|
|
Post by The Concept on Mar 7, 2021 10:58:11 GMT
Saw the highlights earlier.
Yes Leahy should have put the ball out, but at the same time I have some sympathy for him. I can understand why he thought he could shield the ball out.
The momentum of the ball suddenly slows down markedly 3 yards from the goal-line. The original speed, taking into account slowing down, would have seen the ball out easily. It looked like it hit a patch of treacle from a Tom & Jerry cartoon.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,978 
Member is Online
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Mar 7, 2021 11:06:31 GMT
Well if that was your level of debate..... If he had won 3 out of 4, or if the team goes on a winning streak it'll be all over every thread, the difference is I'll be happy that some people are getting enjoyment from Rovers. I'll still be disgusted by what my club has done, but won't have a problem with people celebrating victories and saying that all that matters to them is what happens on the pitch. I'll probably say that there's more to it than that for me, but I certainly wouldn't ever dream of suggesting that if anybody put forward a differing point of view they should go and follow 1982 instead, that's not even an argument. I don't agree with making Barton manager from a football perspective and there are other young up and coming managers who may have been more acceptable. However separating the football from personality each new manager usually gets a grace period of at least 6-10 games to turn things their way and in fairness Barton hasn't been given that. I hear your loathing of the man and I am afraid that is something I struggle to understand as a human being as you have never met him nor were present at the incidents he is said to be responsible for. I appreciate that his reputations precedes him. However I have met numerous people who have turned their lives around from anger and violence including IRA/Loyalist murderers and many had had an epiphany or a moment where they realised they needed to change. If people hadn't given them a chance lives would be much different. Perhaps Barton has had his moment of change, none of us know. In summary, yes I agree the appointment was wrong for football reasons and at the wrong time for the club. People will, as you have done, judge the club by the reputation of the man. The stress of losing and failure may impact Barton for the wrong reasons, we don't know. But constant anger, bitterness and resentment gets us nowhere. Sometimes you have to let it go. Take care. Regards |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 11:12:14 GMT
But that’s not Tisdale’s job. His job is to ask Widdrington for what he wants. We can all speculate as to how helpful Widdrington was in that endeavour. Especially given Widdrington’s disparaging of Tisdale after he left. On a related note as much as I’m not a fan of Barton I’ll give him his due for saying that the previous manager’s performance were not for him to speculate on. That’s the same approach Widdrington should have taken with regards to Tisdale. Keep it in house, professional and classy. Widdrington quite clearly had no love for Tisdale and that’s tricky when the guy is Tisdale’s go-between for signing players. Barton will have his say when the time comes. I agree it was the right things to say at that point. Back to my point, I do blame Tisdale because he went into the job knowing the set up and appeared to have no plan b, we didn't particularly play better under him, there was no spring, I wss happy with the performances against Blackpool, Plymouth and Wimbledon, but the only time I have wanted my £10 back this season was on his watch, we can speculate as to the process of asking TW so where was the list of 20 strikers in case he didn't get Stockley, where was the intent, he dropped Harries immediately, I think under Garner we would have had more points by the time Barton came in. The striker issue was criminal. You have missed the point that Widdrington disagreed with Tisdale that the strikers weren't good enough. He stated following Tisdale's departure that there were enough goals in the strikers we have "100%". Although I said at the time that Tisdale was appointed that he was the wrong manager Rovers, it angered me to know that his DOF had shafted him a point also expressed by Ollie who knows more than he puts into print. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2021 11:16:15 GMT
I thought we played quite well. Leahy should have put the ball out and they wouldn't have scored, basic, basic error, and their second was inevitable because we were pressing for an equaliser and they scored on the break. It's a fact that when you're struggling the luck goes against you. If Hull do go up. On that showing and with those players they'll be straight back down. I agree with most of this but don't believe we played well. We played some neat tippy tappy football at times together with a bit of hoofball which with a Paul Randall type character to run on to might have worked. But then gave hospital passes to players with Hull players up their backs whose faster tempo meant they got to the ball first. I lost count of the number of balls given away. And Leahy's was a school boy error against a Hull side who raised their speed because they wanted to win the game. I thought Westbrooke had some great close control skills but his passing was wayward and I don't think Day fills the defence with confidence. Skill wise Hull weren't levels above us, they just wanted it more. I saw it the same, Chesh.....BBC has it Harries making the mistake for first goal! I'm disappointed both goals were scored from unmarked positions.. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2021 11:17:43 GMT
Saw the highlights earlier. Yes Leahy should have put the ball out, but at the same time I have some sympathy for him. I can understand why he thought he could shield the ball out. The momentum of the ball suddenly slows down markedly 3 yards from the goal-line. The original speed, taking into account slowing down, would have seen the ball out easily. It looked like it hit a patch of treacle from a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Serious question, if Leahy had pulled him back to obstruct his opponent OFF the pitch, what would the consequence have been? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 11:22:11 GMT
Saw the highlights earlier. Yes Leahy should have put the ball out, but at the same time I have some sympathy for him. I can understand why he thought he could shield the ball out. The momentum of the ball suddenly slows down markedly 3 yards from the goal-line. The original speed, taking into account slowing down, would have seen the ball out easily. It looked like it hit a patch of treacle from a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Serious question, if Leahy had pulled him back to obstruct his opponent OFF the pitch, what would the consequence have been? As the Hull player was still on the pitch and in the box then it would have been a penalty. If both players were off the pitch then Leahy could have been booked under the rule of leaving the field of play without permission. I have not seen either given in over 50 years of watching s**te football though. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2021 11:28:07 GMT
Serious question, if Leahy had pulled him back to obstruct his opponent OFF the pitch, what would the consequence have been? As the Hull player was still on the pitch and in the box then it would have been a penalty. If both players were off the pitch then Leahy could have been booked under the rule of leaving the field of play without permission. I have not seen either given in over 50 years of watching s***e football though. Not really....if you look on 32/33 seconds, Hull player temporarily leaves the pitch. I know it's hindsight tongue in cheek, but why couldn't Leahy have ensured he stayed off it a bit more temporarily?! It can't be classed as a foul? www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/2021/march/match-action-hull-city/ |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 11:29:13 GMT
If he had won 3 out of 4, or if the team goes on a winning streak it'll be all over every thread, the difference is I'll be happy that some people are getting enjoyment from Rovers. I'll still be disgusted by what my club has done, but won't have a problem with people celebrating victories and saying that all that matters to them is what happens on the pitch. I'll probably say that there's more to it than that for me, but I certainly wouldn't ever dream of suggesting that if anybody put forward a differing point of view they should go and follow 1982 instead, that's not even an argument. I don't agree with making Barton manager from a football perspective and there are other young up and coming managers who may have been more acceptable. However separating the football from personality each new manager usually gets a grace period of at least 6-10 games to turn things their way and in fairness Barton hasn't been given that. I hear your loathing of the man and I am afraid that is something I struggle to understand as a human being as you have never met him nor were present at the incidents he is said to be responsible for. I appreciate that his reputations precedes him. However I have met numerous people who have turned their lives around from anger and violence including IRA/Loyalist murderers and many had had an epiphany or a moment where they realised they needed to change. If people hadn't given them a chance lives would be much different. Perhaps Barton has had his moment of change, none of us know. In summary, yes I agree the appointment was wrong for football reasons and at the wrong time for the club. People will, as you have done, judge the club by the reputation of the man. The stress of losing and failure may impact Barton for the wrong reasons, we don't know. But constant anger, bitterness and resentment gets us nowhere. Sometimes you have to let it go. Take care. Regards You've clearly missed the posts where I've stated that I hope that he has committed his last act of violence and or stupidity and that in his personal life I wish nothing but the very best of health and happiness for him and his nearest and dearest. What I 'loath' is the good name of my football club being associated with his reputation, which it now is. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2021 11:33:28 GMT
I don't agree with making Barton manager from a football perspective and there are other young up and coming managers who may have been more acceptable. However separating the football from personality each new manager usually gets a grace period of at least 6-10 games to turn things their way and in fairness Barton hasn't been given that. I hear your loathing of the man and I am afraid that is something I struggle to understand as a human being as you have never met him nor were present at the incidents he is said to be responsible for. I appreciate that his reputations precedes him. However I have met numerous people who have turned their lives around from anger and violence including IRA/Loyalist murderers and many had had an epiphany or a moment where they realised they needed to change. If people hadn't given them a chance lives would be much different. Perhaps Barton has had his moment of change, none of us know. In summary, yes I agree the appointment was wrong for football reasons and at the wrong time for the club. People will, as you have done, judge the club by the reputation of the man. The stress of losing and failure may impact Barton for the wrong reasons, we don't know. But constant anger, bitterness and resentment gets us nowhere. Sometimes you have to let it go. Take care. Regards You've clearly missed the posts where I've stated that I hope that he has committed his last act of violence and or stupidity and that in his personal life I wish nothing but the very best of health and happiness for him and his nearest and dearest. What I 'loath' is the good name of my football club being associated with his reputation, which it now is. ....but it's ok to be associated with former ex hoolie, reformed and writing a book to make money on it? I'm not suggesting DJ personally makes money from such ventures, but him and the club have been close associates for a number of years without the outcry. Yet both have violent pasts. I respect where everyone draws their line, why can't you? |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Mar 7, 2021 11:41:25 GMT
Barton will have his say when the time comes. I agree it was the right things to say at that point. Back to my point, I do blame Tisdale because he went into the job knowing the set up and appeared to have no plan b, we didn't particularly play better under him, there was no spring, I wss happy with the performances against Blackpool, Plymouth and Wimbledon, but the only time I have wanted my £10 back this season was on his watch, we can speculate as to the process of asking TW so where was the list of 20 strikers in case he didn't get Stockley, where was the intent, he dropped Harries immediately, I think under Garner we would have had more points by the time Barton came in. The striker issue was criminal. You have missed the point that Widdrington disagreed with Tisdale that the strikers weren't good enough. He stated following Tisdale's departure that there were enough goals in the strikers we have "100%". Although I said at the time that Tisdale was appointed that he was the wrong manager Rovers, it angered me to know that his DOF had shafted him a point also expressed by Ollie who knows more than he puts into print. No he is the manager, whether the DOF agrees or not, he knew what he was going into, Ayunga hardly featured then scored 2, Hanlans confidence shot, no striker brought in by the manager. If our setup is TW picks them and won't sign if he disagrees, then Tisdale must have picked the wrong ones, who is the manager here. He couldn't have beaten Portsmouth or Shrewsbury, I blame him for the striker issue. He knew what he was coming in to. |
|
|
|
Post by mangogas15 on Mar 7, 2021 11:43:03 GMT
Saw the highlights earlier. Yes Leahy should have put the ball out, but at the same time I have some sympathy for him. I can understand why he thought he could shield the ball out. The momentum of the ball suddenly slows down markedly 3 yards from the goal-line. The original speed, taking into account slowing down, would have seen the ball out easily. It looked like it hit a patch of treacle from a Tom & Jerry cartoon. Serious question, if Leahy had pulled him back to obstruct his opponent OFF the pitch, what would the consequence have been? I thought Leahy was fouled at first. Up the other end its given. The home crowd got to the ref. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 11:51:49 GMT
You've clearly missed the posts where I've stated that I hope that he has committed his last act of violence and or stupidity and that in his personal life I wish nothing but the very best of health and happiness for him and his nearest and dearest. What I 'loath' is the good name of my football club being associated with his reputation, which it now is. ....but it's ok to be associated with former ex hoolie, reformed and writing a book to make money on it? I'm not suggesting DJ personally makes money from such ventures, but him and the club have been close associates for a number of years without the outcry. Yet both have violent pasts. I respect where everyone draws their line, why can't you? Whatever you are talking about I'm not aware of it, I have no idea who or what DJ is. But the critical thing here, DJ, whoever or whatever that may be, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been ratified as the official 'face' of the club. Had that have happened and if there is a direct association with the level of violence you appear to be suggesting, from an unreformed character, I think I may have objected. Here's a point that I think has slipped under the radar, had Barton spent some years working with offenders or on some kind of community projects or something of that type and hadn't offended himself again and was now reformed, then sure, no issue whatsoever with him being here. But right now there's zero evidence that he's anything other than a violent yob with a serious charge hanging over him. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 12:00:37 GMT
