Barbed Wire wrote:
I think a lot is based on the public court of opinion, but also exposure.
Take the Israel Falou incident. If someone from Dewsbury tweeted that, would it draw the same reaction? I doubt it, while it’s wrong, their is a limited impact on the sport as a product/brand.
We’ve said for a while how can power is waning, being replaced by corporate sponsorships. Big companies won’t want to associate with controversial figures.
While it’s wrong, if the conviction is spent then it’s fair game to sign him. But he needs to meet the risk appetite for those paying the bills.
I agree 100%. It gets conflated sometimes with the argument 'he should be allowed legally to make a living etc'.
I think if someone has either not been convicted, or served a spent conviction, they should be legally entitled to pursue their profession. Even if it is something particularly unsavoury.
But that is a different argument from saying that a club should have to take them. It's reasonable for a club to say that we have certain values, and a player's past actions are not in line with those values, so we don't want to associate with them. I'm saying that from a moral position in terms of values, but also a club will see it from a commercial point of view as well. If a player's past behaviour puts off potentially sponsors and supporters then the club obviously has to factor in the commercial hit.
