Danny Simpson Guilty - Avoids Jail

[Stevosevic]

People wouldn't be that fussed if it was Cambiasso, it would be "will he be back for august?"

Simple as that.

[inckley fox]

Eric Contana another example. All time Man Utd legend but he went into the crowed and fly kicked a fan. If he was shit like Simpson he would never of played football again let alone been given another chance by Utd.

 

There's loads of examples. Even if you limit it to heroic players who committed serious offences during their careers, it leaves you with a wealth of great English players, from Gerard (who battered someone for refusing to play Phil Collins, which sounds like an appalling crime if you ask me) to Adams to Merson. And there are plenty of Leicester players to own up to horrendous crimes, commit horrendous crimes on the pitch, be accused of horrendous crimes, convicted and jailed for horrendous crimes and they've still been signed, picked, supported, even revered as great LCFC players... It's very hard to argue that Danny Simpson is worse than the lot of them.

[Kitchandro]

If this was Vardy or a popular player you know damn well most people wouldn't be saying "sack him".

 

Correct.

 

Fortunately he is a bag of wank so we're all in agreement!

[nnfox]

This will not end Simpson's career. As has already been mentioned, there are plenty of footballers out there with a record, many of them continue to have successful careers. Simpson will have no problem walking into a Championship team and rebuilding from there. Common assault isn't exactly crime of the century and people from all walks of life have moments of madness and regret but domestic violence has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed by a professional (especially Premier League player). Leicester City is a well run, well liked, family friendly, community spirited club and this conviction is incompatible with our brand. No player is bigger than the club and the club have to take the moral high ground here and get rid. I'd say the same if it were Cambiasso.

[sly1]

What a twat

[inckley fox]

This will not end Simpson's career.  As has already been mentioned, there are plenty of footballers out there with a record, many of them continue to have successful careers.  Simpson will have no problem walking into a Championship team and rebuilding from there.  Common assault isn't exactly crime of the century and people from all walks of life have moments of madness and regret but domestic violence has to be a line that shouldn't be crossed by a professional (especially Premier League player).  Leicester City is a well run, well liked, family friendly, community spirited club and this conviction is incompatible with our brand.  No player is bigger than the club and the club have to take the moral high ground here and get rid.  I'd say the same if it were Cambiasso.

 

 

I understand your point, but you said yourself that it's not 'exactly crime of the century' and that it 'will not end Simpson's career'. So why should it end his Leicester career? Or anyone else's? I'm not so sure drink-driving is a great deal better than having an explosive row and throttling someone. If he'd meant to kill her he'd be on an attempted murder charge, clearly.

 

We welcomed Collymore to the club after his exploits with Ulrika, is the Simpson case more serious because he got caught or because he's not as good as Collymore? Or should we never have gone near Stan, fired Morgan, disowned a whole load of other past club legends...? Where do we stop?

 

You say that a club should draw 'a line' with domestic abuse. What other lines should we draw? Do we, therefore, make a decision that fighting is more serious than driving under the influence? I'm not saying we shouldn't make a stand, I'm just pointing out that it's a very difficult stand to make. What about the countless unprovoked assaults, violent robberies, acts of vandalism that footballers have been found guilty of?

 

One interesting upshot of this is that we knew about the case while we were still playing Simpson. And some of those who supported him being in the side, and never once called for him to be dropped, will also have been slating Sunderland for playing Johnson. So that's another line we must have drawn, then - one which considers violence towards a woman to be far less serious than sex with a girl who is marginally under-age. It's a bit awkward, really.

 

Besides, many of our attitudes towards rape and wife-beating are based on outmoded Victorian perceptions of woman as fragile, pretty little things whom we need to protect from the perils of the world, instead of any genuine urge to fight for an end to their suppression and give them a equal role in society. The real problem has always been the suppression of women, be it by violence, sexual violence or whatever. If that's not what's happened in this case, then what we're really talking about is violence, the gender aspect is no longer relevant. In which case every footballer guilty of common assault should be sidelined for good. Gerard might get away with it on the grounds that his assault on the guy who wouldn't play Phil Collins wasn't actually an assault after all, but there'd be a whole load of others - big, big names included - who'd be banished forever.

