Marc Guehi

[Heron]

13 minutes ago, LiquidAK said:

Not really sure on the distinction there. If he can't back that message without diluting it then he shouldn't captain a premier league team - representing the club in that way is part of the job. It's not a comment on his leadership ability.

That was the distinction I was making. He may well be a good leader or captain material - just not for a club aligning with those principals.

[St. Maximin]

4 hours ago, Hovagod said:

He hasn’t said anything has he? If I were him and not a homophobic arsehole, I would just put up a thing on Insta stating that and my reasons for putting the message on the armband. And apologising for my father’s comments which misstated my actual intentions. 

He said this today: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/clyj2e3dg14o.amp

 

To be honest I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he’s been an idiot and he’s continued to handle it badly, but some of the outrage is crazy and based on assumptions. All this “he clearly doesn’t support the campaign”, “clearly doesn’t object to footballers being abused being for gay” stuff. We’re so quick to make judgments on what at times very silly young men think because they aren’t wearing an armband, taking the knee or wearing a poppy, rather than figuring out there may be more context. We have that with McLean, yet apparently there’s no leeway here. 
 

I sound like a broken record here, but he comes from a Christian background and holds biblical views that he, rightly or wrongly, might feel puts him in a conflicted position. He also may well be aware that the rainbow flag can be used politically and this may also not make him feel comfortable as a Christian, so wants to stress he doesn’t support some of those causes that are separate to homophobia in football. So as a result of those combined, he might feel the need to approach it differently. That doesn’t mean it’s right and it doesn’t mean he’s right in his understanding of the campaign, but it shows there might be some more complexities here entirely unsurprisingly. Like I keep saying, nowhere does being asked to wear a poppy mean you’re celebrating British armed forces killing people in NI. 

 

Can’t we just accept these nuances rather than just make all these inferences from thinking the worst in someone? You can still think he’s a complete idiot for what he’s done but he maybe, just maybe, isn’t quite the disgusting evil homophone he’s made out to be purely because he mentioned loving Jesus on his armband. 
 

Still bit of a weird thing to do mind. 
 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by St. Maximin

[TheBrownBottle]

4 hours ago, Pablo123 said:

He didn't have to do anything. I'd have worn it personally, but each to their own.

No, he actually had three choices - wear a rainbow one, wear a regular one, or renounce the captaincy.  What he did is actually against FA regs, as well as being the act of a simple-minded wanker. 

[TheBrownBottle]

21 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

He said this today: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/clyj2e3dg14o.amp

 

To be honest I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, he’s been an idiot and he’s continued to handle it badly, but some of the outrage is crazy and based on assumptions. All this “he clearly doesn’t support the campaign”, “clearly doesn’t object to footballers being abused being for gay” stuff. We’re so quick to make judgments on what at times very silly young men think because they aren’t wearing an armband, taking the knee or wearing a poppy, rather than figuring out there may be more context. We have that with McLean, yet apparently there’s no leeway here. 
 

I sound like a broken record here, but he comes from a Christian background and holds biblical views that he, rightly or wrongly, might feel puts him in a conflicted position. He also may well be aware that the rainbow flag can be used politically and this may also not make him feel comfortable as a Christian, so wants to stress he doesn’t support some of those causes that are separate to homophobia in football. So as a result of those combined, he might feel the need to approach it differently. That doesn’t mean it’s right and it doesn’t mean he’s right in his understanding of the campaign, but it shows there might be some more complexities here entirely unsurprisingly. Like I keep saying, nowhere does being asked to wear a poppy mean you’re celebrating British armed forces killing people in NI. 

 

Can’t we just accept these nuances rather than just make all these inferences from thinking the worst in someone? You can still think he’s a complete idiot for what he’s done but he maybe, just maybe, isn’t quite the disgusting evil homophone he’s made out to be purely because he mentioned loving Jesus on his armband. 
 

Still bit of a weird thing to do mind. 
 