As the Hull player was still on the pitch and in the box then it would have been a penalty. If both players were off the pitch then Leahy could have been booked under the rule of leaving the field of play without permission. I have not seen either given in over 50 years of watching s***e football though. Not really....if you look on 32/33 seconds, Hull player temporarily leaves the pitch. I know it's hindsight tongue in cheek, but why couldn't Leahy have ensured he stayed off it a bit more temporarily?! It can't be classed as a foul? www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/2021/march/match-action-hull-city/Good spot, no it couldn't have been given as a foul. |
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Mar 7, 2021 12:34:31 GMT
Too much emphasis on the goals we conceded today and whose fault for my liking. If someone had 9 very good games for you, including man of match performance but in the tenth a poor game with a bad mistake, do you then single them out for criticism and drop them? On this basis, if Leahy doesn’t start both games this week I would consider it a mistake. But if you want authority through either respect or fear, once you say you are going to do something you have to go through with it. The main problem is we don’t look like scoring. Half chances at best each game. I think statistically goals come from from crosses, as season has gone on I think number and quality of crossing has dropped. Williams looks good acquisition, good all round player, yet I am frustrated Hare isn’t getting game time to learn and develop, plenty to learn defensively, but his crossing is very good, you would get more assists and goals from him than Williams. My retain list for next season, regardless which division, shrinks all the time. Excellent point on Hare, give Williams a rest as his form has dipped recently. Excellent point on not looking like we score because of half chances....if you compare stats from Hull match we actually had more scoring chances and possession in first half...!? not the game I saw. 😃 how scientific are those stats. Is it a chance everytime a ball hit in box? Out of the whole game, the only moment I felt we were opening them up for a real goal scoring moment was when Rodders made a tricksy run into the box. But Joey’s been playing him too deep to get that from him. |
|
|
|
Post by emperorsuperbus on Mar 7, 2021 12:36:45 GMT
Of our remaining games can only see wins over Swindon and Wimbledon the others are unrealistic wins may be a draw at Northampton. Defence a problem Attack a major problem Midfield a hopeless problem Major team restructuring required. Off load at least 75 per cent of squad. a lot of people argue Barton is here to prevent relegation, because that will force the disaster of a rebuild. 😄 |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2021 12:46:26 GMT
....but it's ok to be associated with former ex hoolie, reformed and writing a book to make money on it? I'm not suggesting DJ personally makes money from such ventures, but him and the club have been close associates for a number of years without the outcry. Yet both have violent pasts. I respect where everyone draws their line, why can't you? Whatever you are talking about I'm not aware of it, I have no idea who or what DJ is. But the critical thing here, DJ, whoever or whatever that may be, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been ratified as the official 'face' of the club. Had that have happened and if there is a direct association with the level of violence you appear to be suggesting, from an unreformed character, I think I may have objected. Here's a point that I think has slipped under the radar, had Barton spent some years working with offenders or on some kind of community projects or something of that type and hadn't offended himself again and was now reformed, then sure, no issue whatsoever with him being here. But right now there's zero evidence that he's anything other than a violent yob with a serious charge hanging over him. I think that's a fair point, and I honestly don't know if JAB has worked with community projects? I know there's element of "charity", but that's arbitrary. DJ was the club chaplain for a number of years maintaining a high profile within that role....for instance, sounding the Armistice Day speech before the out of tune trumpet call on Mem pitch for a few years? Maybe because he was a GasHead, there was no moral outcry, martyring or notable dissent regarding his violent past. Nor were any of the other convicts we've gainfully employed. And continue to do. All I'm saying is where folk choose to draw their line and consistent within that..... that's why I retain my neutral pov until something sways me in either direction. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 14:27:56 GMT
