• 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!

Management Vinai Venkatesham - CEO

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

spids said:
The best comparison is with when Man City suspended Mendy for a couple of years, and he was subsequently found innocent (despite what seemed like somewhat overwhelming evidence and testimony against him). Shows how hard it is to convict a rapist when it is not a ‘stranger’ attack. Woolwich should have suspended Partey without pay, but held onto his playing registration, as Man City did with Mendy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
A position that Employment Tribunal disagreed with and forced Man City to pay Mendy £11 million for all the withheld pay, with only periods he was in police custody deemed allowable to be withheld.
All other periods, even if out on police bail (which has never been case with Partey) it has been ruled by law now that the player is due his salary.
 
Trotter said:
A position that Employment Tribunal disagreed with and forced Man City to pay Mendy £11 million for all the withheld pay, with only periods he was in police custody deemed allowable to be withheld.
All other periods, even if out on police bail (which has never been case with Partey) it has been ruled by law now that the player is due his salary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yep. Most companies have legal counsel and clear HR policies / rules. Legally, in the UK, you are innocent until proven guilty. I would imagine that when an employee is also a £40m asset, it makes it even harder to take the moral high ground against legal advice. The real shame / criticism etc. should be on the CPS for sitting on this for 2-3 years despite having 3 independent complainants, and the UK justice system for being incredibly rubbish at convicting rapists.
 
Richard Arlison said:
Sooo

Uncomfortable truth here but he was the CEO at the scum when the Partey story first broke.

Hes complicit in this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Doom Funk said:
No good ever comes from employing former gooners

Levy is a fuckwad
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Richard Arlison said:
Levy also hired Paratici from a club in disgrace.

He’s got a track record now
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
TonySoprano said:
He should really be investigated if the cunt is found guilty he’s going to have some awkward questions to answer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Dr Rocktopus said:
Levy burnt down Archway Steelworks (ALLEGEDLY) so I think he flogged his moral compass a while ago.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
To Dare Is To Do. said:
He needs to be fired immediately for the Partey scandal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
SpiderSpurs said:
Agree, Vinai Venkatesham was CEO at Woolwich when the Partey 'rumours' first broke. 😳🤦🏻‍♂️

He would have known about the investigation, needs to be 'let go' IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
CPH_Spurs said:
Yes, he was the CEO at the time this broke. But within a year, he resigned from his position. He announced in 2023 that he is leaving. We are now in 2025 The coverup been there for another 2 yrs since he stepped down. So its not like he was the only one covering it up there. This decision to do that, should be coming from right from the top, their owners....to outlast 2 CEOs

Instead of jumping the gun and doing blame game, wait for the facts to come out. For all we know, he saw the writing on the wall and he took the decision to quit the club before shit hits the fan. We will never know.

Every publication knew Partey was the culprit. Police knew - but no one leaked it or spoke about it because of the legality of English system. Woolwich should have sold him off - they didnt. Thats where they lost their morality
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
SpiderSpurs said:
No


A rape allegation? It's a little more that a 'shitstorm', fucking hell.


An employee that was being investigated for rape, was still allowed to play for the club - when he should have been suspended or moved.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hang on, so Partey is charged with rape, and yet somehow Vinai Venkatesham is now getting more flak for it than the culprit!!

Arteta fucking PICKED him (when 'fit') week in, week out during that time, Vinai didn't!
 
1882 said:
Hang on, so Partey is charged with rape, and yet somehow Vinai Venkatesham is now getting more flak for it than the culprit!!

Arteta fucking PICKED him (when 'fit') week in, week out during that time, Vinai didn't!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, because the club went after one of his accusers who was vocal on social media. Everyone knows this, and the police confirmed that they couldn’t charge him for that rape due to a technicality.
 
1882 said:
Hang on, so Partey is charged with rape, and yet somehow Vinai Venkatesham is now getting more flak for it than the culprit!!

Arteta fucking PICKED him (when 'fit') week in, week out during that time, Vinai didn't!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Don't be so naive please.

Can't be a CEO of a club and ignore what his potential role was dealing with this situation.
 
Richard Arlison said:
More flack? No

Woolwich get the flack, all of it. Problem is we brought some of that Woolwich to our club
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd change the word ''we'' in that sentence to Levy. He must have known they were harbouring a suspected rapist during the time the new CEO was there. The unspoken message is ''I'd do the same'' because Levy must have deemed it acceptable to have employed the bloke to begin with.
 
Shadydan said:
Don't be so naive please.

Can't be a CEO of a club and ignore what his potential role was dealing with this situation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have seen Spurs fans use terms like 'cover up' on social media which is harsh on Vinai IMO. Are people suggesting that he hid evidence or obstructed the police to prevent a charge (which is what cover up insinuates). The onus (and criticism) should be focused on (a) on the player (if found guilty) for committing heinous crimes, and (b) the CPS and the police as to how they have collected and assessed evidence, and why it has taken so long to charge Partey when there are multiple complainants. As CEO of Woolwich at the time Vinai's responsibility would have been to act in the organisations' best interests, and he would have taken legal counsel to do so. Most people woudl expect that to include an assessment of moral values / ethics, however, if no charges were brought (at the time), and the player was adamant in maintaining his innocence, what were they supposed to do? In the UK people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Should footballers be sacked or suspended when accused of an offence?

The comparison between the Partey case and the Benjamin Mendy and Mason Greenwood cases also underlines how poor the criminal justice system is in convicting those accused of rape, and how football clubs will protect their assets over any moral obligation to do the right thing.

In Mendy's case he was charged by the police and spent time on remand in prison. Man City had no choice after he was suspended by the FA (after his arrest) and held in a prison cell, and only then withheld his salary. After being found not guilty (which seemed incredible to me based on evidence in the public domain) Mendy successfully sued Man City for lost earnings (£11m). He still plays professional football in the Swiss Super League (for Zurich).