 

 

 

 

Nah, it’s a patently homophobic move.  He just comes across as being a bit of a thick cunt. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, WilliamPS said:

The FA totally bottled the England team wearing the rainbow armbands in Qatar so it would be a bit two faced of them to punish someone else for what they do with it. They had their chance to make a stand and decided it wasn’t important enough for them.

 

 

 

It’s not quite the same thing, though it was a disgrace that the England team bottled it

[St. Maximin]

13 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Nah, it’s a patently homophobic move.  He just comes across as being a bit of a thick cunt. 

Oh come on, you can engage with all my points you know . 

 

He wrote he loves Jesus ffs. It’s not hard to see why he might feel a bit uncomfortable over the whole thing if you’re willing to consider the context and complexities. 

 

Either that or Jesus was far more vocal about homosexuality in football then I realised. 
 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by St. Maximin

[St. Maximin]

I can honestly think of multiple possible reasons he did what he did - some sound more honourable than others - but we have zero evidence either way for any of them, homophobic or not. 
 

IMO though there’s another fair possibility he’s done it because he both doesn’t support refusing on religious grounds like some players, but is still religious and is keen to point out that’s in his identity while still supporting the cause. It’s very weird to wear in any form if you don’t support it (and honestly I doubt any player doesn’t support it). 
 

I honestly think it’s bizarre people are so keen to think the worst in someone, purely because of a gesture he’s done in one week of several years playing professional football and coming across a model pro. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s choice doesn’t mean you shouldn’t appreciate there’s context we don’t know about it. That happens all the time when someone famous does something silly, but we choose to be understanding if we want to be. 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by St. Maximin

[Lush Vlad]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/clyj2e3dg14o.amp
 

Did his comments get posted? Doesn’t really clear it up. Hardly says he has no issue with gay people here.  
 

He would have been better off not wearing it. His Dad came across like a dick. But he was right in one thing that he said. Nobody cares about Morsy refusing to wear it or the Man U lad refusing to wear a jacket. But Guehi is copping all kinds of flak. 
 

I can’t say I’m arsed either way. It’s up to him. But I tend to lean towards the ‘he doesn’t like gays’ because of his religion angle. His comments actually make me think that more and all. 

[St. Maximin]

2 hours ago, Lush Vlad said:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/clyj2e3dg14o.amp
 

Did his comments get posted? Doesn’t really clear it up. Hardly says he has no issue with gay people here.  
 

He would have been better off not wearing it. His Dad came across like a dick. But he was right in one thing that he said. Nobody cares about Morsy refusing to wear it or the Man U lad refusing to wear a jacket. But Guehi is copping all kinds of flak. 
 

I can’t say I’m arsed either way. It’s up to him. But I tend to lean towards the ‘he doesn’t like gays’ because of his religion angle. His comments actually make me think that more and all. 

My opinions (like I said we don’t know) but I agree with all this apart from the last part. I genuinely think he does agree with the campaign, hence why he wore it. It’s a very weird thing to do if not hence why he’s allowed not to. He’s seen other players like Morsy refuse to wear it and doesn’t support that, but he’s also keen to show he still holds his Christian views despite arguing for inclusivity in football. The alternative view I think also is that he feels (rightly or wrongly) threatened by rainbow campaigns in general - I know view this from being in those circles years ago. 
 

I mean he wrote that he loves Jesus/Jesus loves you. That’s a positive message (especially the latter) and Christianity teaches to love everyone like Jesus did, regardless of their sexual orientation or otherwise. Jesus didn’t go round preaching about homosexuality. If he was quoting certain verses in Leviticus that’s a different matter, but he isn’t. I could be wrong of course, but honestly think he’s just an idiot rather than a homophobe and until we have evidence he meant some of the things people have speculated he does, it’s needless attacking him so much. 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by St. Maximin

[madras]

20 minutes ago, St. Maximin said:

My opinions (like I said we don’t know) but I agree with all this apart from the last part. I genuinely think he does agree with the campaign, hence why he wore it. It’s a very weird thing to do if not hence why he’s allowed not to. He’s seen other players like Morsy refuse to wear it and doesn’t support that, but he’s also keen to show he still holds his Christian views despite arguing for inclusivity in football. The alternative view I think also is that he feels (rightly or wrongly) threatened by rainbow campaigns in general - I know view this from being in those circles years ago. 
 

