IF there’s one thing we can applaud Raith Rovers for in the last 48 hours it’s delivering a masterclass in how to fail at public relations.
A day after announcing the signing of David Goodwillie in a statement which made no reference to the civil case in which a judge ruled Goodwillie and a teammate had raped a woman and ordered them to pay £100,000 in damages, Stark’s Park doubled down on the decision despite an incredible outpouring of opposition and derision from fans and club staff alike.
Instead of providing an adequate explanation for the club’s actions, Raith Rovers released a statement laced with confusion and contradiction.
The club claimed that the signing was a “football related decision” while emphasising Raith Rovers’ credentials as a community club. They said they aimed to rebuild trust with loyal fans and commercial stakeholders but offered only a fleeting mention to “what happened 10 years ago” – making no use at all of the word “rape” anywhere, despite it being front and centre of the controversy.
They said that they “fully support and encourage rehabilitation” but neglected to mention that Goodwillie has shown no remorse for his actions.
READ MORE: Who is David Goodwillie – 'Rapist' signs for Raith Rovers
They were quick to point out at that Goodwillie already had history with the club, having played for them on loan during season 2007-08. Quite what that had to do with anything is anyone’s guess, and all it served to do was highlight that being judged a rapist in the intervening period apparently made little difference to the decision makers at the club.
The acknowledgement of the overwhelming opposition to this move was framed in fluffy language about “differing views” and “divided opinion”, but evidence of this division of opinion is hard to find anywhere other than in the Raith Rovers boardroom.
Two directors out of seven resigned over the Goodwillie decision, while women’s team captain Tyler Rattray resigned her position along with support liaison officer Margie Robertson and stadium announcer Johnny MacDonald. Crime writer Val McDermid – whose support and investment in the club is so significant she has a stand named after her – effectively disowned them. One Raith Rovers fan reacted to the signing by setting up a fundraiser for Rape Crisis Scotland, which had raised thousands of pounds within hours. Even First Minister Nicola Sturgeon waded into the disbelief, saying that the stances of Rattray and McDermid (below) “remind us that our society still has a way to go to make zero tolerance of sexual violence a reality”.
Perhaps the most notable thing in the statement was by its absence: no reference was made at all to Goodwillie’s victim and no consideration was offered more broadly to survivors of sexual violence and how this now high profile event may be impacting them.
Rather, despite public horror, Raith Rovers said they consider him “to be part of Raith Rovers Football Club” and, in doing so, laid down the values defining the club under its current leadership.
If football is really all that matters, Raith Rovers would have done well to understand the threat this poses to the long-term viability of the club. This is a PR disaster that won’t be fixed by a few goals scored by a man who’s shown no remorse for rape.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel