Jump to content

GadFly

Member
  • Content Count

    338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GadFly

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Are there strict rules around how one is supposed to “remember”?
  2. This whole argument is a bit of a red herring when the club makes zero reference to his ill health in their statement, and makes it all about his conduct.
  3. baalocks. The implication to anyone with half a brain and the ability to apply logic and critical thinking to a situation is that Keogh is worth less money, and is more of a liability/drain on resources to the club now than the other two are.
  4. Oh right so they actually WILL "tolerate any of their players or staff behaving in a manner which puts themselves, their colleagues, and members of the general public at risk of injury or worse, or which brings them into disrepute"?
  5. The bit that's weird is this; if he's so unable to work, if his conduct was so appalling, why has he been offered reduced terms at all? Why was he only dismissed after refusing to accept said terms?
  6. A lot of people with a moral compass that isn't broken and all.
  7. So much this. Wish I could like it twice or more.
  8. Not admin... but it is done.
  9. It's not a moot point though is it though because the club make no reference to his injury or ability to play in their statement. They expect us to honestly believe it's about morality and conduct.
  10. I honestly would respect it a lot more if they were just honest and said "basically he's old AF, injured for 14 months, will probably never be the same player again and he's going to cost us a lot of money in wasted wages. The other 2 can hopefully be re-sold and can still play a part for us, it'd be too expensive to get rid of them and/or replace them, so we're less bothered, this has everything to do with money and football and nothing to do with morals" Instead, they've gone all high-horse about it and are trying to take some sort of ducked up moral high-ground and hoping we're too stupid to go "Eh?! What about Lawrence and Bennett who actually drove the cars!?" 😂
  11. Are you on glue? Put themselves at risk. Tick. Colleague at risk. Tick. (Keogh actually injured for 14 months through their actions as well as his own) General public at risk of injury or worse. Tick. Club in disrepute. Massive tick. You're going to need to elaborate on your comment because I really don't understand it.
  12. Trying to defend this decision reeks of tribalistic politics tbh. It's like Liverpool fans defending Suarez for his racism or biting opponents simply because he was THEIR player at the time. Forget the club for a second in your thinking, imagine it was another clubs players, Forest's even, and the whole thing looks a hell of a lot different ... from the perspective of what's morally right/fair/just this is absolute bullcrap, and Lawrence/Bennett should be sacked too if Keogh has been shown the door.
  13. This is basically it. The club aren't saying that though... they're making out like it's a moral thing and that they won't "tolerate" such actions, which makes them look like a bunch of ducking hypocritical Bamfords when you take the Lawrence/Bennett situation in to account in your thinking tbh.
  14. "This is what we will remember him for" - this and one other famous moment I reckon.
×
×
  • 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.