Jump to content

PodgeyRam

Member
  • Content Count

    1,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PodgeyRam

  • Rank
    Member

Season Ticket Holder

  • Season Ticket
    West Upper - Block P

Recent Profile Visitors

1,601 profile views
  1. Without knowing all the facts it looks like a s**tty move from Mel and given his track record with sackings (remember Sam Rush and that day in court we never had?) it wouldn't surprise me if this is another one.
  2. If he had it would have more than likely been brought up in mitigation for Lawrence in court which it wasn't.
  3. It seems hypocritical for the club to say we need to support Bennett and Lawrence through the tough times they're having and then turn around and sack the one person who was physically injured in the crash.
  4. When you make an ethical decision you shouldn't be bearing in mind the financial cost. It just looks like and is double standards for him to get the sack but for the other two not to.
  5. Having seen Lawrence 'play' for the last two and a bit seasons, I'm not entirely sure that's true.
  6. That statement makes it sound like it was a question of ethics when deciding to sack him. In which case why are Bennett and Lawrence still at the club?
  7. I thought we certainly played better today than we did against Wigan. Again we were sloppy on the ball though - Davies is filling in admirably, but it's easy to see how much we've lost with Keogh out for the season. No one in our defence is as comfortable on the ball as he is. Thought Lawrence started brightly but then fell into his same routine of running into crowds of opposition players. Didn't see what was wrong with the goal, but he wasn't complaining so I can only assume he thought he'd fouled the man as well. Martin as so isolated, but when he got on the ball I don't think he wasted it once. He's such a classy footballer and it's no coincidence we look a better team when he's on the pitch. Dowell did absolutely nothing for the first half and hour, tossed in a sublime ball for Lawrence and then disappeared again. Like Lawrence, he has a nasty habit of giving the ball away cheaply. Thought Cocu got it wrong taking off Shinnie and Martin - thought we played worse after they both went off. And as much as I like youth, that was not the game to blood Whittaker. He should have brought Waghorn or Marriott on instead.
  8. Just finished reading the truly remarkable story involving the Cloughs and @ronnieronalde on The Athletic. You have to pay to read it but I think it's well worth the price. I've often wondered what Ronnie's connection with the Cloughs was but his steadfast defences of them make a lot more sense now. Particularly love the part about Ian Bowyer taking this kid he barely knows to go and get glasses. Give it a read if you get the chance. https://theathletic.com/1289971/2019/10/15/the-remarkable-tale-of-two-boys-who-went-begging-for-pennies-and-ended-up-living-with-brian-clough/
  9. Decent apology from Mason. Still don't think he should've played before the court case, but at the very least they should've put that statement out before he came back into the team. Disappointed not to see a statement from Lawrence. Perhaps an indication he's in deeper trouble than Mason? Or another example of him going missing at the inopportune moment?
  10. Duane's a good egg isn't he. Lampard's best pound for pound signing.
  11. Well I for one am shocked that Ryan Giggs would do such a morally dubious thing.
  12. Where's this stuff about Lawrence crying as he was coming off the pitch coming from? If he is in tears then he's clearly not in a fit state to be anywhere near a football pitch which makes it another error of judgement from the club and the manager.
  13. Well if Lawrence or Bennett try to get it thrown out on a technicality I'd imagine that's an even worse look for them and the club and would subject them to even more abuse from the fans. Much better for them to be seen as repentant and accepting of their punishment.
  14. That's interesting, I hadn't seen that before. So in that situation, it seems they didn't take a breathalyser test in the station, but took a blood sample. Maybe I'm just being dense, but why couldn't they use the second sample? Because the first sample was nowhere to be found and they needed two samples? Or is it something else?
  15. I suspect we're talking semantics here. When I say police breathalyser, I mean the one they use as evidence, ie. the one at the station. The preliminary breathalyser (the one used roadside) would be used to determine whether another evidential breathalyser test should be taken at the station. So you could blow as having alcohol in your system roadside, but if you're under the limit, it's not beyond the realms of possibility the police would let you go without taking you into the station. Like you say in the second paragraph, if you blow a positive but have dipped below the limit by the time you get to the station you get dearrested. It happens surprisingly often. Which is why I'm pretty certain they'll both be found guilty.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.