McBurnie In away end

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


KiwiBlabe said:
good on Oli for showing that some footballers really do care about the game and what it means.
Click to expand...

Passion is one thing, calling other fans wankers while acting a wanker himself is another and that's not what football is about. Drink driving is the lowest of the low, acting a wanker at a game isn't great, especially when you're caught on camera but it's more than forgivable. What's his next stunt going to be..? CW can't let it slide if it becomes a common occurrence. Let's hope we get into Europe and can bring better strikers in who act classier when out with friends.
 
S12 Blade said:
Passion is one thing, calling other fans wankers while acting a wanker himself is another and that's not what football is about. Drink driving is the lowest of the low, acting a wanker at a game isn't great, especially when you're caught on camera but it's more than forgivable. What's his next stunt going to be..? CW can't let it slide if it becomes a common occurrence. Let's hope we get into Europe and can bring better strikers in who act classier when out with friends.
Click to expand...
Like your avatar who sexually assaulted under age girls?
 
Scooter_mcgavin said:
Like your avatar who sexually assaulted under age girls?
Click to expand...
Touché, where do we go from here though, our owner and his countries views and laws...? Some of our dick fans singing songs about Ched and that slapper he spent a night with...?​
 
S12 Blade said:
Touché, where do we go from here though, our owner and his countries views and laws...? Some of our dick fans singing songs about Ched and that slapper he spent a night with...?
Click to expand...
What he did though is no different to 90 percent of our own fans.

I'm fine.with it, chris is fine with.it, the fa arent too bothered by it...

No issues
 
Scooter_mcgavin said:
What he did though is no different to 90 percent of our own fans.

I'm fine.with it, chris is fine with.it, the fa arent too bothered by it...

No issues
Click to expand...

Agreed, it seems those who can act on it aren't bothered, likewise, I said it's forgivable but this is two times he's been in the press thanks to his off field antics, not great given we signed him less than a year ago. If 90% of our fans can't go to a game without giving the opposition the wanker sign then they've got issues.
 
S12 Blade said:
Agreed, it seems those who can act on it aren't bothered, likewise, I said it's forgivable but this is two times he's been in the press thanks to his off field antics, not great given we signed him less than a year ago. If 90% of our fans can't go to a game without giving the opposition the wanker sign then they've got issues.
Click to expand...
Football for decades has been played in a testosterone filled arena. It's a place where people let off steam, it's purely acceptable to swear like a trooper and act an idiot and most don't really care.
 
Scooter_mcgavin said:
Football for decades has been played in a testosterone filled arena. It's a place where people let off steam, it's purely acceptable to swear like a trooper and act an idiot and most don't really care.
Click to expand...

Letting off steam by swearing at other people and acting the big man because they support another team (sometimes the same team) say's to me there are deeper issues related to those people, or they're still in school.
 
S12 Blade said:
Letting off steam by swearing at other people and acting the big man because they support another team (sometimes the same team) say's to me there are deeper issues related to those people, or they're still in school.
Click to expand...
We'll agree to disagree on this one.
 
AWetFlannel said:
He's a football fan acting like any normal football fan would.

How does his wanker sign 'reflect badly on the club' when anyone who has ever been to or watched a game on tele can hear the exact same thing?
Click to expand...

You just don't get it mate do you? You and quite a few others.

He's not just a football fan - he's a representative of Sheffield United Football Club. Try and understand that bit first and when you've grasped it, go back and read some of the other threads which explain very clearly why it reflects on the club.
 
S12 Blade said:
Agreed, it seems those who can act on it aren't bothered, likewise, I said it's forgivable but this is two times he's been in the press thanks to his off field antics, not great given we signed him less than a year ago. If 90% of our fans can't go to a game without giving the opposition the wanker sign then they've got issues.
Click to expand...
It was probably the scale of the match that made him act a bit of a tosser we will probably never know but I’d be surprised if was giving the wanker sign to qpr fans when he went there.
 

North East Blade said:
It was probably the scale of the match that made him act a bit of a tosser we will probably never know but I’d be surprised if was giving the wanker sign to qpr fans when he went there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's probably true but I just don't understand why he would do it. Even when he's not playing for us or training he's still representing our club. Go to the game and act like a normal fan, leave the wanker signs to his mates, it's not hard.
 
You also have to appreciate he stuck out like a sore thumb, I bet he received a fair bit of shit too from the home fans.
 
Years ago I used to work for a very large and well known international company. One of the guys that worked for me had organised a 5 a side football tournament for charity and was planning to name his team after the company we worked for. The tournament was fine, the cause was a good one, and there was no problem at all with those aspects - but he was absolutely not allowed to use the company's name for his football team. Why?

