Only for trolls who spend theri entire waking moments trolling everyone on here but never goes to ER.
Elmo, you appear to glibly gloss over this mans previous misdemeanours - Is there anything he could have done either in his past or could do in the future which you would consider to be an offence too far to be wearing the shirt of Leeds United and representing your club on the pitch?
What a load of ****. Diouf has served his time or these, yes, and I'm perfectly OK with him getting employment where he's wanted, but he's a troublemaker and a nasty presence at whatever club he's at, and I don't want him at the football club I love. I feel signing him was a massive mistake that could completely undermine our season before it's even begun. How you jump from that to your frankly ridiculous final statement is beyond me.
I actually think Diouf is still a good player, when we played Donny last season he definitely was their stand out man and looked a cut above the rest of their players on the ball. Having said that, I would have to agree that he is probably the most despicable football player I can think of. What do you think of Warnock saying that no-one else in the league would take him because Leeds fans are the only fans that would accept him? I really don't understand that comment, seems quite offensive to you lot.
Well done agent Warnock. He was actually good against us last season, but there's no doubt he's a complete ****.
Feck me Farsley - have you read the things that these people are saying about a Leeds United player, and while I debate that he is hardly different from anyone else and should be given a chance, you tell me to ease down? Beggars belief! You need to read a bit more instead of jumping on my back
Bates lover - don't try to pretend to know me nor my history of season ticket ownership at ER. You just make yourself look like a complete thick twat (as usual)
I think you will find that I said "should be given a chance". Which is totally different from what you tried to claim I said. Why do people constantly lie on here about what other people actually wrote? Look a bit closer Simon. It is a question, not a statement. I am asking you the question and I note you have not answered it. You have also not countered any of the points I made other than to get uppity and go personal. Everything I have written is an opinion and solely asks why your attitude is so closed. Your responses are noted as remaining closed and unable to actually debate, so you go personal. It's not a good argument.
Where exactly did I go personal? I didn't answer the question because I didn't think it deserved an answer, but since you're so persistent: no of course not, and it has nothing to do with the issue anyway. Diouf being from a different culture is no excuse, he's lived here for the majority of his adult life and has shown no sign of having changed. Many of the things he has done, taken individually, could be classed as mistakes, and I think it's fair to say we've all made mistakes, but group them together and you can see a man of very questionable character who doesn't have the attitude or temperament to be an asset for a football club regardless of his ability (which I'm not convinced about either). Of course you can continue to hide behind weak excuses and the "hahaha I asked you a ridiculous question and you haven't answered it" tactic, or you could actually face up to the facts and stop desperately trying to defend everything Warnock does. I've looked at this transfer from every conceivable angle and every time I come to the conclusion that it was a massive mistake.
Pray tell, what are his proven misdemeanours Danger Fox? That prior to the age of 25 (ie 6+ years ago) he hit his missus, spat at a couple of players, and lost his licence for a year for drink driving? How does any of that compare to 6 Leicester players in court for sexual assault? Are they automatically guilty irrespective whether the allegations are thrown out in the end or not? Should they have been removed from being able to ply their trade? How about your ex-player that came through your ranks, Joe Mattock, being accused of assault at a night club? Does that mean he should never be allowed in football again? How about Michael Johnson, who you had on loan last year, being arrested for drink driving in June. Is he that odious a man we should lock him up and throw away the keys? How about George Best? A womaniser, a violent drunk, a drink driver who spent time in jail for it, he assaulted a policeman, his ex-wife alleged he assaulted her punching her in the face on more than one occasion and he allegedly assaulted a waitress and allegedly another girlfriend, he had affairs. This is all public information available on the internet. Tell me, how would you describe the difference between Best and Diouf in terms of personality? What about Tony Adams (drink driving), Jan Molby (reckless driving), Duncan ferguson (aggravated assault), Mickey Thomas (passing forged bank notes), Peter Stoey (importing illegal pornography), Diego Maradona (drugs, drink, shooting journalists with an air rifle, tax evasion, Jamie Lawrence (robbery), Paul Merson (drug addict and alcoholic), Lee Chapman (wife beater), Tony Adams (alcoholic)? Come on, get some perspective please.
Simon - what exactly has he done in the last 6 years that shows he has not changed? Your only argument against him is spitting in 2003 and 2004 (and not since then), drink driving in 2005 (and not since then). Nothing else has been proven. It is all "alleged", but anyone can allege anything to the police and the police will arrest someone in order to investigate it. If it goes nowehere, there is nothing to say. In what way has he not shown that he is a different person to the bad one you paint?
The famous Jamie Mackie incident? The fact that in 2009 he was sold by Sunderland because he threatened a team-mate?
You make so many points its difficult to answer - Not because I can't, but because I have to keep scrolling up. You appear to completely ignore his general on-field general demeanour - Constantly displaying a very poor attitude - If you're happy with that so be it. The incident in La Manga in-which three players were charged, with the charges being subsequently dropped as the three known prostitutes were proved to have fabricated their story is a complete fail Joe Mattock was a West Brom player at the time of the assault and is a nasty piece of work - We let him know that every time he plays against us Michael Johnson was on loan with us at one point however he had returned to his club prior to the offence - Not really our bad George Best et al unfortunately never played for Leicester City - Whereas Diouf is a current Leeds United player
I'm interested as to why you think forging a few bank notes, importing pornography, being an alcoholic (a recognised disease) or taking drugs is as contemptible as spitting at or racially abusing a child?
On the pitch he is abit of a pr1ck. Off it he is a massive one. But not all footballers are there to be role models. If he does a job on the pitch that's where I will judge him.
First, please provide proof that either happened please. Second, you raise an interesting debate. I am sure there could be a very very long debate on the levels of badness of each of the issues you have mentioned because different people will come from them from different angles. Maybe you should suggest it to Nicky Campbell as a 9 am phone-in on Radio 5 live one weekday morning? You would then get the full spectrum from people who have suffered under each of those things. Alternatively you could think about it yourself and determine that there are levels of bad in all of them, not necessarily because of the act, but because of the impact they have on other people To help you, I will give some examples of the arguments some people may have on these issues (not necessarily my views): a) forgery = fraud = innocent people lose money and can lose their livelihoods; b) pornography = exploitation of women = has direct links with human trafficking and forced prostitution; c) alcoholism (debatable it is a disease but that's a separate argument) = has direct links to violence especially domestic violence and against children, drink driving and reckless driving especially deaths on our roads, anti-social behaviour; d) drugs = pretty much the same as alcoholism but has stronger links towards muggings, robbery, mafia, higher levels of anti-social behaviour, stabbings and gang warfare.
So now Diouf's not a bad person because other people happen to have done things that are worse? And I think you'll find that Diouf all but admitted racially abusing the ball boy by trying to defend his actions by saying the ball boy threw him the ball "Like a bone is thrown to a dog" and by claiming he was racially abused by Everton fans, no evidence could be found backing up the latter excuse.
