Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

 


So to summarise your recent posts:

 

1) People shouldn't just criticise someone over a situation without hearing both sides of the story

2) But it's ok to criticise Pulis having only heard one side of the story because it is Chansiri that has given his side and not Pulis

 

Ok

But it’s ok to criticise Chansiri when hearing zero sides to the story?

 

Isnt that what you did?

 

On the Tony Pulis sacked thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TP revelations were either naïve or brave and honest. 

 

Not sure what bearing this will have on the team and next manager/coach appointment but I imagine TP will want a right of reply at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, smhouston said:

I don't really agree with how he's handled the TP situation, although, if he feels like he's backed in to a corner and screwed over by him then I can understand his frustration. I also don't agree with the blaming of supporters

 

However, I don't like pushing the blame on to DC when his family gets abuse. Maybe your anger should be aimed at the culprits for his rampage around that

 

4 minutes ago, Mystic Neg said:

 

I was going for a lie down and then saw this.

 

I feel that you have actually fallen into that trap as intended. Awful goverance of our club but that doesn't matter because we the fans, have abused his son and it's them we should blame for all of it.

I take it you can't read properly then seems I said I don't agree with him blaming supporters, but the only exception is when his family is being abused so for that reason alone the culprits should be blamed, not DC for an outburst defending them

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, smhouston said:

 

I take it you can't read properly then seems I said I don't agree with him blaming supporters, but the only exception is when his family is being abused so for that reason alone the culprits should be blamed, not DC for an outburst defending them

 

I can read very well thank you, nice chatting with you you seem like a decent chap, definitely time for a lie down

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

And my point is that you're quick to jump to conclusions after Chansiri interviews, without giving Pulis the right of reply


See what Im' saying?

I'm sure you'll agree that it would be ridiculous and unfair to judge a situation having only heard one side of the story?

And that it would be massively hypocritical to only apply your view if it suits you depending on which side of the story has been given?

 

Im sure you'd agree that?

We’ve had the Pulis interviews though and the insinuations. We’ve also had numerous threads on here which have basically agreed with what Pulis has said. We’ve had numerous threads about why Pulis was sacked, No money for transfers, player wages, Pulis has told home truths that Chansiri didn’t like. Didn’t see many threads saying 2 sides to every story then.

As I said before, Pulis is entitled to a reply but I will back the chairmans decision on this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Willow Owl said:

Just read back on the number of threads on here making assumptions and criticising the chairman without knowing the facts of the sacking. 

Why shouldn’t he go into this much detail if it’s true. Why shouldn’t the rest of the football world know what Pulis is like as a person, and if it may save another club from of employing him then good. 

Personally I am glad he has gone into this much detail as this is what fans were crying for after the sacking. 

 

One thing that did genuinely surprise me is he was unhappy with the style of football. WTF did he expect? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

One thing that did genuinely surprise me is he was unhappy with the style of football. WTF did he expect? 

 

I've woken up.

 

It's difficult to follow his thinking. When he talks about Philosophy I assume he meant attacking football, he spoke about that at the start and many times since, yet he's employed purveyors of hoofball as his managers for the last 3 years.

 

If he wanted attacking football why has his team of recruiters filled our squad with injury prone, slow plodders?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 


Yep - and there is the MASSIVE hypocrisy i've pointed out about your argument in this thread

 

 

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 


Yep - and there is the MASSIVE hypocrisy i've pointed out about your argument in this thread

 

 

40 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said:

But it’s ok to criticise Chansiri when hearing zero sides to the story?

 

Isnt that what you did?

 

On the Tony Pulis sacked thread?

Double standards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said:

 

 

Double standards?

 

Here's how it works

 

The fans or the Jury were out debating who has made the biggest pigs ear of life at Hillsborough - DC or Pulis.

 

They appeared to discuss and decide it was DC who had messed up.

 

Then today DC gave us something first hand to go on, many may have stayed in their camp, some may have changed camps.

 

For it to be a fair trial then we need to hear what Tony Pulis has to say

 

FFS

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mystic Neg said:

 

My son wouldn't be anywhere near the public eye or open to abuse. IT is not Sheffield Wednesday fans' fault that Social Media is a thing and anyone can troll anyone.