Because of the reputational risk to the company. I appreciate this may be difficult for some folks to understand if they don't have a business background, but put simply, anyone representing the company has to behave, at all times, (whether at work, or not at work) in a way that must not bring any shame, claim, or embarrassment to the company, or raise questions about the standards, integrity or conduct of the company.

So, this was just an "innocent" game of football - and the guy was just wanting to name his team after our company, for a bit of fun. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Well, what if someone on his team got into a fight, or broke another player's leg? What if his team got expelled from the competition for cheating? Or what if there was a discrepancy in the amount of sponsorship they raised and that which actually got paid to the charity?

Any of these things had the potential to reflect badly on the company - even though his 5 a side team had nothing to do with the company at all - and he was the only employee playing in it.

He was refused permission to use the company name in this way. The risks of something going wrong may have been extremely remote, but if they did then reputational risk has the potential to literally wipe millions off the value of the company.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that McBurnie's "laddish" behaviour has the potential to cost our club millions in lost revenues. But, there's a principle here and it's about behaving in a way that reflects the way your employer would wish to be perceived publicly. And neither Sheffield United Football Club or the English Football Association wish for their "ambassadors" - which is what McBurnie is, whether he likes it or not, to behave in what is considered to be an unsporting way.

I don't find this hard to understand at all tbh and I think Wilder has handled it well.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Years ago I used to work for a very large and well known international company. One of the guys that worked for me had organised a 5 a side football tournament for charity and was planning to name his team after the company we worked for. The tournament was fine, the cause was a good one, and there was no problem at all with those aspects - but he was absolutely not allowed to use the company's name for his football team. Why?

Because of the reputational risk to the company. I appreciate this may be difficult for some folks to understand if they don't have a business background, but put simply, anyone representing the company has to behave, at all times, (whether at work, or not at work) in a way that must not bring any shame, claim, or embarrassment to the company, or raise questions about the standards, integrity or conduct of the company.

So, this was just an "innocent" game of football - and the guy was just wanting to name his team after our company, for a bit of fun. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Well, what if someone on his team got into a fight, or broke another player's leg? What if his team got expelled from the competition for cheating? Or what if there was a discrepancy in the amount of sponsorship they raised and that which actually got paid to the charity?

Any of these things had the potential to reflect badly on the company - even though his 5 a side team had nothing to do with the company at all - and he was the only employee playing in it.

He was refused permission to use the company name in this way. The risks of something going wrong may have been extremely remote, but if they did then reputational risk has the potential to literally wipe millions off the value of the company.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that McBurnie's "laddish" behaviour has the potential to cost our club millions in lost revenues. But, there's a principle here and it's about behaving in a way that reflects the way your employer would wish to be perceived publicly. And neither Sheffield United Football Club or the English Football Association wish for their "ambassadors" - which is what McBurnie is, whether he likes it or not, to behave in what is considered to be an unsporting way.

I don't find this hard to understand at all tbh and I think Wilder has handled it well.
Click to expand...
I'd say the incident on the whole has actually given the club more positive publicity than negative.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Years ago I used to work for a very large and well known international company. One of the guys that worked for me had organised a 5 a side football tournament for charity and was planning to name his team after the company we worked for. The tournament was fine, the cause was a good one, and there was no problem at all with those aspects - but he was absolutely not allowed to use the company's name for his football team. Why?

Because of the reputational risk to the company. I appreciate this may be difficult for some folks to understand if they don't have a business background, but put simply, anyone representing the company has to behave, at all times, (whether at work, or not at work) in a way that must not bring any shame, claim, or embarrassment to the company, or raise questions about the standards, integrity or conduct of the company.

So, this was just an "innocent" game of football - and the guy was just wanting to name his team after our company, for a bit of fun. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Well, what if someone on his team got into a fight, or broke another player's leg? What if his team got expelled from the competition for cheating? Or what if there was a discrepancy in the amount of sponsorship they raised and that which actually got paid to the charity?

Any of these things had the potential to reflect badly on the company - even though his 5 a side team had nothing to do with the company at all - and he was the only employee playing in it.

He was refused permission to use the company name in this way. The risks of something going wrong may have been extremely remote, but if they did then reputational risk has the potential to literally wipe millions off the value of the company.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that McBurnie's "laddish" behaviour has the potential to cost our club millions in lost revenues. But, there's a principle here and it's about behaving in a way that reflects the way your employer would wish to be perceived publicly. And neither Sheffield United Football Club or the English Football Association wish for their "ambassadors" - which is what McBurnie is, whether he likes it or not, to behave in what is considered to be an unsporting way.