Whatever you are talking about I'm not aware of it, I have no idea who or what DJ is. But the critical thing here, DJ, whoever or whatever that may be, as far as I'm aware, hasn't been ratified as the official 'face' of the club. Had that have happened and if there is a direct association with the level of violence you appear to be suggesting, from an unreformed character, I think I may have objected. Here's a point that I think has slipped under the radar, had Barton spent some years working with offenders or on some kind of community projects or something of that type and hadn't offended himself again and was now reformed, then sure, no issue whatsoever with him being here. But right now there's zero evidence that he's anything other than a violent yob with a serious charge hanging over him. I think that's a fair point, and I honestly don't know if JAB has worked with community projects? I know there's element of "charity", but that's arbitrary. DJ was the club chaplain for a number of years maintaining a high profile within that role....for instance, sounding the Armistice Day speech before the out of tune trumpet call on Mem pitch for a few years? Maybe because he was a GasHead, there was no moral outcry, martyring or notable dissent regarding his violent past. Nor were any of the other convicts we've gainfully employed. And continue to do. All I'm saying is where folk choose to draw their line and consistent within that..... that's why I retain my neutral pov until something sways me in either direction. Oh, that bloke. I've already said what I think about his confused thinking and where people who associate themselves with Judeo-Christianity stand with the contortions they'll perform to attempt to pretend that what they claim to believe can be defended from a moral perspective. Following on from that, what the heck does a football club need a Chaplain for? People who chose to believe this stuff are of course perfectly free to do so but should do the rest of us a favour and play with their toys at home. But of course, you make a perfectly reasonable point regarding the fact that everybody will have a threshold in a different place. I have nothing but respect for John Malyckyj and am proud to think that he's a personal friend and sincerely hope that friendship is reciprocated, but you can see from his posts on this subject, his experiences during his working life put us in very different positions on this subject. It doesn't mean that one of us is right and the other wrong, or that one holds moral authority over the other. I would have no problem at all if Barton came here to operate turnstiles, sell programmes, send out parcels, something of that type, as long as he was adequately supervised to ensure the safety of his work colleagues. Over time he could demonstrate that he has grown up and can be trusted, but that's not where he appears to be in his life right now unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Mar 7, 2021 15:22:17 GMT
I think that's a fair point, and I honestly don't know if JAB has worked with community projects? I know there's element of "charity", but that's arbitrary. DJ was the club chaplain for a number of years maintaining a high profile within that role....for instance, sounding the Armistice Day speech before the out of tune trumpet call on Mem pitch for a few years? Maybe because he was a GasHead, there was no moral outcry, martyring or notable dissent regarding his violent past. Nor were any of the other convicts we've gainfully employed. And continue to do. All I'm saying is where folk choose to draw their line and consistent within that..... that's why I retain my neutral pov until something sways me in either direction. Oh, that bloke. I've already said what I think about his confused thinking and where people who associate themselves with Judeo-Christianity stand with the contortions they'll perform to attempt to pretend that what they claim to believe can be defended from a moral perspective. Following on from that, what the heck does a football club need a Chaplain for? People who chose to believe this stuff are of course perfectly free to do so but should do the rest of us a favour and play with their toys at home. But of course, you make a perfectly reasonable point regarding the fact that everybody will have a threshold in a different place. I have nothing but respect for John Malyckyj and am proud to think that he's a personal friend and sincerely hope that friendship is reciprocated, but you can see from his posts on this subject, his experiences during his working life put us in very different positions on this subject. It doesn't mean that one of us is right and the other wrong, or that one holds moral authority over the other. I would have no problem at all if Barton came here to operate turnstiles, sell programmes, send out parcels, something of that type, as long as he was adequately supervised to ensure the safety of his work colleagues. Over time he could demonstrate that he has grown up and can be trusted, but that's not where he appears to be in his life right now unfortunately. Kinda deflecting to the religious aspect, which you concentrate on (as is your prerogative), but your post doesn't address why we held a violent criminal in high esteem before, in some sort of perceived authority without judgement? Which was fine, then.... Why not now? Because JAB isn't a turnstile operator? Why? Why is one role perfectly fine for non scrutiny, but the other, not? Does that mean ultra violent criminals (or similar level of conduct) that have served their sentence lawfully, should be restricted in their employment terms with our club? I think that's called discrimination due to rehabilitation laws... |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 15:29:40 GMT
