Martin Samuel - again

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

grafikhaus said:
Once again, our biased, West Ham supporting idiot pursues his own agenda.

I've copied and pasted the relevant bit so you don't have to scroll through the rest of his crap in todays article:


Wilder talks about legal action but club can't get lucky twice

Sheffield United got lucky in 2008 with the Lord Griffiths ruling. They scored fewer goals away from home, and lost more away games than any other team in the league in 2006-07, and that somehow became the work of Carlos Tevez and West Ham.

Words fail me. He's just repeating his mantra that it was all United's fault and nothing to do with the clearly-illegal fielding of an illegal player, in more than one game.

Lord Griffiths also decided it was Tevez who was responsible for Sheffield United's defeat at home to Wigan on the final day of the season which sent them down, and for the fact they took eight points from a possible 33 after February 10. West Ham ended up paying Sheffield United more than £10million.

See above.

At the time Griffiths' verdict — in effect, that a club was not responsible for its own league position — seemed calamitous because it opened the door to so many legal challenges.

In fact, it barely exists as a precedent these days because football wisely acknowledged its rogue nature and no club has pursued that path since.

Until last week, when Sheffield United were unlucky with a technology call at Aston Villa, and immediately raised the possibility of a return to law.

Yes, it was unfortunate to be on the wrong end of a 9,000-1 chance missed call by Hawk-Eye's goal-line technology. Yes, it was poor that VAR did not have the gumption to call it to referee Michael Oliver.

Yet to speak, as Chris Wilder did, of legal redress if Sheffield United missed out on Europe by the two points lost, ensured wider sympathy swiftly evaporated. It was a mistake, but they happen. The technology failed and humans have been taught not to trust their eyes. Frustrating, yes. But actionable?

As far as I'm aware, Chris Wilder has been very careful not to speak of legal redress, but has intimated that any action could come from players who, having missed out on bonuses based on United's final position, may seek action. Also any team who is relegated by one point would have a very strong case against Villa, VAR tec.

The error happened in the 41st minute. That means Sheffield United had 49 minutes plus two sets of additional time to defeat Aston Villa, and did not. A legal suit would also have to presume that the game would have unfolded identically and the goal would not have influenced Villa's approach: their game plan would not have changed whether losing or drawing.

Again, Samuel falls back on the 'Wigan incident' where he's repeatedly told of United's poor form at the end of the season, yet conveniently chooses to ignore the pivotal reason why United went down - Tevez in 2007 and Villa this season.

Sheffield United would then need to prove this single incident was the reason for their failure to reach Europe rather than — say — Sunday's 3-0 defeat at Newcastle, or home defeats by Leicester, Southampton and Newcastle.

West Ham got lucky in 2007 because they should have been deducted points that would, in all likelihood, have relegated them. Yet Griffiths' judgement was flawed. He died in 2015, aged 91, and we wish Sheffield United well finding another sound legal mind who seconds him.

So now he's calling the judge's sanity into question. Quite disgraceful.
Click to expand...

I've not read the actual article from Martin Samuel. He's entitled to his opinion, but I chose not to listen or read it, he's of no interest and he works for one of my least respected papers - The Daily Mail.

He should concentrate on his own club and their fortunes.
 

Our favourite hairy bear getting called out for being a racist cunt by one of his fellow journos!!

As Jonathan Liew got dogs abuse for calling out Jonathan Agnew last Summer, fair play to him for doing the same again!


 
IdLiketoRogerMoore said:
Our favourite hairy bear getting called out for being a racist cunt by one of his fellow journos!!

As Jonathan Liew got dogs abuse for calling out Jonathan Agnew last Summer, fair play to him for doing the same again!


Click to expand...


Liew accused Agnew of being racist, without proof.
Agnew then accused Liew of being racist, without proof.
Liew claimed Agnew is not allowed to call him a racist without proof as it was defamation.

That sums it up pretty accurately.

Now Liew is once again trying to stir crap up from nowhere.

His hypocrisy doesn't deserve credit.
 
CentralQuay said:
Liew accused Agnew of being racist, without proof.
Agnew then accused Liew of being racist, without proof.
Liew claimed Agnew is not allowed to call him a racist without proof as it was defamation.

That sums it up pretty accurately.

Now Liew is once again trying to stir crap up from nowhere.