I don't find this hard to understand at all tbh and I think Wilder has handled it well.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest that if the company didn't trust a few of its employees to play in a 5 a side tournament without acting in a manner that brought shame on the company then they had issues themselves or that the employees had done something in the past to suggest they might bring the company into disrepute. I've played in multiple intercompany football events over the years for £billion companies and SME's alike and it's never been an issue to enter a team in the company name.
 
derekacorah said:
I'd suggest that if the company didn't trust a few of its employees to play in a 5 a side tournament without acting in a manner that brought shame on the company then they had issues themselves or that the employees had done something in the past to suggest they might bring the company into disrepute. I've played in multiple intercompany football events over the years for £billion companies and SME's alike and it's never been an issue to enter a team in the company name.
Click to expand...
No not that at all. Maybe I didn't explain it? The company had nothing to do with the tournament and was not involved in it. This was one guy who was wanting to use the company name for an event that the company had nothing to do with.

For sure, he could have entered a team in the company name if the company had been involved in the tournament. The same company did that for charity on countless occasions - but in those situations the company was directly involved in the same and was able to monitor and ensure that all activities were compliant.

That's totally different to having no say in something at all but someone else using your company name.
 
Cerberus Blade said:
Years ago I used to work for a very large and well known international company. One of the guys that worked for me had organised a 5 a side football tournament for charity and was planning to name his team after the company we worked for. The tournament was fine, the cause was a good one, and there was no problem at all with those aspects - but he was absolutely not allowed to use the company's name for his football team. Why?

Because of the reputational risk to the company. I appreciate this may be difficult for some folks to understand if they don't have a business background, but put simply, anyone representing the company has to behave, at all times, (whether at work, or not at work) in a way that must not bring any shame, claim, or embarrassment to the company, or raise questions about the standards, integrity or conduct of the company.

So, this was just an "innocent" game of football - and the guy was just wanting to name his team after our company, for a bit of fun. What could possibly be wrong with that?

Well, what if someone on his team got into a fight, or broke another player's leg? What if his team got expelled from the competition for cheating? Or what if there was a discrepancy in the amount of sponsorship they raised and that which actually got paid to the charity?

Any of these things had the potential to reflect badly on the company - even though his 5 a side team had nothing to do with the company at all - and he was the only employee playing in it.

He was refused permission to use the company name in this way. The risks of something going wrong may have been extremely remote, but if they did then reputational risk has the potential to literally wipe millions off the value of the company.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that McBurnie's "laddish" behaviour has the potential to cost our club millions in lost revenues. But, there's a principle here and it's about behaving in a way that reflects the way your employer would wish to be perceived publicly. And neither Sheffield United Football Club or the English Football Association wish for their "ambassadors" - which is what McBurnie is, whether he likes it or not, to behave in what is considered to be an unsporting way.

I don't find this hard to understand at all tbh and I think Wilder has handled it well.
Click to expand...


Rangers and Celtic fans tend to cause huge problems when playing in Europe ( as do some English clubs) and have done for years. Their many - and well known main ones with their name on the shirts - sponsors, don't appear to worry about their share price by having an association with them. Not sure about now but when l played football there were many teams named after businesses who sponsored them who included non employees in their ranks. Macron and Nike don't seem to have a problem providing kit for Lazio and Zenit, whose fans are known for right wing racism.
 
Sean Thornton said:
Excellent Scott. Made me laugh. And it not like you to be funny. Kudos. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks big bro and I feel duly patronised. Would you like to pat me on the head too?

If you thought the Clive Dunn version was a bit slow, here is another version from North Notts punks, Resistance 77:-

 
The lads got shit for brains. That much is abundantly clear.

My only personal concern would be how having said shit for brains translates in to football performances in the red n white.

UTB
 
Cerberus Blade said:
No not that at all. Maybe I didn't explain it? The company had nothing to do with the tournament and was not involved in it. This was one guy who was wanting to use the company name for an event that the company had nothing to do with.

For sure, he could have entered a team in the company name if the company had been involved in the tournament. The same company did that for charity on countless occasions - but in those situations the company was directly involved in the same and was able to monitor and ensure that all activities were compliant.

That's totally different to having no say in something at all but someone else using your company name.
Click to expand...

Miserable bastards! Although I did work on a contract where Asda were a customer and their contract managers were only allowed to accept water in meetings for fear that anything else could be seen as bribes and inducements. I used to tell the office manager to order the buffet for them anyway so we got more.

I wonder if your company would have been bothered if 4 employees entered a golf competition in the company name instead?!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

originaltrueblade
Moyes
Replies
4
Views
813
BangorBlade
BangorBlade
ThatJa
Danny Ings
Replies
19
Views
2K
Pintor75
Pintor75
Brewster Cost Millions
Odds of Relegation
Replies
1
Views
478
Greasy Chap Butty
Greasy Chap Butty
Brewster Cost Millions
blades ramble vs notts
Replies
11
Views
1K
United Aren't Back.
U
N
Away at Manure postponed
Replies
3
Views
582
s20Blade
S

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom