explain that one to me Theo??
Im confused. Can you explain that one to me Theo??[/QUOTE] Because WFC gave MK a contract, an error of judgement if you take account of the string of convictions and the nature of the offences you list, that in itself is not a reason for offering Deeney a contract because his offences are as far as we know fewer in number. It is not a matter of whether one is worse than the other, rather whether either of them should be considered employable by WFC.
