The Barton issue: it seems bizarre to suspend a player for four weeks after an incident, more so to extend that by a further week immediately before a clear-the-air meeting, but it’s not.
This has got nothing to do with the player. Whatever he did with a team-mate in the aftermath of our 5-1 win a month ago has nothing to do with his continuing suspension. Nor is the player’s subsequent charge for gambling on football.
I’m pretty sure it’s not even about money, or the player’s lack of ability. This is about the manager and his board. Who authorised his signing in the summer and on what basis was he employed? Warburton has played his hand by passing the issue up to his board. The board can try to impose the player on the manager, again, or they can find the money to make the problem go away.
Or maybe the manager will go instead.
422 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
new article posted.
FLOATING
Might be an idea to forward all correspondence to their UK HQ
newsquest.co.uk
By request I can narrow it down for you. I work for them,great company for the first five years,bliddy nightmare since.
BMCUW
Good idea, I will continue talking to Glasgow as they initiated the discussion but if dissatisfied with the result I will inform them and then copy all to the headquarters.
Turkeybhoy on 10th October 2016 12:20 pm
GREENPINATA on 10TH OCTOBER 2016 11:02 AM
VFR800A @ numerous this morning.
I dont agree with VFR s figures.Anyone can use figures to prove their point.
Going by these figures it means that 4 million did not vote to leave.
_____________________________________________
You cannot disagree with the figures; they are factual and accurate.
You are, however, free to dispute the way I interpreted and presented them this morning. I did say that I was using the statistics in response to a way in which others had used them; that’s how, IMHO, statistics are used: to validate a particular argument. If the statistics don’t validate the argument, don’t use them OR, as I did, manipulate them to validate your argument.
There were 3,987,112 people eligible to vote; 1,307,599 didn’t vote. I used them in my statistical argument to say that 2,325,921 people DIDN’T vote to remain in the EU.
That viewpoint is factually accurate. However, what I also said is that I agree that I cannot extrapolate the views of the 1,307,599 who didn’t vote. It doesn’t, however, make my argument any less cogent.
FAC the Act
KTF