• The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Transfers Summer 2022 Transfer Thread.

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports



losing steve grand GIF
 
Quite a few of us with good memories of those times - seems almost incomprehensible now that a player would leave Spurs for Rangers with Rangers fees too big to turn down once player had decided to go.

Real shame we ended with neither Gough nor Butcher

I cant remember off the top of my head but I think we tried to get Butcher again when Gough went to Rangers but he went there instead too. Anyway, Pleat mentions it and the podcast is worth listening to. There is loads in there about how we act in the transfer market now, players we are looking at and a story about Etete and his agent, which should be a warning to a lot of players.
 
Not for here really but David Pleat goes into it in his spurs show interview. It is quite an interesting listen. It was to do with his wife wanting to go back to Scotland and a bit about the financials. But what I didnt know was that when we signed Gough it was between him and Terry Butcher. Pleat wanted Butcher but Scoular wanted Gough because of his age and the possibility of selling him on.
Thanks for that, just listened to it, very interesting character Pleat, very knowledgeable and honest, so much experience and so many insights to share, would love to sit down and have a chat with him about his time in football.

Only problem was the hosts chipping in with inane drivel and stopping his flow, just infuriating at times.

 
1. Here's a list of everybody mentioned in this thread today (so far :D )

NAMECLUBPOSAGECONTRACTTMARKT
EBIOWEIDERBYST182022
RICHARLISONEVERTONAM252024
BASTONIINTERLCB232024
RAUMHOFFENHEIMLB242026
KOSTICE FRANKFURTLMID292023
BISSOUMABRIGHTONMID252023
PERESICINTERLMID332022
FOFANALEICESTERCB212027
MAJERSTADE RENNAISAM242026
COLLINSBURNLEYCB/DM212025
 
Last edited:
I stand by the 'if found innocent, he is innocent' view. Otherwise our justice system is worthless and people will continue to have their names dragged through the mud and their lives destroyed, for no reason.

Agree that we should wait for the investigation to be concluded, or have an agreement in place for IF he's found not guilty.

Just to be SUPER pedantic (so by all means tell me to do one), but our justice system doesn't assert innocence.

We have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but a court's verdict will be either guilty or not guilty.

This is because of the burden of proof. The prosecution are the ones making the claim that the defendant is guilty of the charges being brought against them, and therefore they bare the responsibility of meeting the burden of proof to substantiate that claim.

When a court finds a defendant not guilty, it's not because it has been proven that the defendant is innocent, but because the prosecution couldn't sufficiently demonstrate the defendant's culpability.

I agree that when found not guilty we need to accept the verdic, but it only absolves a defendant of the charges as specified during that particular case.
It doesn't demonstrate that absolutely no offence was commited whatsoever (hence why the verdict is not guilty, rather than innocent), so I think it's fair for some people to still have their reservations despite a not guilty verdict for the specific offence being discussed in the courts.

Does this make any sense or am I being a complete cock? Possibly both. Whatever. COYS and all that.

The issues you raise can get very complicated.

The Scottish footballer David Goodwillie (unfortunate name) being a good example - charged with rape but not prosecuted as prosecutors decided the evidence was not strong enough. So 'presumption of innocence'

However Criminal injuries Board decided there was enough evidence and awarded some damages to 'her'.

She brought an action under civil law, and won substantial damages.

So is he 'guilty' ? If he is, not enough to be jailed on basis of sufficiency of proof..

And then you run into public opinion, particularly if you are a high paid footballer in a high profile job, as pretty much any professional footballer will be seen to be.


With Bissouma I think we need to let events unfold. But the timing to come to an end is uncertain, as the series of legal processes (criminal, CIB and civil law) took years.
 
I stand by the 'if found innocent, he is innocent' view. Otherwise our justice system is worthless and people will continue to have their names dragged through the mud and their lives destroyed, for no reason.

Agree that we should wait for the investigation to be concluded, or have an agreement in place for IF he's found not guilty.
100% agree. How it should always be. Except for OJ. That dude was guilty as hell.
 
Thanks for that, just listened to it, very interesting character Pleat, very knowledgeable and honest, so much experience and so many insights to share, would love to sit down and have a chat with him about his time in football.

Only problem was the hosts chipping in with inane drivel and stopping his flow, just infuriating at times.


Hosting/interviewing is a skill that a lot of these pod wannabe's simply don't have...... It's a common thread regardless of the genre.
 
Well that's just a pathetic comment, and I'm sick to death of people unwilling to accept if someone's been found not guilty by a court of law, just because they're formed their own judgmental opnions.

Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be how our law works.

If guilty, then yes I would not want him at our club. If found not guilty, I see absolutely no issue whatsoever and he'd be an asset.
Ppl aren’t innocent until proven guilty. If they were then ppl would not be locked up for months or a year or more on suspicion of some serious offence while awaiting trial. Only to subsequently be found not guilty. But I do agree with you that ppl should not judge ppl before trial and if acquitted in a trial then ppl should not reach different conclusions because they think they know better. If he is found not guilty then treat as such. In Scotland they use “not proven” I think? Slightly different connotations involved as a result.
 
Back
Top