His hypocrisy doesn't deserve credit.
Click to expand...

I can't be arsed googling the exact quotes or getting into a debate on an internet forum over the intricacies of what is or isn't racism, but if I recall correctly Liew drew attention to Agnew (and others) that picking Archer might disrupt team spirit before the world cup but hadn't suggested the same when other (white) players had been picked for England.

And after the spat Agnew apologised...

But then again, you might have seen it differently and see the whole situation (and the current situation) as "stirring crap" but I guess that somewhat emphasizes his point...
 
IdLiketoRogerMoore said:
I can't be arsed googling the exact quotes or getting into a debate on an internet forum over the intricacies of what is or isn't racism, but if I recall correctly Liew drew attention to Agnew (and others) that picking Archer might disrupt team spirit before the world cup but hadn't suggested the same when other (white) players had been picked for England.

And after the spat Agnew apologised...

But then again, you might have seen it differently and see the whole situation (and the current situation) as "stirring crap" but I guess that somewhat emphasizes his point...
Click to expand...

Agnew apologized for the bad language he put Liew's way, none of it racist I might add.....He, quite rightly, sticks to the fact that he believes he was not being racist, whilst claiming he was called a racist by Liew because the white colour of his skin, ultimately meaning Liew was being racist.

Liew's claim that 'White players' have not been considered a disruptive influence is not true.

Kevin Pietersen (sp?) is white, the great 'English' Batsman of all time, white and foreign born.
Left out of many England sides because he was believed to be a disruptive influence.
 
CentralQuay said:
Agnew apologized for the bad language he put Liew's way, none of it racist I might add.....He, quite rightly, sticks to the fact that he believes he was not being racist, whilst claiming he was called a racist by Liew because the white colour of his skin, ultimately meaning Liew was being racist.

Liew's claim that 'White players' have not been considered a disruptive influence is not true.

Kevin Pietersen (sp?) is white, the great 'English' Batsman of all time, white and foreign born.
Left out of many England sides because he was believed to be a disruptive influence.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Agnew making that point because Archer hadn't played in any of the warm up games because he was waiting for his eligible status/visa to come through?
 
CentralQuay said:
I have no agenda/bias towards the issue.

It's possible to think that Samuel's in a knob, and the line about the Judge's 'mind' is disgraceful.....
And still think that his point about Sheffield United's inability to pick up points across multiple games, not just the Wigan one, was as much of a factor in relegation, if not more so, than Carlos Tevez.

Just like the 3-0 defeat at Newcastle, where 3 potential points were lost, is more damaging than 2 potential points lost at Villa.
Click to expand...
Samuel makes this argument and it is total nonsense. It's like a rival team in F1 slashing your tyres, giving you an extra pit stop, then when you lose the race by a second they say "it was when you took the second to last corner badly that you lost the race". Or it's like your rival in a marathon takes a short cut and pips you to the finish line and then says "well you should have run faster". It's stupidity beyond belief.
He says:
Sheffield United would then need to prove this single incident was the reason for their failure to reach Europe rather than — say — Sunday's 3-0 defeat at Newcastle, or home defeats by Leicester, Southampton and Newcastle.
Click to expand...
Which they wouldn't. He's a complete idiot.

Tezza1889 said:
Seeing as were talking about West Ham, do any of you feel sorry for them after what's happened under Gold and Sullivan?.

When we talk about the rent and Mcabe wanting a price for the ground, we just have to look at the state they're in, losing Upton park has taken the soul out of them, they're playing in a crater with seats, everything that made them special seems to be long gone, the football, the passion, the "properness" of the club, all gone.

If they go down, I can see the owners putting them up for sale once rice has gone because there's nothing of any value left then, so they'll be back to square one, selling off the assets trying to steady the ship as they all do, looking for new owners while the current owners keep their heads down and set off for Gatwick...

As for Samuels, when you're constantly looking outwards for injustice, you normally tend to ignore what's in front of your face..
Click to expand...
A good question. Unfortunately, at the time, a lot of their fans were shits about it. We currently have a well-behaved and (far too) reasonable guest to balance that out, but I can't help but be joyful at the prospect of their relegation - but then that's football rivalry and surely there's nothing wrong with that. As for the stuff that goes on off field, I don't like to see any club shafted by owners. Clubs belong to fans, owners are just stewards.

