SFA approve Martindale as "fit and proper"

IbroxForever said:
Not the correct decision for me. In my opinion he should be nowhere near professional football. The guy was convicted if drug trafficking and money laundering. He was the most 2 to one of the biggest drug dealers in the country. Who knows how many lives he destroyed while dealing drugs.

Tbh I find it astonishing how many on here think this is a good decision.

Allowing him to continue in football sends out all the wrong signals.
Click to expand...
Aye, imagine publicising that rehabilitation is possible and that lives can be turned around. Shocking.
 
AXJ3nrD.gif
 
If a guy who's committed a serious offence like drug dealing and money laundering is "fit and proper," you really can't fail the test.

I dont really care about Martindale on a personal level, but I do think it makes a mockery of having a test in the first place.
 
Teuchterblue said:
A person unfit for the game maybe someone currently selling drugs.

Professional panels make these sort of decisions all the time in medicine, law etc.
Click to expand...
ok, so these panels investigate and allege current criminal activity do they?

professional panels assess relevant propriety. I ask again, if he’s fit, what does unfit look like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmg
I don't like what he got himself into but I do like that he's managed to wave that side of his life goodbye and make a fresh start. The correct decision in my opinion
 
Hurricane Run said:
If a guy who's committed a serious offence like drug dealing and money laundering is "fit and proper," you really can't fail the test.

I dont really care about Martindale on a personal level, but I do think it makes a mockery of having a test in the first place.
Click to expand...
Did Alastair Johnston ever pass his?
 
Hobjo said:
ok, so these panels investigate and allege current criminal activity do they?

professional panels assess relevant propriety. I ask again, if he’s fit, what does unfit look like?
Click to expand...
They will investigate current criminal activity inasmuch as a relevant person or body comes forward and informs the panel the person under scrutiny is still carrying on questionable practices, behaviour or keeping company with questionable invividuals. I assume Police Scotland will have some correspondence with this SFA panel.
 
IbroxForever said:
Not the correct decision for me. In my opinion he should be nowhere near professional football. The guy was convicted if drug trafficking and money laundering. He was the most 2 to one of the biggest drug dealers in the country. Who knows how many lives he destroyed while dealing drugs.

Tbh I find it astonishing how many on here think this is a good decision.

Allowing him to continue in football sends out all the wrong signals.
Click to expand...
There is an element of “well if people can never be rehabilitated then they will just go back into crime” so every prison sentence would have to become a life sentence if you don’t allow rehabilitation. This is true and so some people take the view that if you have served your legally mandated sentence that your past actions should be forgiven.

But then if we were talking about a murderer or rapist here who had served his time I sincerely doubt many people would be happy to accept him, regardless of if he had served his time. Legally, however, they would all have technically served their debt to society so the logical conclusion of the argument would suggest you should forgive all equally, but I doubt the sentiment would be the same.

Which means this seems to boil down to a question of what people personally consider more or less acceptable crimes from a moral standpoint.
 
Best decision tbh, shows that rehabilitation is possible and society is becoming progressive enough to understand that.

If there's just one person out there who is inspired to change their ways off the back of this then it'll all be worth it. The man seems to have worked incredibly hard and Scottish football is all the better for it.
 

I read this article on the BBC website yesterday and followed the link to the SFA handbook ( 316 pages, must be some size of hands !!! ).​

"Livingston: David Martindale's Scottish FA hearing explained"​

In the article it states;
According to the SFA's handbook, the organisation's board "reserves its discretion as to whether or not such a person is fit and proper".

Ultimately, it will be two people from Scottish football's professional game board who determine Martindale's suitably.

======================================================
The point of my post is that those determining Martindale's suitability or not will most likely not disclose how they came to the conclusion that Martindale is suitable and thus the BBC article has explained nothing !! They could explain what prompted the change because I read somewhere he failed the test last year.

Not surprising from either secret organisation, BBC Scotland and the SFA. B-)

I had no preference either way about whether Martindale was suitable or not, I don't know the guy, but I regularly hear commentators mention the following phrase during game " his reputation has influenced the ref " I wonder if Martindale's "reputation" will influence anyone, but then again we are not discussing Rangers nor Alfredo.
 
Should never have been in question. He is setting an example to show what can be done.

Not knowing the background but would Holt not have played a big part in his rehab?
 
Shouldn’t even have had to review it. He’s someone who’s clearly turned his life around and seems like a nice genuine guy now who is a decent coach too.
 
I’m on the fence with this one.
I realise he has been punished and done his time. He does indeed seem to be a guy that has turned his life round and regrets what he has done in the past.....time will tell on that one.
But.....if I had a family member or friend who had their lives ruined by what he has done in the past then I don’t think I would be so forgiving.
What then constitutes an unfit person in Scottish football is the question I’d like answered.
I actually like listening to the guy when he is interviewed as he does really sound like he loves the game.
 
Glad to hear it is no longer hanging over him, not that it seems to have hindered them much.

That said, would have summed up the SFA to veto him.
 
Sir Walter’s Warriors said:
Question, for those who think this is the correct decision (which I tend to agree with), would you therefore accepted him as Rangers manager in future if he proved to be an excellent manager or still be wary given his past?
Click to expand...
I think it's perfectly fair to think he deserves a second chance, but also that maybe someone with his track record isn't right for a club of our stature. Would be the same in any walk of life.

Having said that, if he was the best man for the job i'd personally be ok with it. It's not like he's going to revert back to organised crime whilst running a football team. I think that's a fairly extreme hypothetical scenario though.
 
I'm pleased with the decision and think the SFA have got this one right, Martindale has served his sentence, has turned his back on that life. There needs to be the possibility of redemption otherwise there will be little incentive to move from criminal activity.
 
You can batter a guy with a baseball bat and get jailed and get picked for Scotland.

You can get banged up for dealing drugs and be deemed a fit and proper person?

But Paul Gascoigne can't get into the SFA's Hall of Fame for playing football at a level seldom seen in this counrty.

This hole call Scotland summed up to perfection.
 
Sir Walter’s Warriors said:
Question, for those who think this is the correct decision (which I tend to agree with), would you therefore accepted him as Rangers manager in future if he proved to be an excellent manager or still be wary given his past?
Click to expand...

By the time he would be thought of as a Rangers manager his history would be even further back in history.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
You can batter a guy with a baseball bat and get jailed and get picked for Scotland.

You can get banged up for dealing drugs and be deemed a fit and proper person?

But Paul Gascoigne can't get into the SFA's Hall of Fame for playing football at a level seldom seen in this counrty.

This hole call Scotland summed up to perfection.
Click to expand...
Well said mate. Typical double standards from the timmy head office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top