You've condemned him on the strength of a tabloid story that he denied and that as far as I know he wasn't even interviewed about by the police, never mind charged. The allegations were very serious and I would have thought the authorities would have followed up on them if they thought there was anything in it. It seems a bit harsh condemning him when nothing has been proven. If he had been or in due course is convicted of a serious criminal offence and/or a serious football related offence, then that might be different.
The Sunday Mirror says it has heard a telephone conversation between Kim and Lennon where he said: 'No, I said that – that – that’s what will happen.
'I didn’t say I would do it and I – I didn’t threaten you with it at all. I said that it could possibly happen... and that’s what I don’t want.'
Text messages and voicemails are facts but what the prosecution is able to do is variable.
There is much much more to this story in terms of time line and skullduggery.
Did the new owners turf him out because they are new owners or because the story has much further to go. This was only end of December 15 and it could still be a live case.
Frankly, why he hadn't gone months ago is odd.
-- Edited by ian on Tuesday 15th of March 2016 02:25:42 PM
It may just be that they couldn't afford to pay him off until the takeover went through, or that they knew they wouldn't be able to attract anyone else to a cashless club, or simply that they have their own man earmarked to come in. It may have nothing at all to do with his personal life and the Mirror story.
The existence of a text or voicemail may be fact. What was meant by words used is often open to discussion or interpretation. I don't mean to relate this to the Lennon case at all and I offer it just as an extreme example - how many times do people say 'I'll kill him/her for that' and how often do they really mean it?
Anyway, this is not really the place to try Lennon. What interests me more is the principle that someone should be considered unsuitable for management or a career in the game because of a misdemeanour. I just thought it a bit harsh to call Lennon unfit to manage when he hasn't been found guilty of anything (yet????) whereas lots of people who have been convicted of serious offences (some football related some not) have been gainfully employed afterwards. Some of them very close to home.
whereas lots of people who have been convicted of serious offences (some football related some not) have been gainfully employed afterwards. Some of them very close to home.
On reflection after reading about his affair and the messages he sent - a truly nasty man, and one who i wish never manages again.
Thank goodness for that Worcester - on reading your heading I thought you were going to tell me that John Lennon had died!!
Regardless of the whys and wherefores of his departure my hope is that whoever follows him will not have the same magic effect that NW has had since joining us! Now if Bolton did escape the drop that really would be a miracle!
Even Bolton fans didnt like him, and not for his tactics either.
There was one on talksport last night saying he was glad he has gone, and i for one will not change my stance.
He is tipped to go back to Celtic, where even Neil Redfearn could win the title.
There is a lot of inconsistency in the game Worcester about how to deal with people with histories.
There is a fit and proper person test for owners but it doesn't always seem to be applied consistently. Should players be allowed to play or managers allowed to manage after being convicted of criminal offences? Common sense says it really depends on the nature and seriousness of the offence, but there are no rules or guidelines in place. Offences against women or children seem to get some people riled enough to take the view that the player shouldn't be taken on, but others take a different view. Perhaps how good a player or manager is might sway some people. If someone is good for 25 goals a season do the fans care what their background is? Lee Hughes managed to extend his career on the strength of his goal scoring record despite what most people think was a despicable crime. Sometimes (as with Oldham and Ched Evans) commercial pressure from sponsors tips the balance. It all just seems a jumble, and we will get endless cases of this kind in the media which reflects badly on the game.
We have taken or kept people on who have been convicted of a range of offences from violent offences through to offences of very serious dishonesty. Is that ok?
It is a moral maze.
It just struck me as odd that some people want Lennon frozen out on the back of a tabloid allegation, when people who have pleaded guilty to being naughty boys are welcome elsewhere, including at our club.
