no probs. maybe because lfc's owners are yanks it's taken on more significance than it might otherwise have
so whilst employed by Liverpool FC, he has no right to speak his mind, is that what you are saying Lucaaas?
I think you are wrong there Lucaaas, they bring attention to their club when appearing/speaking/tweeting in public but they dont represent the club unless they are in official club clothing etc. Was Stevie representing the club that night in the pub with the dj? or in the nightclub doing the 5times hand gesture? No he wasn't. Did he bring attention to the club yes but there is a difference
I would guess that he has a clause in his contract not to do anything that will bring the club into disrepute. Now whether or not this is bringing the club into disrepute or not is very subjective but whatever he says will always be reported as "Liverpool footballer said this, that or the other".
interesting point jordan. and the US have the freedom of speech written into their constitution. obviuosly this does not apply to the UK.
I didn't say that at all. I said he could say whatever he wanted to his friends, I don't see the need for him to make such comments on a plaftorm that broadcasts to the whole world though.
so what are we actually saying here? its ok for us ( average guys not in the public eye ) to say as we please, but its not ok for any one else to do the same? seems a tad unfair to me.
If he was posting anonymously, yes. If he wasn't, then its a no. As Chippy Minton says, most professional footballers have it written in their contracts that they don't bring the club into disrepute with their comments.
No but if they tell him he's not allowed to do anything to bring the club into disrepute and they think comments like this on twitter are inappropriate then they can act as they see fit.
I don't see a need for him having a twitter account at all. But just because something is needless doesn't mean it's wrong or punishable. And I certainly don't buy this 'footballers represent their clubs 24/7' thing because they don't. They have a right to only represent themselves when they aren't working just like the rest of us. Games, training, official club events are one thing but outside them he isn't representing the club so he isn't bringing the club into disrepute either
Exactly as I stated above they bring attention to the club but don't represent them. I don't think JT was giving it to Wayne Bridges ex for Chelsea FC, like wise Rooney wasn't riding old grannies in the name of Man.United
but thats my point Lucaaas, who decides what represents "disrepute"? i cant believe a football club sits all its players down and tells them what is, and is not acceptable, to say.
The contentious point of his tweet was that he tried to claim it wasn't a deliberate act of destruction, he tried to, laughably, claim that 9/11 was an accident and that the "Illuminati" were controlling the media and trying to blame an accident on the 'terrorists'. Torres was investigated for saying Chelsea's midfield build up was slow!
so, if he had said " well i dont believe the official line, i reakon it was an inside job " and left it at that, that would have been ok?
or perhaps he could of said "actually, i believe everything we have been told by our govts" would he have been investigated for this point of view? i wonder.