GreasyChipBeattie said:
It still irks me when people say we weren't good enough/should have got more points/only needed to draw against Wigan.
The fact is that we DID get enough points to stay up.
West Ham didn't get enough points to stay up.
Their cheating did.
Click to expand...
Exactly, I don't understand why people can't see this. It's not difficult, is it? Especially when it comes from Blades.
 
FMBlade1 said:
Wasn't Agnew making that point because Archer hadn't played in any of the warm up games because he was waiting for his eligible status/visa to come through?
Click to expand...

Yep.
It wasn't even questioning Archer's character, it was more to do with the lack of games he had played internationally and lack of integration he had with the current squad.

It was the typical 'experienced player vs inexperienced player' debate that have been had when picking World Cup squads in football for instance.

No different to when there was so much debate in the media about playing Rooney for England.
Of course, Rooney is white, so it doesn't fit the 'racist agenda' Liew was trying to promote.
 
CentralQuay said:
Yep.
It wasn't even questioning Archer's character, it was more to do with the lack of games he had played internationally and lack of integration he had with the current squad.

It was the typical 'experienced player vs inexperienced player' debate that have been had when picking World Cup squads in football for instance.

No different to when there was so much debate in the media about playing Rooney for England.
Of course, Rooney is white, so it doesn't fit the 'racist agenda' Liew was trying to promote.
Click to expand...

I remember Stan Collymore going on a massive rant because Manuel Alumni was being considered for an England call-up.

Wonder if one could do the same now.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/why-arsenals-manuel-almunia-should-not-657566

Jack Wilshere made the same point and that was considered edgy.
 
CentralQuay said:
Agnew apologized for the bad language he put Liew's way, none of it racist I might add.....He, quite rightly, sticks to the fact that he believes he was not being racist, whilst claiming he was called a racist by Liew because the white colour of his skin, ultimately meaning Liew was being racist.

Liew's claim that 'White players' have not been considered a disruptive influence is not true.

Kevin Pietersen (sp?) is white, the great 'English' Batsman of all time, white and foreign born.
Left out of many England sides because he was believed to be a disruptive influence.
Click to expand...
Good on Agnew - I’m totally sick of this shit.
 
Fat twat spitting bile again? I don't know why anyone wastes time reading his shit. Waste of oxygen
 

Hamburg Blade said:
Samuel makes this argument and it is total nonsense. It's like a rival team in F1 slashing your tyres, giving you an extra pit stop, then when you lose the race by a second they say "it was when you took the second to last corner badly that you lost the race". Or it's like your rival in a marathon takes a short cut and pips you to the finish line and then says "well you should have run faster". It's stupidity beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Aaahhhh, but to even things up, the marathon runner would have to pay a 10% surcharge of the entrance fee so he could keep his official 'time' and his winners medal.
 
I used to listen to the audio podcast of Sunday Supplement, and found it enjoyable. Martin's patter is delivered in a 'basic common sense stuff, from the bloke in the pub' tirade - but a lot of what he says is outdated and from a different time. Although I do enjoy listening to his opinion and have no problem with him.
But he does really seem to blank us out when the Blades crop up in discussion, steering the conversation in a different direction - and dragging the other pundits with him.
So for instance, let's imagine a scenario where the Blades have qualified for Europa and their first game is against FC Utrecht.
Host: "So how do you think the Blades will fair in their first game against the Dutch Side?"
Pundit 1: "They have a great chance, I'm confident they can get a result at home and who knows, it great to see Sheffield in the draw and will be interesting to see how they cope"
Samuels: "I remember in 1970, when Godfrey Smith was the Editor on Fleet Street, and we had a wedding in Utrecht. I've never drunk so many beers, anyway that was back then and not now. Great days they were on Fleet Street."
Pundit 2: "Yes the old days of the newspapers."
Pundit 3: "I was at a wedding in Belgium, but not Holland."
Pundit 4: "Godfrey Smith was a giant of Fleet Street, a sad passing."
Host: "Yes, yes, Fleet Street. Right after the break, can Chelsea score a goal at the weekend."
 
