I couldn't give a shíte about the sensitivities of the rabble that support sunderland and I doubt anyone else does around here. It's worthless, slightly amusing dribble.
I'm just trying to make the point that there is two sides to every story. Or at least try because the mods are blocking some of my post.Originally Posted by geysir
But anyway I won't change peoples minds because some wont accept SAFC's side or even entertain it. Now that is petty.
Last edited by GypsyBlackCat; 02/04/2015 at 12:55 PM.
Those pesky mods blocking parts of posts as usual.
No we're not, post away
Ok. I was replying @DannyInvincible post the Poppy.
If you agree with he was right not to wear the Poppy then you have to understand that people will get annoyed over someone who refuses to. To them it's spitting on the graves of their fallen heroes. Plus he didn't help himself by posting The Board Black Brimmer on his Twitter account a week later, a song about a member of the IRA. And people we view Bobby Sands as a terrorist. He was told stay off Twitter for his only safety but refused. He has to take some of the blame for his own actions. Our PR was naïve to think it would just blow over but in hindsight it was an nothing story. So he wasn't hung out to dry. Surely people can understand when SAFC are furious with him?
As I said, there's two sides to every story. McCleans isn't fact.
Last edited by GypsyBlackCat; 02/04/2015 at 1:41 PM.
If you read back through this thread lots of us have said he hasn't helped himself at times. You're going further than that and questioning his commitment, his effort and his professionalism on the football field, and citing lads on a message board to back it up.
I always thought it was harsh on Kilbane. Sometimes players infuriate fans. Kilbane was a trier but he wasn't very good. He'd run at a play and lose or if he did beat him he'd cross it into the North Stand. That can get on fans nervous. McClean was the same in his second season. He'd do the same thing over and over again. Plus we were getting a picture of him of having a bad attitude with rumours of his mates coming over and acting up. Everyday there was some story about him. Plus his diet was poor. So it looked like he wasn't putting the effort in. That was the main reason.
I was pointing out that people who live in Sunderland and watch them every week would have a better opinion of him. Yes I am questioning his commitment, effort and professionalism because I seen a player who looked like the next big thing ending up looking hopeless and lazy. His off field problems are well documented.
Well maybe your problem then is thinking he was the next big thing, because he wasn't. If Sunderland fans are upset that a decent player didn't magically become a great player just because they wished him to, it's hardly anyone's problem but their own. I've been on the Sunderland message boards a couple of times over the years and there seems to be a large concentration of dimwits. Perhaps they're right about McClean but I'd be more inclined to believe the guy who's never come across as anything other than an honest professional who's thankful for the opportunities he's been given to make a living from his ability.
Dimwits?Why is that?
Believe what you want but I'm just giving another side of the story. As I said, we didn't hang him out to dry and that's the true.
Of course, and there'll be groans every now and again. That doesn't explain how every other set of supporters Kilbane togged our for, in the main, appreciated his efforts, yet all he got at Sunderland was abuse. Let's face it, there were plenty far worse players to wear the Sunderland jersey than Kilbane, both in terms of ability and attitude. Fair enough you accept it was harsh, but my point was that, for me, it brings the credibility of these so called fans into question.
Why questioned our credibility? They seen these players week in week out. So all SAFC fans are wrong and you should believe a word we say?
Agreed, but I think that the poppy itself has been twisted from wearing it representing a show of support to not wearing it as an insult to veterans. It's getting to the stage where if you don't have a massive show of support (bigger than last year's) then it's treated as the same insult, see Rangers' demonstration as an example
Technically it's about the son of an IRA member getting married in his father's uniform, but fair enough, it's going to cause friction. You'd have to admit there are far more inflammatory songs from the Wolfe Tones - who actually experienced a minor surge in popularity because of the controversy. What I had a problem with at the time was that other Irish players on twitter said they also liked the song - David Meyler was one - but weren't subject to the same abuse. Added to that there's any number of footballers in England on twitter supporting acts with history of alcohol, drugs and violence, without the same abuse
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but again I see your point. In England he was seen as the latter.
This is true, he should have dropped his account permanently far earlier than he did.
It was a nothing story that was blown out of all proportion by people looking to make a name for themselves started by Gregory Campbell, and eventually led to him leaving the club.
What led to him leaving was his bad form and I think both needed a clean break. The club is terrible at PR ever since Quinn left, you just have to look at the di Canio fiasco. So it's not surprising the Poppy thing came back to bite us. Maybe I'm been a little to harsh on McClean because the squad professionalism was called into questioned that season. He could have been going along with the crowd and it was him who notice the most. He might he been the one who caught the most flak (just like Kilbane during the 19pts season) He could have just been a victim of the sinking ship that we are now but it does grind me that he said he was hung out to dry! But the relationship between the fans and the players is at a low. It has been for awhile.
Sure, why they'd want to get all hot and bothered about the personal choices others make that have nothing to do with them, I'm not sure, but I suppose they do have a right. They absolutely don't have a right, however, to try and impose the wearing of a poppy upon another person, or are you trying to suggest they do? The unreasonable, intolerant and overbearing position of the two here is expecting or trying to force someone else to do something you want them to do that they don't want to, and then getting annoyed with them when they fail to conform to your demands. That's exactly what Jon Snow famously called "poppy fascism" and it's wrong; bang out of order. Let people do what they want and let them have their freedom of conscience, so long as they're not harming anyone else. And James McClean certainly wasn't harming anyone else by carrying on as normal and declining to wear a poppy, just like the many other millions in Britain on that day, including Britons themselves, who didn't have one on them. Were you wearing one yourself?
