cowl

What does that even mean? In fact, what is your actual viewpoint here other than to criticise those who actually have one. I presented you with my own argument about why I think Chansiri's conduct during the whole Hirst saga is worthy of criticism and the best you could come up with was a hilariously irrelevant quip about how I should've pointed out that what I stated wasn't actually fact but was merely an opinion. The only opinion that I'm able to piece together from your posts here is that you don't think fans should criticise Chansiri - even, seemingly, when their criticism is clearly stated as being contingent upon another condition.

Sounds like they had the possibility of its being 'pure dross' pretty much covered there. The unwillingness of some to even contemplate the thought that those running the club might be worthy of criticism never ceases to amaze me.

Thank you for your opinion. Though you should really have started it with "My opinion is". Mind you, I suppose it's obvious that it is just your opinion and doesn't really need to be stated first.

It's based on my interpretation of the events at the time, my reasoning for which is all laid out here: Like any line of reasoning about things for which you can't be certain, if you're going about it honestly you take what information there is available and you try to arrive at some conclusion. It'll be a probabilistic conclusion at best; persuasive for some, but not for others. Persuasive for me because when I put it side-by-side by other events during Chansiri's time as owner that have garnered considerable attention and criticism, an impression forms of the man. It's not particularly positive, in truth - though nor is it entirely negative.

Chansiri stopped Hirst from playing and even training with his colleagues with just less than a year of his contract to run because he was supposedly dragging his heals with the contract that was offered him. When you go nuclear like that and at that stage in a contract negotiation it's hardly surprising it all blew up in his face. It's also hardly surprising there was very little sentiment towards Chansiri (and sadly by extension, the club) when it came to Hirst's choice of club to sign for.

From the outside, Monk seemed to have done very well with Birmingham last season all things considered.

So it's not so 'simples', after all.

By that reasoning you'd accept anything and everything the owner does merely because he finances the club. Is that your view?

Phil King right-footed - what a claim! If Atkinson has ever said this then he was just having a laugh.

If Hirst (although probably more accurately, his father and whoever else there is in his corner) wanted to get 'one over on us', the 'us' here is surely just Chansiri rather than anyone else at the club and certainly not the fans. Worth remembering when it comes to having a go at the lad.

Weren't we linked to Benjamin Kololli last month? Just watched him for Kosovo and he does look to be a pretty good player.

And Raheem Sterling was born in Jamaica and Terry Butcher in Singapore - both English.

Wilf Smith's English - he played for England's youth teams!

As the word of one man against another, isn't the balance of probabilities 50-50 here? Unless we want to start trying to quantify the likelihood of someone mishearing something in a heated situation... After all, the implied verdict of the case involving Rodriguez and Bong is that Bong misheard - so that's one case straight away - balance that with the Terry case and even if you want to take Terry to have said what he was accused of, then the balance of just these two high-profile cases is still 50-50.

I'd have preferred for the FA to have gone about their business without the blatant PR. They could've waited until after they've reached a verdict. They still get to be seen to be doing something - if that's all they're bothered about - but they also adhere more closely to a principle that many hold dear; that innocence is assumed until found otherwise. The inevitable 'pre-trial' before public opinion is needless, but far worse is that the FA will subject a player to it without any regard to the personal and lasting consequences in the event (and in this case, the likely event) that they'll merely conclude that the evidence is inconclusive.