HVR said:
I used to listen to the audio podcast of Sunday Supplement, and found it enjoyable. Martin's patter is delivered in a 'basic common sense stuff, from the bloke in the pub' tirade - but a lot of what he says is outdated and from a different time. Although I do enjoy listening to his opinion and have no problem with him.
But he does really seem to blank us out when the Blades crop up in discussion, steering the conversation in a different direction - and dragging the other pundits with him.
So for instance, let's imagine a scenario where the Blades have qualified for Europa and their first game is against FC Utrecht.
Host: "So how do you think the Blades will fair in their first game against the Dutch Side?"
Pundit 1: "They have a great chance, I'm confident they can get a result at home and who knows, it great to see Sheffield in the draw and will be interesting to see how they cope"
Samuels: "I remember in 1970, when Godfrey Smith was the Editor on Fleet Street, and we had a wedding in Utrecht. I've never drunk so many beers, anyway that was back then and not now. Great days they were on Fleet Street."
Pundit 2: "Yes the old days of the newspapers."
Pundit 3: "I was at a wedding in Belgium, but not Holland."
Pundit 4: "Godfrey Smith was a giant of Fleet Street, a sad passing."
Host: "Yes, yes, Fleet Street. Right after the break, can Chelsea score a goal at the weekend."
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he does. "Chris Wilder great guy, decent team but I remember when.... ((waffle about something completely different)) "
 
Wonder what he's going to say about his beloved Wet Sham get involved?

www.football.london

Premier League could face legal battle over Hawk-Eye error

Bournemouth, Brighton and Hove Albion, Sheffield United, Watford and West Ham are the clubs that could look into a legal challenge over Hawk-Eye missing a goal in a 0-0 draw at Villa Park
www.football.london www.football.london
 
Blade58 said:
Wonder what he's going to say about his beloved Wet Sham get involved?

www.football.london

Premier League could face legal battle over Hawk-Eye error

Bournemouth, Brighton and Hove Albion, Sheffield United, Watford and West Ham are the clubs that could look into a legal challenge over Hawk-Eye missing a goal in a 0-0 draw at Villa Park
www.football.london www.football.london
Click to expand...
“West Ham could be set for another legal battle involving Sheffield United and Premier League relegation three years after Carlos Tevez made sure that the Irons would survive at the expense of the Blades.”

Three years? Have I missed something there? Surely they mean thirteen years? Shoddy.
 
CentralQuay said:
Kevin Pietersen (sp?) is ... white and foreign born.
Click to expand...

KP got the shit he did because he's not English. I appreciate that's not racism, but it's a form of xenophobia for sure. And there's a crossover.
 
Blade58 said:
Wonder what he's going to say about his beloved Wet Sham get involved?

www.football.london

Premier League could face legal battle over Hawk-Eye error

Bournemouth, Brighton and Hove Albion, Sheffield United, Watford and West Ham are the clubs that could look into a legal challenge over Hawk-Eye missing a goal in a 0-0 draw at Villa Park
www.football.london www.football.london
Click to expand...

Load of shite that. They say something about the Tevez goal against Man U on the final day being the sole reason we went down.

Was it balls. Without Tevez, West Ham were dead and buried. It wasn’t just about that one goal at all, they shouldn’t have even been in contention for staying up that year, they should already have been down on the last day of the season.
 
moDtheGod said:
KP got the shit he did because he's not English. I appreciate that's not racism, but it's a form of xenophobia for sure. And there's a crossover.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.

I gave him stick for being a narcissistic arse who was only interested in getting centuries for Petersenland.

No xenophobia, he just wasn't a team player, hence the rest of them taking the piss out of him and ultimately falling out.
 
Seven cameras? Just show us the photo evidence and then we can leave it alone.
 
CentralQuay said:
Almunia is white, and therefore doesn't fit the narrative proposed by Liew.
Click to expand...


Just re-read that again, Collymore's statement is pretty strong:

'I chose to play for a country that I was born in and I am a part of. Whether it is one cap or 100 caps that is the way it should always be. '

Archer was born in Barbados and only moved to England in 2015. (His father is British however so different to Alumnia.)

Would Collymore object by that logic to Archer playing for England? Judging by the article where he lambasts cricket, the answer would have to be yes.

And how about Mo Farah representing Team GB?
 
moDtheGod said:
KP got the shit he did because he's not English. I appreciate that's not racism, but it's a form of xenophobia for sure. And there's a crossover.
Click to expand...

He got the shit he did because he constantly fell out with other England players/coaches.
His biggest bust up was with Strauss, the captain at the time, also foreign born.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

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