Well, then they're, for some inexplicable reason, assuming a particular positive or active statement from James' silence and absence of action. I don't know why they would make a logical leap to such a conclusion from ignorance and lack of knowledge of James' perspective. It's none of their business whether other people wear a poppy or not. Even if it was their business, the reasonable thing would have been to wait until becoming aware of the facts and reasons before jumping in to judge. Were they all wearing poppies themselves? Fat chance! The difference is that James was making a decision himself - a personal choice - to carry on as normal in silence, you could say, supported by his club (supposedly) and manager based on his own conscience and the fact he would have felt guilty wearing one due to the connotations it had for him and the community into which he was born, whereas these side-line authoritarians try to dictate to others and impose obligations or guilt based on what they've decided is right for others. James wasn't trying to impose anything on anyone else. Nobody has to respect their "fallen heroes". James wasn't even disrespecting them. It's they who were unreasonable in their failure to appreciate that their perspective might not be the only valid perspective on the matter.To them it's spitting on the graves of their fallen heroes.
Millions of people don't don poppies at that time of year. Is that one big mass insult to Britain's war dead? If James had been allowed to express his reasons, there'd be absolutely no reason for anyone to be jumping to daft conclusions that he was intent on insulting those killed at war. Can you not appreciate the exceptionally uncomfortable position into which James was forced? I'm not sure what you expected of him here. Did you think he should have "just gotten over himself" and worn it? Surely you must be able to recognise that James will view those British soldiers who murdered 13 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday (with another dying of his wounds later) as anything but heroes. Just to give you some further perspective of where I'm coming from here, this is the British Army that was also engaged in collusion with loyalist paramilitary groups throughout the Troubles. A relative of mine was gunned down by loyalists in west Tyrone in 1991 with extremely strong and compelling indications of state forces/army collusion. He was no more than a Sinn Féin electoral worker (as was proven by the absence of an IRA guard of honour, as was customary for dead volunteers, at his funeral). The British government has never properly investigated the matter nor dispensed justice despite being strongly criticised by the European Court of Human Rights in 2001 in a case brought by the family. Pat Finucane was another non-paramilitary gunned down as a result of collusion. There are still outstanding and residual issues that haven't been resolved and these incidents are real examples of what the poppy represents for most nationalists and republicans in the north of Ireland. The British Army might be heroes for a large section of Sunderland fans, but they must surely be able to recognise that that simply won't and can't be a universal perspective? I mean, how would you feel if it was demanded that you support a cause (say, the remembrance of dead IRA volunteers through the wearing of an Easter lily) that put you in an extremely uncomfortable position, and then to be further told that your refusal was tantamount to spitting on people's graves? You'd rightly think you were subject to a wildly unreasonable request and accusation.
You're right, it was a nothing story; nobody else's business whether he wore a poppy or not. So why did Sunderland make a public deal about it?Our PR was naïve to think it would just blow over but in hindsight it was an nothing story. So he wasn't hung out to dry.
Oh, so it was rumours of his mates now and not actually James getting up to no good at these popular local night-spots? C'mon, back yourself up, man. You're coming out with all sorts of wishy-washy accusations here, but there's very little substance to them.
That's called the rumour-mill of gossip.Everyday there was some story about him.
You keep saying vague, unsubstantiated stuff like this. You make him sound like a cartoon villain who could do no right, no mater what he did. In what way was his diet poor in order to make it look like he wasn't putting in the effort?Plus his diet was poor. So it looked like he wasn't putting the effort in. That was the main reason.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 03/04/2015 at 1:14 PM.
It would be unfair to generalise to that degree, but the totally unnecessary treatment of Kilbane would make me question their character (as a fanbase) to some degree. I think some club's supporters (as a whole) are just more classy than others. I'd be very reluctant to scroll online forums for character references of guys the majority probably know f*** all about anyway. As for McClean, we all know he's no angel and has made many a difficult situation for himself... all by himself.
Just generally being dimwits. When Meyler broke in it was universal plaudits, predicting him to be the dominating midfielder for years to come, then saying good riddance when he was sold two years later after two horrendous seasons. The personal abuse of McClean and the complete ignorance of conflicting views on the poppy issue. Those are the two examples that stick in my mind, but any time I've been there I've been struck by how prominent the thickos are.Dimwits?
Believe what you want but I'm just giving another side of the story. As I said, we didn't hang him out to dry and that's the true.
GypsyBlackCat; I had a look of the Sunderland message board as you gave the impression that not one Sunderland fan has a positive or supportive word to say about James. That's not quite true at all, is it? In fact, it seems you've been really holding back here, for you actually appear to be one of the most vitriolic on there! Why didn't you tell us what you really think?: http://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads...#post-20071602
Derry City are an integral and successful member of the League of Ireland. The FAI and League of Ireland community have always welcomed Derry's participation, ever since Finn Harps helped them gain membership in 1985. And just to clarify for you, James wouldn't have an issue with anyone, say, refusing to wear an Easter lily, as you suggest he might. He's been pretty clear that he respects the views of other people and their right to hold opposing ones to his.
Ahh, this changes everything. Funny thing is that singing "what's it like to have a queen?" is the sort of *cringe* "banter" that we can have because they actually are welcome in the league (and it's as much their league as it is anybody else's down here, and it's certainly more theirs than it is a Sunderland fan's).
Danny you can say one thing and mean the complete opposite. I wouldn't suggest he does or doesn't but I wouldn't say that just because he came out with that statement that he actually does.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks