Jump to content
IGNORED

Banged up


Always injured

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Thoughts are with the guy who got assaulted of course but should he have been eligible to play against us and perhaps a few other sides?

Why wouldn’t he be eligible?

(no, we aren’t getting the points)

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davefevs said:

Why wouldn’t he be eligible?

(no, we aren’t getting the points)

Well I dunno if there is no hard and fast rule then I guess.

Innocent until Proven Guilty but other clubs have suspended players.

I was thinking more a Replay minus Chair. :whistle2:

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'm just wondering but how seriously who knows.

It would be us wouldn't it, it does seem typical.

It doesn’t matter though.  We haven’t been hard done by.

He’s played all bar 2 league games this season.  It’s not typical!  Thise 2 missed games…one was against us!!!!

I know you’re trying to work an angle on this.  There isn’t one.  Soz 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That is our ******* luck if true.

The very last game before he gets sentenced to a year in prison with a year suspended, he scores the winner against us. Eh?

It is small beer in the grand scheme of things but?? Eh??

I think this is quite a bad take. I think the truck driver has the worse luck.


Chair playing isn’t why we lost the game.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Davefevs said:

It doesn’t matter though.  We haven’t been hard done by.

He’s played all bar 2 league games this season.  It’s not typical!  Thise 2 missed games…one was against us!!!!

I know you’re trying to work an angle on this.  There isn’t one.  Soz 🙂

Our luck really but hey no.

Okay I forgot he missed vs us in November that evens out somewhat. Perhaps roles reversed he scores the winner thete and 0-0 at AG.

Just now, Henry said:

I think this is quite a bad take. I think the truck driver has the worse luck.


Chair playing isn’t why we lost the game.

You're right all thoughts with the truck driver as I said in a subsequent post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking abour it, Orr played a few days before he went to prison in 2006.

Partridge wasn't very good tbh so that is the reason we didn't pick him, Brooker in 2006?

Otoh we sold Ayling for something incredibly minor by comparison so I'm not sure how to view it really.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

Even now QPR seem to still be saying it’s not official .

https://www.qpr.co.uk/news/2024/february/23/club-statement-ilias-chair/

Without knowing the Belgian legal system, I know in some countries you have the verdict passed down and then an opportunity to appeal, after which the guilt is either upheld or overturned but that the prison sentence doesn't take effect until after that process. That's how I'm reading "the legal proceeding has yet to reach its conclusion".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Theres no morals when it comes to desperation. 

I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously a player HAS to be suspended if there is an obvious safeguarding risk and a potential danger to others if that player is enabled to remain unsuspended. (So, for example, I think any player accused of sexual violence or any form of domestic violence should be suspended until the outcome of any legal proceeding because maintaining the illusion of them as a person who hasn't been accused of those things puts them in a position to harm others). I'm not sure if I think a player should be suspended before trial based on an accusation of assault and I think it probably comes down to the circumstances and whether letting the player continue to play increases the chances of a repeat incident.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LondonBristolian said:

I'm a bit torn on this. Obviously a player HAS to be suspended if there is an obvious safeguarding risk and a potential danger to others if that player is enabled to remain unsuspended. (So, for example, I think any player accused of sexual violence or any form of domestic violence should be suspended until the outcome of any legal proceeding because maintaining the illusion of them as a person who hasn't been accused of those things puts them in a position to harm others). I'm not sure if I think a player should be suspended before trial based on an accusation of assault and I think it probably comes down to the circumstances and whether letting the player continue to play increases the chances of a repeat incident.  

I don't think Partey was but I don't remember that case very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Popodopolous said:

I don't think Partey was but I don't remember that case very well.

Technically I don't think he was ever named as the suspect in that particular case, although that was strongly reported on social media. Obviously, in reality, players aren't always suspended when accused of sexual or domestic violence. But I unequivocally think they should be. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...