I mean he wrote that he loves Jesus/Jesus loves you. That’s a positive message (especially the latter) and Christianity teaches to love everyone like Jesus did, regardless of their sexual orientation or otherwise. Jesus didn’t go round preaching about homosexuality. If he was quoting certain verses in Leviticus that’s a different matter, but he isn’t. I could be wrong of course, but honestly think he’s just an idiot rather than a homophobe and until we have evidence he meant some of the things people have speculated he does, it’s needless attacking him so much. 

 

 

 

He just wrote that he loves Jesus. If he'd wrote Jesus loves you it could have been spun as being more inclusive.

[Lush Vlad]

17 minutes ago, madras said:

He just wrote that he loves Jesus. If he'd wrote Jesus loves you it could have been spun as being more inclusive.

He did for the second game. 
 

St Maximin seems very keen to defend him and assume what he meant. The same as the people wanting him punished for being anti-gay or however they see it are making their own mind up. 
 

It’s all just a bit odd. I still think he knew exactly what he was doing and the connotations of writing that on there. 
 

Sounds like his Dad is a bit of a zealot, anyway. So it’s easier to understand why he’s being like this with an upbringing like that. 

[St. Maximin]

I’ve been keen to defend him (we’ll go some extent) because I’m from that kind of background and have family and friends who are both Christian and conservative, so feel I can offer a different perspective on how they think. Bit odd I know as I’ve been agnostic for years and don’t like a lot about religion. Said way more than I expected mind, but I keep disagreeing with people and vice versa 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by St. Maximin

[Dr Venkman]

Well the good news, I suppose, is this all but kills the chances of us paying over the odds for him.

[Erikse]

I was all for not jumping to conclusions, but the interview from his dad and himself doesn't really help his case. They are being really vague and saying things that doesn't really change anything, and I think that's for a reason. His dad comments are especially telling. It really does seem like his dad or family is the issue though, and I suppose that's no surprise. Guehi was put in a really bad and awkward position, and I also think the PL is partly to blame for that. Guehi isn't completely free of blame ofcourse, but he really had no way out of trouble.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2024 by Erikse

[BlueStar]

Quote

His father, a Christian minister, has now come out to defend his son as well, explaining that, like Morsy, Guehi does not believe in the cause for religious reasons.

'You gave me the armband, as a Christian I don't believe in your cause, but I'll put it on'."

 

 

Whoops,  quiet part out loud. 

[Nucasol]

Manchester City are interested in Crystal Palaceand England defender Marc Guehi, with the 24-year-old seen as a player who could be part of a backline overhaul. (Football Insider)

[RodneyCisse]

Ah well, let’s go find someone half the price of similar quality in Europe.

[Nucasol]

6 minutes ago, RodneyCisse said:

Ah well, let’s go find someone half the price of similar quality in Europe.

Still gutted we flapped for six weeks  trying to get Parish to sell us Guehi for a kings ransom when we could have got Schar 2.0 in Huijsen for £18m. 

[Sima]

Guardiola fixing his problems the only way he knows how.

[Andy84]

Football insider 

[southernmag]

2 hours ago, Nucasol said:

Still gutted we flapped for six weeks  trying to get Parish to sell us Guehi for a kings ransom when we could have got Schar 2.0 in Huijsen for £18m. 

 

It was utterly inexcusable imo.

[andycap]

City have got some good centrehalfs unless there all Injured. 

Stones

Dias

Akanji

Gvardiol

Ake

Need midfielders and wingers I'd of thought. 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2024 by andycap

[BlueStar]

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

And another two a few days later 🤣

[Menace]

He's been pretty bad this season like. I hope we move on.