The owners 12 year old son has allegedly been verbally abused by Sheffield Wednesday fans. If true, it is appalling. There are no excuses. It’s irrelevant whether he or his son are in the public eye. I use social media, so do you, it is not mandatory to verbally abuse children simply because “social media is a thing” All right minded people should unconditionally condemn child abuse (verbal, mental, physical or sexual) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mystic Neg said:

 

Here's how it works

 

The fans or the Jury were out debating who has made the biggest pigs ear of life at Hillsborough - DC or Pulis.

 

They appeared to discuss and decide it was DC who had messed up.

 

Then today DC gave us something first hand to go on, many may have stayed in their camp, some may have changed camps.

 

For it to be a fair trial then we need to hear what Tony Pulis has to say

 

FFS

 

 

Literally THIS

But the Uberfans won't have that


The 'we need to hear both sides before criticising' only works in Chansiri's favour in their hypocritical world


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

And my point is that you're quick to jump to conclusions after Chansiri interviews, without giving Pulis the right of reply


See what Im' saying?

I'm sure you'll agree that it would be ridiculous and unfair to judge a situation having only heard one side of the story?

And that it would be massively hypocritical to only apply your view if it suits you depending on which side of the story has been given?

 

Im sure you'd agree that?

But I'm sure you'll appreciate Westwood (and Hutchinson) was vilified as a bad influence without any right of reply (due to obvious contractual reasons). 

 

Happens all the time doesn't it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

THE only good thing that has come out of this is that like most of us Dc thought the football played under Pulis was dosgshit so he binned him...who he gets next will decide where we move on to. 

 

The football played under Monk was dogshite, yet Chansiri hired Pulis knowing his football was as bad as Monks. Chansiri is a fool. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

 


So to summarise your recent posts:

 

1) People shouldn't just criticise someone over a situation without hearing both sides of the story

2) But it's ok to criticise Pulis having only heard one side of the story because it is Chansiri that has given his side and not Pulis

 

Ok

So to summarise your recent posts.

 

1- It’s okay for people to criticise the chairman and make uninformed decisions based on Pulis previous interviews without hearing the chairman’s side. 
 

2- It’s okay to criticise the chairman for the sacking without knowing the facts and the reasons why, No wages, No transfer money, Embargo, Pulis has given him home truths. 
 

3-  Our chairman makes a detailed statement ( which many on here have been asking for) giving the reasons for the sacking of Pulis, but it’s NOT okay to believe the chairman until dear Tony has given his side or you agree it’s okay. 
 

4- Anyone who has an opinion that you don’t agree with is therefore open to ridicule and sarcasm.

 

 

 


 


 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mystic Neg said:

 

Here's how it works

 

The fans or the Jury were out debating who has made the biggest pigs ear of life at Hillsborough - DC or Pulis.

 

They appeared to discuss and decide it was DC who had messed up.

 

Then today DC gave us something first hand to go on, many may have stayed in their camp, some may have changed camps.

 

For it to be a fair trial then we need to hear what Tony Pulis has to say

 

FFS

Oh ok thanks.

 

So it’s not possible for the Jury to have a neutral opinion until they have all the facts then?

 

FFS

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Willow Owl said:

So to summarise your recent posts.

 

1- It’s okay for people to criticise the chairman and make uninformed decisions based on Pulis previous interviews without hearing the chairman’s side. 
 

2- It’s okay to criticise the chairman for the sacking without knowing the facts and the reasons why, No wages, No transfer money, Embargo, Pulis has given him home truths. 
 

3-  Our chairman makes a detailed statement ( which many on here have been asking for) giving the reasons for the sacking of Pulis, but it’s NOT okay to believe the chairman until dear Tony has given his side or you agree it’s okay. 
 

4- Anyone who has an opinion that you don’t agree with is therefore open to ridicule and sarcasm.

 

 

 

Thought so

 

 

 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yellowbelly said:

Oh ok thanks.

 

So it’s not possible for the Jury to have a neutral opinion until they have all the facts then?

 

FFS

 

 

 

Willow Owl says NO - and that he's going with what the Chairman says without hearing Pulis side of the story

 


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

Literally THIS

But the Uberfans won't have that


The 'we need to hear both sides before criticising' only works in Chansiri's favour in their hypocritical world

No, I think juries are usually impartial until they’ve heard both sides

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yellowbelly said:

No, I think juries are usually impartial until they’ve heard both sides

 

 

That's been my point all the way through this thread

 

Seems it only applies if you're sycophantic towards Chansiri though for some reason

I personally find that unfair

I'm sure you'd agree too


 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...