Arsenal’s decision to keep playing Thomas Partey and even offer him a new contract comes under extensive criticism.
Send your thoughts – on football and other related issues – to theeditor@football365.com
There’s no easy answer to the whole Thomas Partey episode. Morally and emotionally, of course tempers are on edge because Partey has been charged with a disgusting crime (repeatedly) but never forget that, because of the sensitivity of the charges, in a legal sense every single entity has to be seen to be abiding, absolutely, to the letter and expectations of the law.
Which might explain, to some degree, why Arsenal didn’t drop Thomas Partey.
When the first arrest was made, the Police released a statement. They didn’t mention any names. When the media first got hold of the story, they too didn’t mention any names. Why didn’t the national media simply name and shame Thomas Partey there and then? Well, that would be for the same reason that Arsenal continued to play him. He is innocent until proven guilty, he is entitled to a fair trial, and crucially, he wasn’t actually charged with anything until three years later.
The reason why Partey’s name is in the public eye before the charges is not because of the Police, or the Crown, or Arsenal. It is in the public eye because of the public, who figured out who the accused player was and posted it, endlessly, across the internet. Of course the public turned out to be correct in their assumption of who the unnamed player was, but for three years now, Partey’s name has been in the public domain, released by the public, ensuring he now probably doesn’t get that fair trial. How can he?
Ok, but Arsenal still could have dropped him. Right? Right. I agree, they absolutely could have.
However, let’s go back three years, an injury-free and in-form Thomas Partey is suddenly dropped from the Arsenal line-up. The first question from any journalist worth his or her ink would be, “why have you dropped Thomas Partey?”. They know what they are doing, they know that the question itself could be framed as a question of performance or attitude or injury (therefore they can ask it legally) but it leaves Arsenal in a position they don’t want to be in. “Oh, he’s carrying a knock” say Mikel Arteta, and by the end of the day he’s being sued by Thomas Partey.
Arsenal were left in a dreadful position, but to my mind at least, the only thing they could do was carry on as normal, play Partey, and not speak a single word on any of the accusations because, legally, they are not allowed to. If I was Arsenal manager and this was me, I too would like to think I would simply drop him there and then, but I imagine my own legal team would tell me why I cannot, as well as Partey’s legal team, and possibly even the FA’s legal team.
No, Arteta did have a choice
I disagreed with the take from Josh AFC in Dubai that banning someone from their jobs or society because of an accusation is one step away from Nazism. On so, so many levels. How’s life in Dubai mate? Lots of access to the legal system for the slaves?
We know that Arteta is a person who looks at what the CAN get away with and not consider how they SHOULD behave. We know he is backed up by several very expensive QCs. I am confident that his very expensive legal team sat down and said what they can get away with. But legal teams advise, someone at Arsenal decided what they should do.
There is a difference between being accused, being charged and being convicted. There are many roles where people are suspended on an accusation pending an investigation such as people who work with kids, professional environments, armed police who murder death kill a suspect.
I imagine the investigations will go a lot quicker if a player is suspended.
I imagine that footballers are susceptible to false accusations however there appears to be a lot of tolerance for footballers who are scum bags as long they play well for your team. I was guilty of that with Suarez.
There is no need for anyone to defend Partey. You can defend his right to a fair trial, but not him. There’s a good chance that it won’t go to trial. The conviction rate on rapes are staggeringly low.
But Arteta made a decision. Arteta chose to play such a man. And it’s totally in line with his character.
…Could it be more appropriate that the staunch defence of Partey – alleged to have committed multiple instances of sexual assault – comes from a guy living in that bastion of moral behaviour Dubai.
You couldn’t make it up.
I wonder if “Josh” felt the same about Greenwood? The fact is, Partey has been under investigation for at least the last year. Indeed there was a letter sent from an Arsenal fan group to the board demanding him to not be played while this was investigated a year ago.
Stay classy and don’t forget to defence sexual violence, Josh.
…I was on the fence as to whether to weigh in on the chat around Thomas Partey and Arsenal’s handling of the rape charges that were seemingly headed his way for quite some time before his contract expired. It seems like both sides have been put forward already, and I found the law enforcement angle to be interesting as it always seems that footballers belong in a separate bubble when it comes to criminal acts and the related punishment.
As a United fan, the most recent proxy I have for the quandary this puts Arsenal fans in is the Mason Greenwood circus that engulfed the club when the allegations of his domestic violence arose 18 months ago. I never felt conflicted about how he was to be treated if found guilty – there’s obviously no place in society for that, never mind in an arena as high profile as professional football.
What did give me pause for thought, however, was the manner in which the evidence which was in the public domain backed United into a corner and impacted due process. From his initial suspension through to his eventual sale, it did feel that his card was marked irrespective of what verdict the legal system might deliver. The fact that he never saw a day in court barely even mattered.
Like many others, I find it hard not to take a dim view of the possible reasons for the CPS dropping Greenwood’s case. But as people on the outside looking in, that take remains speculative because the facts of the case were never disclosed. The only thing I can say with certainty is that the whole fiasco, and the farcical “will we/won’t we” dithering by United before they cut him loose, made the club look both amateurish and problematic. Arriving at what always seemed like the right decision was far too circuitous a process, clearly influenced by Greenwood’s value as an asset on the field.
Which brings me back to Partey, and the way Arsenal have handled his situation. From a legal standpoint, they’ve not put a foot wrong (thanks to Michael O for the detail he offered on this). And the way in which Benjamin Mendy’s similar case played out in court is an indicator of how a set of charges may not lead to conviction.
But while Arsenal have been spared the prolonged coconut shy that United (rightfully) endured, the stink off this feels more toxic than the Greenwood case. Because they’ve broken from a semi-established norm when it comes to suspending players when these types of allegations arise. Not only continuing to play him, but talking about a new contract… it beggars belief in the current climate for these clubs.
Their actions are at best tone deaf, and make them look like prize w*nkers who don’t give two shits about the harm they cause or the example they set. Unlike United, they were in a position to control the narrative and get out ahead of this bus by taking the appropriate action. They may not have messed up by the letter of the law, but they’ve stained their club’s reputation in the process. Maybe the board don’t care about something intangible like that, but I do feel for any Arsenal fan who’s feeling uneasy about their club as a result.
Absolutely nailed it, chapeau.
Ben (people need to stop worrying about lack of transfer activity at various clubs, its not even mid July….)
Let me start by saying I have been a daily patron of this site for over 20 years.
And although the volume of ads have gotten more egregious over time, the general quality of content and community has remained solid. From lost legacy features like ‘Look-a-like’ (Rooney and Shrek lol) to the Neville diaries and Mailboxes with Conor Byrne and Jack 17 (now going on 30 perhaps) and various inside jokes (1% said Frank Lampard) – See what i did? Brackets + and inside joke. This has often been the most level headed place for my football news/discussion.
And while I don’t agree with most of John Nicholson’s POV on football, I can simply choose to avoid those articles/features that I’m not interested in.
Stewie Griffin however really brings no value to this site and Mailbox whatsoever. Peddling his same nonsense over and over and over again. It’s not even an interesting debate anymore.
It’s a shame because I feel there is a pretty good discussion in the Mailbox generally and why do you need to waste space (and take away others potential contribution) by including his garbage? Is it really for the ‘clicks’ and shit he stirs? Will the Mailbox and F365 site really crumble if it’s left out?
If you really think so then I suggest to pls give Stewie his own feature article each time he finds the time to ‘contribute’. That way you can track just how much interest and interaction he gets and drives. This way I (and I’m sure 100’s of others) can skip past and read through some more relevant discord in the mailbox.
And who knows, maybe you might find this Stewie feature is the most popular thing on your site as well, and the ad revenue from that alone will sustain F365. I hope so. because at least i can read my daily mailbox in peace without that muppet.
It likely won’t happen. But I have tried.
…Enough is enough. Many will think Stewie crossed a line long ago, but he certainly has now.
To use this dreadful situation with Partey as a way of supporting his trolling narrative of “Arsenal players, Arsenal fans, Arsenal football club, the Arsenal manager and all things Arsenal are all shameful c**ts” is, to put it mildly, utterly tasteless, showing complete disrespect for the alleged victims and displaying a level of emotional intelligence that should cause the individual behind this Stewie persona to take a step back and question themselves.
If he (I keep saying “he” – the possibility of “she” doesn’t seem all that plausible in the circumstances) wanted to make a serious point about the Partey situation, perhaps he should have sent in a separate email under his real name. I suspect that wasn’t what he was trying to achieve though. No, he wanted to use it to troll.
Get rid of this nasty puerile persona. There is no place for it here.
…Further to Brian’s email yesterday regarding Stewie G. I don’t really care what the man says but I would like F365 to not publish troll voices when it comes to important topics like with Thomas Partey. I don’t think the conversation is progressed by anyone who has a weird anti-club bias or should be lumped in with the usual transfer guff.
This is a serious conversation and requires serious, thoughtful and insightful voices.
Shall we wait and see if Man City are guilty first?
I realise I may have a slight foot in a camp, but I’m a big believer in waiting to find out if someone is guilty before punishing them. Thanks for your input, though, Ziggy. Since we’re being creative… If City are found not guilty, maybe the Premier League should face a punishment? Something like relegation for Manchester United or something?
