Off Topic Bill Nicholson Arms
- Thread starter ShelfSideSpur
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Perhaps you have a point on the sexist/disrespectful comments but all these people abused have worked with Mackay in some shape or form, these aren't random strangers he's making these comments about.
Anyway, apparently Wigan can terminate his contract if he's found guilty at his hearing. That's a stupid thing for them to make public as it will only increase the pressure on them to sack him when he's inevitably found guilty. Whelan has brought the circus right to his front door with this one and I hope he gets the criticism he deserves for it.
I can't disagree there, I saw that this morning. I can't see why Whelan has hired him, or why Mackay has agreed to join under those conditions. Unless Mackay has a lot more confidence about the outcome of the inquiry than anybody else.
Looks like you're right YV, as one of the sponsors of Wigan has withdrawn his funding and now Whelan is being accused of anti-Semitism.
It seems that Whelan has been putting both his feet in his mouth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30137728
He's 77 now and whilst he might wish it was the '70s, it isn't and you can't say things like this if you want to retain any credibility these days
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30137728
He's 77 now and whilst he might wish it was the '70s, it isn't and you can't say things like this if you want to retain any credibility these days
I'd expect the clause is there for show, or incase any further allegations come out around the decision to find him guilty. I don't expect Wigan to fire him unless that happens, else why would they hire him, he's quite plainly guilty and the evidence makes it a formality. My guess is that Mackay won't challenge it and will be very, very contrite and Wigan will put out a statement supporting his apology and trying to draw a line under it.
I think Whelan has underestimated the situation though and might well be faced with his manager serving a ban, the backlash certainly appears to have begun already. Poor decision, he's a good manager but he's not worth all this. Luckily for Whelan he seems to be on good terms with SSN so at least he might be spared them putting the boot in too.
Was it on the box or did you go?
Brentford are on Sky Sports tomorrow night which should be a good chance to see Pritchard in action. There have been some rumours that we'll be sending him out to a PL side in January, which makes sense as there's no point loaning him out again next season, but if Mason and Bentaleb can break into the first team without a Premier League loan then maybe we're best leaving him where he's doing well. Warburton certainly thinks he should stay but I guess that's to be expected.
Lol
(i originally wrote another word and it got starred out
Does Sc**thorpe get starred?)Yes
Anyone seen the new site?
http://beta.not606.com/forums/tottenham-hotspur.27/
Haven't seen any mention of it on here, but the Pool pages are full of it.
http://beta.not606.com/forums/tottenham-hotspur.27/
Haven't seen any mention of it on here, but the Pool pages are full of it.
It's the format that Not606 will move to, once the kinks have been ironed out. It's currently being tested, which is why it's got the word beta in it's address.
Should have less issues than the current one, apparently.
This furore over Ched Evans is starting to smack of a witchunt. Ok, the guy commited a serious crime and has paid for it. But why these ever increasingly strident demands that he should never be allowed to kick a football for money again? He was playing for Sheffield Utd in Div one, he's not some high profile premiership star earning millions. And even if he were, why should be forced to give up his means of making a living? Is there some new Gvt policy that convicted offenders should have a lifetime earnings cap?
There are others out there playing football who have killed people - ok unintentionally, but why is that less serious than rape? Marlon King was convicted of assaulting women, but allowed to carry on playing after he came out. It strikes me that Ched Evans has unwittingly become the current "cause célèbre" of the right-on P.C. Brigade.
I agree. By inclination I am part of the pc brigade but this doesn't seem right to me. You do the crime and take the time. After that (with some obvious exceptions around children etc) it should be a clean slate. Added to the fact that the conviction is very suspect imo.
See also: ITV cancelling Dapper Laughs for material that Jimmy Carr and Frankie Boyle have been using without rebuke for several years.
The Ched Evans case is still under investigation by the Criminal Case Review Commision which investigates possible miscarriages of justice. Should they find in his favour will there be the same amount of press coverage and will all those people who have signed petitions and withdrawn sponsorship apologise publicly to him. As an afterthought Andy Coulsen has left prison. He is probably better known than Evans,so will there be similar outrage if returns to a job in the media?
I'm not sure why he was convicted and his associate cleared, where their respective sexual contacts with the woman in question were apparently ~10 minutes apart (according to the testimony of a hotel worker listening at the door or something like that?) and the woman I believe stated that she was too drunk to remember if she consented anyway which does I believe legally makes it rape - if she is too intoxicated it doesn't matter what she says as its not informed consent - but surely in both cases, not just in one. Surely in those circumstances either they're both guilty or both innocent?
The actions of what you might call the "Evans camp" in calling out the woman involved and revealing her identity etc. are abhorrent, but the case does still seem incredibly confused (as these cases often are) and as the man still protests his innocence despite having been convicted and having done some time (when he could shut up and let it all blow over now), I'm inclined to think that there may be more to come from this one, if nothing else because of the big grey areas that seem to remain around the conviction. Either that or he misunderstands the legal definition of rape, and needs further education regarding what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.