Absolutely nothing they could do? They were required to try to extend his contract as late as last week?
I’ve no clue what they could do or could know legally. Seems they just said player hadn’t been charged and he said he didn’t do it so they operated business usual until changed backed/trusted player
They could’ve sat his ass every match and found someone to take him. Didn’t they nix a transfer to Al-Hilal just two summers ago after the allegations? “Nothing they could do.” Bullshit.
Thought Partey shot down the Saudi move but yeah, not claiming “nothing they could do” just that they appear (no clue behind the scenes) to have said back the player until charged. Really hope they don’t have all the information the authorities did on the case and said let it ride
Idk maybe they could have believed the multiple women that accused him of rape and tried to quietly move him on at any point in the last 3 years? I believe with one of them there were texts that leaked where he basically admitted to it. You could MAYBE excuse Arteta/the club for playing him when he hadn’t been charged, but actively trying to extend his contract up until a few weeks ago is pretty indefensible imo.
I’m quite positive that’s what happened. Every indication was he was coming back until he definitely wasn’t. Regardless, the club knew the allegations. They knew the other shoe could drop at any time. They hear the boos in every away ground when he touches the ball. He’s 32. Injured all the time. It made ZERO sense to even entertain the idea of bringing him back imo.
They shouldn’t have tried to extend for many other reasons, but you have to back your employee until you can’t - which seems to have been what likely happened.
Your take coming from a Penn State fan is rich - You have no clue what the club knew & didn't know... get out of here with your high & mighty BS.
they knew he had been arrested. Even if you want to look at it purely from a football perspective, he should have been dumped because of the high degree of risk that he was going to be charged and become unavailable.
That Duke Lacrosse situation is extremely pertinent... There was nothing officially for the club to react to - he wasn't named, nor was he charged until today. As I said in my 1st post, I'm glad he's gone.
no it’s not. One corrupt prosecutor running for re-election finding a drug addict stripper trying to stay out of jail does not mean that accusations of rape should be given no credence for all eternity, fuck off with that comparison. Why are you citing the Duke lacrosse case if you’re happy to see him gone? They were arrested and charged. he was arrested and rearrested a series of times over years. Everyone knew he had been, the “he wasn’t named” excuse is absurd.
Yeah - meant to highlight the protest, but to be clear 1) thats bs and 2) fuck that guy twitter is full of people looking to grandstand
But look at my growth - I’ve gone all day & not called anybody names or “dumb” You faux outrage is misplaced. You’re frustration towards the club, who had nothing to formally act on while he was under contract, should be towards the authorities & the Metropolitan police for taking three years to actually legally name Partey & charge him I really hope you don’t choke on a glizzy, or lose a finger in a fireworks mishap… promise
Zeb has been vocal about not wanting Partey playing the entire time. Not sure what is faux about that
So not faux, but still misplaced... I don't keep a mental catalog of posting histories. The club never had legal grounds to suspend him & no reason to do so now, as he's no longer under contract. The UK laws regarding the presumption of innocence are quite unambiguous. The rags never printed his name in an article for 3 years, but there are people chastising the club for not going farther. For perspective - Mason Greenwood was suspended by ManU, before charges, but only after confirmed images & audio were leaked. That evidence gave ManU grounds to do something legally, before formal charges... even then he was suspended with full pay. No such evidence has ever materialized in Partey's investigation - I imagine if it had, the club would have acted appropriately. Thankfully he's no longer part of the squad, and I don't want to waste another moment discussing him *Zeb - apologies for the glitzy/fireworks comment... old habits die hard. have a happy & safe 4th
as you point out, Partey and Greenwood were in the same position with respect to the UK laws when United suspended him. The only difference the audio made was how uncomfortable it was for United to ignore it in comparison with Arsenal. Nothing about the UK libel laws would have prevented Arsenal from suspending him for “undisclosed reasons,” from declining to put him on the team sheet, from transferring him ass out, or from not extending him.
I didn't reference UK libel law, as that has nothing to do with Arsenal's action or inaction with regard to Partey - That was merely why the Rags didn't run a name. That audio/video gave ManU cause for action, which Arsenal never had. Had Arsenal done any of the things you suggest, that could have prejudiced the investigation and/or case against him
suspending a guy who knows he’s been arrested (and rearrested) would prejudice the investigation? Give me a break. the cause for action was that he was arrested for rape
They’ve had his ex-girlfriend’s text messages for years - since right after he was arrested the first time. We know because she had them publicly published - we’ve all seen them. Making him an integral part of the starting XI and failing to transfer him or sit his ass down despite multiple allegations, arrests, and her messages being in the public domain is a failure of the club. And pretending “aw shucks. there’s just nothing they could legally do.” is wishcasting to absolve our favorite team of what was at-best willful indifference.
If you’ve known all along, why didn’t you tell the authorities? If those texts were clear-cut, he’d have been charged ages ago. You’re suggesting Arsenal toss out centuries of contract law, ignore due process, and violate FA, EPL, UEFA, and FIFA regulations with regard to contracts and due process. I get it—rape is terrible. If Partey’s guilty, lock him up & throw away the key. But due process isn’t optional just because you’re angry
Sure…if we were applying the government’s legal burden of proof to a private enterprise. “The government didn’t charge him so Arsenal can’t do anything” is utter nonsense.
You do realize Arsenal has to operate within that framework, right? Out of curiosity, the club should have acted based on what evidence?
Last I checked the club isn’t legally required to keep someone around with multiple arrests and active SA investigations. They most certainly could’ve sat him on the bench, sent him out on loan, or even transferred him for a below-market fee. Deciding they’d associate with him despite the multiple active ongoing investigations is a failure of the club. You can continue to cloak the club in innocence based on a legal standard they are not required to abide by. And that’s your choice. My choice is to acknowledge they could and should have acted differently despite the fact they’re my favorite club.
So… no evidence then? You do realize an arrest is just suspicion, right? It’s not a charge, and it’s definitely not a conviction. You’re skipping straight past the whole “proof” part—hell of a slippery slope you’re on.
Clubs suspend players under active investigation all the time. Arsenal could have chosen several avenues to effectively do just that, it chose none of them out of willful indifference. You can choose to support that. I do not. And I understand your choice is made easier by pretending the club was under a burden of proof standard which is was not. Thats ok too. Just own your choice.
You haven't actually "checked" anything Clubs absolutely do not suspend players without cause, or proof. You are quite literally just talking out of your ass - pure fantasyland. We shopped him for multiple transfer windows. It takes 3 to tango + the agents...Either Partey wasn’t willing, or there was no real market for him. I get why clubs would be wary. Arsenal played the hand they were dealt & opted to wait until the investigation was over - Could they have handled some things better? Sure. Arteta talking up Partey’s “character” during an ongoing investigation was cringe & a glaring misstep.
The highlight is the suggestion that Arsenal should have reacted to Partey allegedly breaking the law, by definitively breaking the law themselves.