In Greenwood's case, the 'evidence' was in the public domain before any charges were brought (audio tapes and photos), and were pretty damning and made it clear that he was guilty in the every least of being a domestic abuser. However, the CPS (another failing) decided to withdraw charges as there was “no longer a realistic prospect of conviction” after key witnesses withdrew their cooperation from the investigation. Mainly as his partner (the victim) would not testify against him and they were expectig a baby together. Man U ultimately can claim a moral stance against a sex offender / domestic abuser, but only after a significant backlash from their fan base, the public and their sponsors, and it should be noted that they received a significant fee for him (£25m). Some would argue he should have been sacked for gross misconduct as soon as the audio tapes came out.
 
spids said:
I have seen Spurs fans use terms like 'cover up' on social media which is harsh on Vinai IMO. Are people suggesting that he hid evidence or obstructed the police to prevent a charge (which is what cover up insinuates). The onus (and criticism) should be focused on (a) on the player (if found guilty) for committing heinous crimes, and (b) the CPS and the police as to how they have collected and assessed evidence, and why it has taken so long to charge Partey when there are multiple complainants. As CEO of Woolwich at the time Vinai's responsibility would have been to act in the organisations' best interests, and he would have taken legal counsel to do so. Most people woudl expect that to include an assessment of moral values / ethics, however, if no charges were brought (at the time), and the player was adamant in maintaining his innocence, what were they supposed to do? In the UK people have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Should footballers be sacked or suspended when accused of an offence?

The comparison between the Partey case and the Benjamin Mendy and Mason Greenwood cases also underlines how poor the criminal justice system is in convicting those accused of rape, and how football clubs will protect their assets over any moral obligation to do the right thing.

In Mendy's case he was charged by the police and spent time on remand in prison. Man City had no choice after he was suspended by the FA (after his arrest) and held in a prison cell, and only then withheld his salary. After being found not guilty (which seemed incredible to me based on evidence in the public domain) Mendy successfully sued Man City for lost earnings (£11m). He still plays professional football in the Swiss Super League (for Zurich).

In Greenwood's case, the 'evidence' was in the public domain before any charges were brought (audio tapes and photos), and were pretty damning and made it clear that he was guilty in the every least of being a domestic abuser. However, the CPS (another failing) decided to withdraw charges as there was “no longer a realistic prospect of conviction” after key witnesses withdrew their cooperation from the investigation. Mainly as his partner (the victim) would not testify against him and they were expectig a baby together. Man U ultimately can claim a moral stance against a sex offender / domestic abuser, but only after a significant backlash from their fan base, the public and their sponsors, and it should be noted that they received a significant fee for him (£25m). Some would argue he should have been sacked for gross misconduct as soon as the audio tapes came out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a very well-reasoned post, where at one point you briefly touch upon what I consider to be the important point.
It's where you mention the CEO's moral responsibility. As CEO, Vinai had the authority (some might say the responsibility) to influence Arteta not to select Partey. We don't know if he tried, but if he did, he failed.
Whatever went on behind the scenes, the end result was that Partey continued to play for Woolwich despite having been arrested and despite the ever-increasing allegations and investigations. This has resulted in the club's morals being completely trashed. Arteta has been allowed to prevail, for short term gain, at the expense of the club's reputation, which is now in tatters.
They should all hang their heads in shame and Vinai has some serious explaining to do.
 
Crockett said:
Isn't it obvious?
If 3 different women make the allegations independently the player does NOT get the benefit of the doubt.
You suspend the player from all duties until the allegations are shown to be false.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He shouldn’t have gotten bail either as there was a good chance that he would re-offend
 
Crockett said:
Isn't it obvious?
If 3 different women make the allegations independently the player does NOT get the benefit of the doubt.
You suspend the player from all duties until the allegations are shown to be false.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Morally it is obvious. Legally probably more of a grey area, especially from a corporate / CEO position. Companies whose brand can affect sales (i.e. not a football club who have a relatively captive consumer base) would undoubtedly have suspended him. 3 years is a long time - the real question for me is why did it take the CPS that long to charge him. The majority of the media did not name him across that 3-years even if it was an open secret amongst fans.

Playing devil's advocate, what if fans start making allegations against rival team's star players (not in any way suggesting this was the case here)? Do clubs suspend them from all duties whilst the claims are investigated. Even if that investigation can take months or years? Or do we stand by one of the staples of society - innocent until proven guilty?

Where did you stand on us signing Bissouma who was facing a court case for sexual assault when we bought him from Brighton? He was eventually cleared but I know a lot of fans who thought we should not have signed him based on the initial charge itself.
 
spids said:
Morally it is obvious. Legally probably more of a grey area, especially from a corporate / CEO position. Companies whose brand can affect sales (i.e. not a football club who have a relatively captive consumer base) would undoubtedly have suspended him. 3 years is a long time - the real question for me is why did it take the CPS that long to charge him. The majority of the media did not name him across that 3-years even if it was an open secret amongst fans.

Playing devil's advocate, what if fans start making allegations against rival team's star players (not in any way suggesting this was the case here)? Do clubs suspend them from all duties whilst the claims are investigated. Even if that investigation can take months or years? Or do we stand by one of the staples of society - innocent until proven guilty?

Where did you stand on us signing Bissouma who was facing a court case for sexual assault when we bought him from Brighton? He was eventually cleared but I know a lot of fans who thought we should not have signed him based on the initial charge itself.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Biss was cleared BEFORE we signed him.
 
Good grief. We have "fans" on here wanting the CEO of our own club sacked for perceived complicity, yet in the same breath, these "fans" want us to cheat in the same way that Chelsea and City are doing.

Morals as flexible as a bungee chord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top