You have missed the point that Widdrington disagreed with Tisdale that the strikers weren't good enough. He stated following Tisdale's departure that there were enough goals in the strikers we have "100%". Although I said at the time that Tisdale was appointed that he was the wrong manager Rovers, it angered me to know that his DOF had shafted him a point also expressed by Ollie who knows more than he puts into print. No he is the manager, whether the DOF agrees or not, he knew what he was going into, Ayunga hardly featured then scored 2, Hanlans confidence shot, no striker brought in by the manager. If our setup is TW picks them and won't sign if he disagrees, then Tisdale must have picked the wrong ones, who is the manager here. He couldn't have beaten Portsmouth or Shrewsbury, I blame him for the striker issue. He knew what he was coming in to. A DOF and a head coach should work like a pair of Siamese twins, sadly for us that was never the case with Widdrington and Tisdale. If you want to blame Tisdale then you need to blame his boss as well. I was told that Ayunga had been injured before he came back, looked awful when he did and then scored a couple in one game. I blame Tisdale for coming to Rovers in the first place, as I said when he arrived, wrong manager for the wrong club. As for Barton, wrong club for a wrong un. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2021 15:34:15 GMT
Oh, that bloke. I've already said what I think about his confused thinking and where people who associate themselves with Judeo-Christianity stand with the contortions they'll perform to attempt to pretend that what they claim to believe can be defended from a moral perspective. Following on from that, what the heck does a football club need a Chaplain for? People who chose to believe this stuff are of course perfectly free to do so but should do the rest of us a favour and play with their toys at home. But of course, you make a perfectly reasonable point regarding the fact that everybody will have a threshold in a different place. I have nothing but respect for John Malyckyj and am proud to think that he's a personal friend and sincerely hope that friendship is reciprocated, but you can see from his posts on this subject, his experiences during his working life put us in very different positions on this subject. It doesn't mean that one of us is right and the other wrong, or that one holds moral authority over the other. I would have no problem at all if Barton came here to operate turnstiles, sell programmes, send out parcels, something of that type, as long as he was adequately supervised to ensure the safety of his work colleagues. Over time he could demonstrate that he has grown up and can be trusted, but that's not where he appears to be in his life right now unfortunately. Kinda deflecting to the religious aspect, which you concentrate on (as is your prerogative), but your post doesn't address why we held a violent criminal in high esteem before, in some sort of perceived authority without judgement? Which was fine, then.... Why not now? Because JAB isn't a turnstile operator? Why? Why is one role perfectly fine for non scrutiny, but the other, not? Does that mean ultra violent criminals (or similar level of conduct) that have served their sentence lawfully, should be restricted in their employment terms with our club? I think that's called discrimination due to rehabilitation laws... Well, to use an analogy, DSS tenants should not be discriminated against in the private rental market but we all know it happens because whether you as a landlord let’s to a DSS tenant comes down to your discretion. You might be discriminating, the potential tenant knows you are being discriminating but you can’t prove it. Same with applications for jobs that ask you to list previous convictions, that sort of information should have no bearing on you getting a job if the crime is immaterial but we all know that people will quietly shuffle out applications from people with previous out because of brand protection and all sorts of other reasons. The irony is that Barton would probably struggle to get a job stacking shelves at Tesco with his profile, current court case and previous convictions but a high profile job as a football manager is easily accessible to him because the potential benefit in football is deemed more lucrative than the consequences of missing out on him. And that’s the same in most industries let’s be fair. Immoral individuals can easily find work if they operate in the upper echelons of management and can near enough guarantee vast profits. If you’re down the bottom scrabbling for minimum wage jobs then your past will follow you about like an albatross round your neck. We shouldn’t discriminate but then on the other hand isn’t it a privilege to hold a job like football manager? God knows there aren’t enough black people who can get a managerial job on their own merit and it’s not hard why when clubs prefer to hire the Barton’s of this world. Basically if you’re a persistent offender and have offended while acting as a manager why should you continue to be given chances to hold high profile public jobs like this? |
|