[Jordan]

Danny Simpson was convicted of assault--that alone is quite likely enough grounds for him to be sacked.

Add on the total dickhead nature of what he did and the club's public support for anti-domestic violence campaigns, and the negative publicity generated by this, and sacking Simpson pretty much becomes a no-brainer. The club has its own reputation (and its staff their own morals) to uphold and having maybe two more seasons (if jail doesn't cut into his playing time) of Danny Simpson as a right back option simply isn't worth the club's while.

As for those suggesting that fans calling for Simpson's sacking would keep their mouths shut if a higher-profile player got convicted of the same crime,

1) They didn't, and it's really low to suggest Esteban Cambiasso or Jamie Vardy could maybe beat a woman just to create a hypothetical situation in making your terrible argument, and

2) to throw your awful argument right back at you, wouldn't a higher-profile player being convicted of this crime create even more outrage?

I don't care how good he is (he's not, but anyway), I wouldn't want someone convicted of beating a woman while a member of Leicester City to remain at this club. If Danny Simpson wants to serve his punishment and try to be a pro footballer and a decent member of society going forward, fine, but he can do it at a club whose reputation he hasn't besmirched--not this one.

[inckley fox]

As for Simpson, I'm sorry that he's done what he's done and been convicted (though not as sorry, of course, as you have to feel for his former partner), and hope he learns something from it and becomes a better person as a result. If that makes him a better player at the end of the day, then I think I could live with seeing him in a Leicester City shirt again. I suspect he's going to be gone and I'd perfectly understand that decision because what he's done is dreadful, but I'm equally unconvinced by these black-and-white attitudes towards crimes/criminals. And, above all else, I've got to believe in rehabilitation, because otherwise the whole world is doomed.

[inckley fox]

Why the hell are we still talking about Ched Evans, and doing it here, of all places?

Anyway, Danny Simpson was convicted of assault--that alone is quite likely enough grounds for him to be sacked.

Add on the total dickhead nature of what he did and the club's public support for anti-domestic violence campaigns, and the negative publicity generated by this, and sacking Simpson pretty much becomes a no-brainer. The club has its own reputation (and its staff their own morals) to uphold and having maybe two more seasons (if jail doesn't cut into his playing time) of Danny Simpson as a right back option simply isn't worth the club's while.

As for those suggesting that fans calling for Simpson's sacking would keep their mouths shut if a higher-profile player got convicted of the same crime,

1) They didn't, and it's really low to suggest Esteban Cambiasso or Jamie Vardy could maybe beat a woman just to create a hypothetical situation in making your terrible argument, and

2) to throw your awful argument right back at you, wouldn't a higher-profile player being convicted of this crime create even more outrage?

I don't care how good he is (he's not, but anyway), I wouldn't want someone convicted of beating a woman while a member of Leicester City to remain at this club. If Danny Simpson wants to serve his punishment and try to be a pro footballer and a decent member of society going forward, fine, but he can do it at a club whose reputation he hasn't besmirched--not this one.

 

We have actually had a very high profile, self-confessed woman-beater on our books. We signed him shortly after he beat a woman in public, then we praised our manager for bringing him in and lauded said player as a great player while he was here. And most of the people on this forum were at the ground cheering his name and still talk fondly of his brief spell at the club. He wasn't jailed for it, of course, and there were plenty of mitigating circumstances which came out over time... but is it really 'an awful argument' when the club and the fans have, in living memory, done exactly the opposite of what - according to you - is a no-brainer?

 

You make a distinction on the grounds that Simpson did this 'while a member of Leicester City'. So your complaint is with the damage he's done the club, and how unprofessional he's been in his out-of-hours self-conduct, rather than with the offence itself. Personally, I don't think that employing a known offender is so morally far apart from giving an employee who's committed an offence the chance to reform his character.

 

I wouldn't especially argue if the club chose to sack him; partly for selfish reasons (he's not much good) and partly because what he did is pretty awful. That doesn't mean to say it's a straightforward decision, nor that it's one which has by taken by the club in the not-so-distant past. But I'm not sure why we're arguing. You may well be referring to a different poster, but the message I was responding to which mentioned Cambiasso was actually in favour of Simpson being fired. And I can't see too many people trying to play down the severity of Simpson's offence, or claiming he's decent, or arguing that he's anything other than an almighty idiot, the debate has to be whether Leicester has to take a moral high ground and, if so, when.

