Stal

Is it not a statue of Jimmy Hill?

8:57 and it's now 13 on their first page.

See, I'm the other way. The title change is giving credence to something I think is just mike ashley propaganda to appease the masses. After last year, it's a case of once bitten for me. I'm not one for asking for subject headings to be changed, but I think this one is giving publicity to something I don't think is even close to being a real thing. *edit: I may have read your post entirely wrong as I agree with your suggested header.

pls b ths Whilst it would be hilarious, there are things that don't need to be in contracts as they are deemed "obvious". I would say that this could very much be argued to fall under the "obvious" category.

Did anyone catch the Luke Edwards interview?

Definitely in the camp that loves an HTT post. I learn so much and I enjoy the writing style.

I don't like him. He dives and he cheats. During the euros he signalled to the ref to send off his (later to be revealed during a man utd spin press conference) bezzie mate wayne rooney. He does some tricks and falls over. Because of that he gets the chance to do more things, perfect those things and have more shots. Devious yet effective career game plan? Yes. Do I enjoy seeing it? Nope. A very simplistic view, but it's the way I've always felt about him.

Just read the first few pages on that mackem racism thread. At first I thought "fair play" as they condemned it. Until that buckans boots poster piped up and a few more started backing his inward looking backward views. Imagine my surprise when that reiver popped up and appeared to back his racist views too. I couldn't read any more. Sickening.

Not sure if there is precedent for this legally but it if there is an irrevocable breakdown in trust between the parties it may be seen as reasonable to terminate the contract. Personally, I hope that the club wins in this case regardless of it being the mackems.

This guy isn't a client of bishop by any chance is he?

brilliant!

That's why I was a tad vague on my description of the timeline It does make you wonder why the club would do business with her as an agent, especially due to the nature of her leaving and also why the player would do business with her as an agent, especially due to the nature of her leaving.

That's a different point to whether we as individuals see it as fair game or not, which is what I was responding to. My point is brands are brands, regardless of being a company brand or an individual brand. As for whether it's worth it because it's polarizing; Could it be worth it if there was an explanation as to whether it was fair game/not fair game? Educate then mobilise perhaps? And then guidance as to what is acceptable. I don't know the right answer to this, but I think you do make a very valid point.

Isn't this something to do with his agent also being former board member margaret byrne? Wha?!?! :lol: I can't remember all the details but as I understand it byrne was the one in charge during the adam johnson case and was removed from her position afterwards for her handling of said case. At some point (I'm really not sure when) she acted as an agent for Cattermole and gave him a lovely contract.

Isn't this something to do with his agent also being former board member margaret byrne?

Very first item for me. The headline was about Robbie Keane though so that might be what's thrown you.

I thought about this and I don't think there is a massive difference. A company is no different to a brand. These people aren't just ordinary folk, otherwise they wouldn't be involved with bishop. They use him to expand their brand, their brand being themselves. A personal account (which they will have under a different name most likely) no, but their public persona? Could be seen as fair game. I'm not at all for sending them abuse mind you, but if it's the regular stuff I've seen about ashley posted on businesses associated with him. sports direct and kba then I don't see the issue with that.

This is both hilarious and informative. I never knew it was called that.

Just seen some summarised news feed on a TV. He reckons he will strive to keep all the staff and you can "hold my feet to the fire". If he gives these statements to journalists why are they not asking the questions about his track record with the truth? Also, "strive to". I assume this is the precursor to "we tried". *EDIT: was "vows to" and "keep all outlets open" but the point still stands.

All of these repulsive cretins sucking off ashley on sky is deplorable, and it's absolutely right that no one should take these irrelevant buffoons seriously, but who in the media is actually championing the fans? Who is actually out there telling the truth about the obese sweathouse owner? I know about Shearer on MOTD, and he is certainly a prominent figure, but so far it seems he is on his own from what I can tell.

I cancelled my sky because of this odious cretin and I've just had the survey through. I have made sure that I have filled in every free text box that their love-in with the obnoxious man child is the reason I quit them.

He's just a shit Michael Chopra.

Yeah, this rather eloquently sums up my feelings too.

Should people shake their fist at him in an old timey-wimey gesture too?

https://chionwurahmp.com/2018/08/chis-response-to-mike-ashleys-letter/ Brilliant! thank you That is a very well thought out response, she outmatched him at every turn there.