[The Railway Man]

Hang him

[nnfox]

I understand your point, but you said yourself that it's not 'exactly crime of the century' and that it 'will not end Simpson's career'. So why should it end his Leicester career? Or anyone else's? I'm not so sure drink-driving is a great deal better than having an explosive row and throttling someone. If he'd meant to kill her he'd be on an attempted murder charge, clearly.

 

We welcomed Collymore to the club after his exploits with Ulrika, is the Simpson case more serious because he got caught or because he's not as good as Collymore? Or should we never have gone near Stan, fired Morgan, disowned a whole load of other past club legends...? Where do we stop?

 

You say that a club should draw 'a line' with domestic abuse. What other lines should we draw? Do we, therefore, make a decision that fighting is more serious than driving under the influence? I'm not saying we shouldn't make a stand, I'm just pointing out that it's a very difficult stand to make. What about the countless unprovoked assaults, violent robberies, acts of vandalism that footballers have been found guilty of?

 

One interesting upshot of this is that we knew about the case while we were still playing Simpson. And some of those who supported him being in the side, and never once called for him to be dropped, will also have been slating Sunderland for playing Johnson. So that's another line we must have drawn, then - one which considers violence towards a woman to be far less serious than sex with a girl who is marginally under-age. It's a bit awkward, really.

 

Besides, many of our attitudes towards rape and wife-beating are based on outmoded Victorian perceptions of woman as fragile, pretty little things whom we need to protect from the perils of the world, instead of any genuine urge to fight for an end to their suppression and give them a equal role in society. The real problem has always been the suppression of women, be it by violence, sexual violence or whatever. If that's not what's happened in this case, then what we're really talking about is violence, the gender aspect is no longer relevant. In which case every footballer guilty of common assault should be sidelined for good. Gerard might get away with it on the grounds that his assault on the guy who wouldn't play Phil Collins wasn't actually an assault after all, but there'd be a whole load of others - big, big names included - who'd be banished forever.

 

Common assault is not crime of the century.  If he had pushed some drunk over in a bar then it would have been a problem but not one that couldn't be overcome.  Likewise, the whole Stan Collymore issue was at a different time in our history.  We have moved on from then and in today's highly commercial world, brand is everything.

 

Let's be realistic.  Football is full of young men with lots of money who have had a whole host of life experiences.  Some behave better than others, there will always be "wrong'uns".  To think that every professional player can be expected to have a squeaky clean off the field image is never going to happen.  You have to expect certain regrettable incidents will happen.  How the clubs deal with these incidents is a matter for them but Leicester City in 2015 is a club that reflects brilliantly on the city.  It's well run by good people.  The brand's reputation is pretty good imo.  

 

One off incidents of drink driving where nobody is hurt can be dealt with and absorbed, as can drunken bar bust ups.  In today's market though of mega rich, influential young men that are an inspiration to thousands, then actions amounting to domestic violence or racism or crimes against the vulnerable or children does damage to Leicester City - the brand and football as a whole.  It might well be the case that if Simpson played for Sunderland, they wouldn't give a monkey's and he could carry on being first name on the team sheet.  They seem to be OK with having a potential sex offender play for them.  I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but how they have handled the situation with Adam Johnson is terrible I think.  In my opinion he should have remained suspended until the outcome of the case.

 

Look at Hull and the Livermore situation.  I know that the ban was imposed by the FA but Hull have come out and said that they were angry about the situation and his actions fall well short of what the club expects of its players.  Credit to them for that.

 

What we have is Hull saying we don't want drug users at our club.  We have an opportunity to say we don't want wife-beaters at our club and Sunderland can carry on welcoming paedophiles.  I know which club I'd rather be associated with.

 

Premier League footballers in particular are always high profile when they end up in court.  There is a duty on all football clubs to try and clean up the image of footballers.  So even if Simpson walks away with a suspended sentence it has to be seen that there are still serious repercussions and kids can't be taught that it is OK to slap your missus and life will be just fine.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

I don't want someone of that ilk representing my club. Could of been Cambiasso, Huth, Vardy, even big Nige. You do that, ship them out.

[Jordan]

We have actually had a very high profile, self-confessed woman-beater on our books. We signed him shortly after he beat a woman in public, then we praised our manager for bringing him in and lauded said player as a great player while he was here. And most of the people on this forum were at the ground cheering his name and still talk fondly of his brief spell at the club. He wasn't jailed for it, of course, and there were plenty of mitigating circumstances which came out over time... but is it really 'an awful argument' when the club and the fans have, in living memory, done exactly the opposite of what - according to you - is a no-brainer?

You make a distinction on the grounds that Simpson did this 'while a member of Leicester City'. So your complaint is with the damage he's done the club, and how unprofessional he's been in his out-of-hours self-conduct, rather than with the offence itself. Personally, I don't think that employing a known offender is so morally far apart from giving an employee who's committed an offence the chance to reform his character.

I wouldn't especially argue if the club chose to sack him; partly for selfish reasons (he's not much good) and partly because what he did is pretty awful. That doesn't mean to say it's a straightforward decision, nor that it's one which has by taken by the club in the not-so-distant past. But I'm not sure why we're arguing. You may well be referring to a different poster, but the message I was responding to which mentioned Cambiasso was actually in favour of Simpson being fired. And I can't see too many people trying to play down the severity of Simpson's offence, or claiming he's decent, or arguing that he's anything other than an almighty idiot, the debate has to be whether Leicester has to take a moral high ground and, if so, when.

I wasn't writing to you; I was responding to some themes that popped in this thread.

To take on a point you made, though, I think this case and the Collymore situation are different (not saying one man is better than the other, but Simpson was convicted of a crime while an employee of the club). Through the lens of time, too, those that supported his move to Leicester turned out to be wrong (even considering the Sunderland hat trick). The club also has much different ownership and image than it did then.

But going back to the question when Leicester City should and shouldn't take the moral high ground, when you have a prominent public club figure make statements like this:

Club Ambassador Alan 'The Birch' Birchenall told LCFC.com: “To see so many people come out and support this campaign [How Many Times] is fantastic, and hopefully, it’ll go a long way in helping to stop domestic and sexual violence."

“I think it is their duty as sportsmen and women to make a stand against violence, because people look up to them as role models.”

...then it's not unreasonable to suggest that the club should, in this instance.

[Oxfordfox83]

Have to get rid-whatever arguments there are for rehabilitation, he hasn't shown the inclination to reform.

If he had come out immediately afterwards, accepted the charge, unconditionally apologised and sought support, it might have been different. As it is, he defended himself in the face of overwhelming evidence, to the detriment of the girl and his son. He tried to get away with it.

Bye Danny, I hope one day you realise what a privilege you have chosen to throw away.

[DB11]

I think those of you saying it's ok and others are hypocritical because of Stan Collymore and other ex-players need to stop living in the past because times have changed and society does not condone treating women as second class citizens like used to be the norm.

[Oxfordfox83]

I think those of you saying it's ok and others are hypocritical because of Stan Collymore and other ex-players need to stop living in the past because times have changed and society does not condone treating women as second class citizens like used to be the norm.

I don't think we accepted the behaviour at the time-we're not going back to the fifties. But while the case is pretty unpleasant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/110009.stm) Stan did show immediate and public remorse. MON, if I recall, came out and said he'd spoken to the player prior to signing and was convinced he had put this kind of behaviour behind him.

I wouldn't have a problem with another club, in the fullness of time, employing DS, but only if he does something about his behaviour and acknowledges what he did. While he's in denial, he is still suggesting what he did was ok, and at that point there's no place for him in the public eye, let alone at our club.

[Itsthejoeker]

I don't think we accepted the behaviour at the time-we're not going back to the fifties. But while the case is pretty unpleasant (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/110009.stm) Stan did show immediate and public remorse. MON, if I recall, came out and said he'd spoken to the player prior to signing and was convinced he had put this kind of behaviour behind him.

I wouldn't have a problem with another club, in the fullness of time, employing DS, but only if he does something about his behaviour and acknowledges what he did. While he's in denial, he is still suggesting what he did was ok, and at that point there's no place for him in the public eye, let alone at our club.

 

Collymore did have a previous with domestic violence though...

 

Hope Simpson isn't on the lap of honour on Sunday. Could be very awkward.

[Livid]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11608554/Manu-Tuilagi-to-miss-World-Cup-after-assaulting-police-officer.html

A taxi driver and two female police officers. Not being selected for the World Cup but I haven't seen a campaign for him to be kicked out at the Tigers, then again he's an England man. Just had a few too many and some 'Rugger' high japes got a little out of hand.

Simpson probably had a few too many and got in a heated argument with his ex, which spiralled out of control.

I'm not defending Simpson, god knows why he pleaded not guilty, who knows what advice his solicitor gave him but there are double standards.

[Bert]

Are you doing this to defend Simpson or do you just want to point out the hypocrisy? Because whether a few people wouldn't treat a better player the same or not, he's still a massive c*** and shouldn't be playing for Leicester at the very least until he actually has shown some remorse and reformed himself (and even then he shouldn't because he's not good enough).

How do you know he hasn't already done so?

[Oxfordfox83]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11608554/Manu-Tuilagi-to-miss-World-Cup-after-assaulting-police-officer.html

A taxi driver and two female police officers. Not being selected for the World Cup but I haven't seen a campaign for him to be kicked out at the Tigers, then again he's an England man. Just had a few too many and some 'Rugger' high japes got a little out of hand.

Simpson probably had a few too many and got in a heated argument with his ex, which spiralled out of control.

I'm not defending Simpson, god knows why he pleaded not guilty, who knows what advice his solicitor gave him but there are double standards.

Not comparable. Tuilagi pleaded guilty before it ever got to court, he had an altercation with a taxi driver and resisted arrest (that the police were female is irrelevant).

Not anything like domestic violence, nothing like physically assaulting a lone woman in private - this is a much lesser crime. Plus, he's (rightly) getting a kicking for it.

[Itsthejoeker]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11608554/Manu-Tuilagi-to-miss-World-Cup-after-assaulting-police-officer.html

A taxi driver and two female police officers. Not being selected for the World Cup but I haven't seen a campaign for him to be kicked out at the Tigers, then again he's an England man. Just had a few too many and some 'Rugger' high japes got a little out of hand.

Simpson probably had a few too many and got in a heated argument with his ex, which spiralled out of control.

I'm not defending Simpson, god knows why he pleaded not guilty, who knows what advice his solicitor gave him but there are double standards.

 

This isn't a Tigers forum so why should we have an opinion? 

[ADK]

I'm not sure why my post was deleted, but I don't want to see Simpson playing for us next season.

[Guest]

Should have his contract terminated immediately. Leicester must not condone marital/domestic violence.

[Captain...]

Oh sorry wrong case.

Even more serious but hey you are so right he was not in any trouble when we signed him.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554575/Tulisas-ex-boyfriend-QPR-star-Danny-Simpson-arrested-iron-bar-attack-man-iPhone-vanished-night-out.html

 

He's a real nice guy sorry you are right.

Why did I need to read all the thread he has previous.

 

But I do not expect a sorry.

 

I didn't say he is a nice guy, he is clearly a twat, but he wasn't ever convicted of the iron bar attack, so he has to be considered not guilty and the club should not be criticised for signing someone who has no criminal convictions or pending trials.

 

Simpson is clearly a twat but you would expect the club to be aware of his past, but without any convictions that should be no barrier to signing someone. 

[Livid]

Not comparable. Tuilagi pleaded guilty before it ever got to court, he had an altercation with a taxi driver and resisted arrest (that the police were female is irrelevant).

Not anything like domestic violence, nothing like physically assaulting a lone woman in private - this is a much lesser crime. Plus, he's (rightly) getting a kicking for it.

 

"Tuilagi, 23, was found guilty at Leicester Magistrates court yesterday of two counts of assaulting a police officer, assault by beating and causing criminal damage"

 

"Simpson, 28, originally from Eccles, Greater Manchester, denied one charge of assault by beating at the city's magistrates' court."

 

I'll leave that there.