Landsdown Is Right

[Rich]

Steve Landsdown was right in his statement today. As well as the players going overboard, the press

haven't wasted one opportunity to play up this incident and the subsequent court case. Printing over the top letters from holier than thou self rightious gits to provoke responses from like minded people in the vain hope of selling more papers. If these players were from a different sport it would not have got to court,

but because it was football the so called working mans sport, the letter writing fraternity, rugger, John turner

listener type are having a field day, there are even some invading the (soccer) supporters own site.

And before they respond vilifying me, yes I have been drunk and had my fair share of scraps,but i've also witnessed and been subject to the brutality of the thugs some establishments employ as bouncers that seem to be immune to some laws. they also have well rehearsed statements which get people charged with with affray just by saying they feared for their safety.(say it first).

[Bristol Boy]

Steve Landsdown was right in his statement today. As well as the players going overboard, the press

haven't wasted one opportunity to play up this incident and the subsequent court case. Printing over the top letters from holier than thou self rightious gits to provoke responses from like minded people in the vain hope of selling more papers. If these players were from a different sport it would not have got to court,

but because it was football the so called working mans sport, the letter writing fraternity, rugger, John turner

listener type are having a field day, there are even some invading the (soccer) supporters own site.

And before they respond vilifying me, yes I have been drunk and had my fair share of scraps,but i've also witnessed and been subject to the brutality of the thugs some establishments employ as bouncers that seem to be immune to some laws. they also have well rehearsed statements which get people charged with with affray just by saying they feared for their safety.(say it first).

There are several points here:

1.The players were completely to blame by deciding to act in an unproffessional way.I don't only mean by having a scrap but by deciding to go out during the wek-starting at 4.00pm and "landing" at the night club 7.5 hours later.They were set to attend training the next day and a new manager, who one would hope they'd like to impress, had taken over.

2.I've said from the word go that I won't take the moral high ground-but the fact of the matter is they did wrong, two had done so previously and one, on the field since, although that was also hyped up beyond belief as anyone, yours truly included,who has received a proper head butt, will testify.

3.Bristol & Football are both "goldfish bowls" and the "They all earn to much and they're all yobs," lobby have had a field day..........of the players own making.It was nothing to do with the club, GJ and certainly not the fans.

4.You're right about the bouncers....but who played into their hands and gave them the chance they're always looking for? Had it been football fans, the sentence could have been far worse and bans issued....in spite of the fact it happened miles from the ground it would have been classed as "football related"

5.Give the media a stick to beat you with and they'll beat you.Simple as that.Having said that todays newspaper is tomorrows Fish & Chip paper.

6.Have they been made an example of? Probably but two had previous and they were involved in violence so that's not definite and it could've been worst.

The key point is:

IT'S OVER......LET'S ALL FORGET IT AND MOVE ON[/b]

[NickJ]

Steve Landsdown was right in his statement today. As well as the players going overboard, the press

haven't wasted one opportunity to play up this incident and the subsequent court case. Printing over the top letters from holier than thou self rightious gits to provoke responses from like minded people in the vain hope of selling more papers. If these players were from a different sport it would not have got to court,

but because it was football the so called working mans sport, the letter writing fraternity, rugger, John turner

listener type are having a field day, there are even some invading the (soccer) supporters own site.

And before they respond vilifying me, yes I have been drunk and had my fair share of scraps,but i've also witnessed and been subject to the brutality of the thugs some establishments employ as bouncers that seem to be immune to some laws. they also have well rehearsed statements which get people charged with with affray just by saying they feared for their safety.(say it first).

Cant be bothered to read your no-paragraphs narrative mate, its making my eyes hurt - but I agree with your headline.

Lansdown has said they shouldnt be punished twice, and he's spot on. All this crap about the players about being role models is just that - crap. They're 22-25 year old lads with all the exuberance that any other lad of that age has. Saw the CCTV footage, and have to say, seen far worse than that without custodial sentences.

The fact that Brooker has been largely shite this season is a different matter altogether, but hopefully with what must have been a real worry behind him, he will get back to his best form now. I hope and expect both he and Orr to be back in the starting 11 on Saturday.

[lotusman]

This is the one occasion in their lives when they should feel fortunate that they are not top class Pro's playing in the Premiership.If they were the coverage would be mind boggling,we are not talking "provincial",we would have seen it in all the nationals,sunday exclusives,t.v.& radio........and by nature of the depth of coverage the incident would never be forgotten.

In our 'backwater" they can now go about their business and pick up on where they left off with really only City fans that bit more knowledgable.

That S.L. even wastes energy on passing comment on any perceived unfairness of their plight surprises me their situation was self induced and indeed no way for an athlete to perform.

[Dwile Flonker]

This is the one occasion in their lives when they should feel fortunate that they are not top class Pro's playing in the Premiership.If they were the coverage would be mind boggling,we are not talking "provincial",we would have seen it in all the nationals,sunday exclusives,t.v.& radio........and by nature of the depth of coverage the incident would never be forgotten.

In our 'backwater" they can now go about their business and pick up on where they left off with really only City fans that bit more knowledgable.

That S.L. even wastes energy on passing comment on any perceived unfairness of their plight surprises me their situation was self induced and indeed no way for an athlete to perform.

Quite right. They are very well paid and, to ensure their on-field performances match up to the expectations of the club, they should not be living a lifestyle that could even get them into a situation such as occurred.

Despite my misgivings over the appointment of GJ, his signings and tactics, I think he is doing his best to make the players realise they are athletes and that their lifestyles need to be more spartan. I wonder if this was the real reason he was brought to the club - to rid us of the drinking culture- rather than for his on-field prowess.

[Robbored]

Quite right. They are very well paid and, to ensure their on-field performances match up to the expectations of the club, they should not be living a lifestyle that could even get them into a situation such as occurred.

Despite my misgivings over the appointment of GJ, his signings and tactics, I think he is doing his best to make the players realise they are athletes and that their lifestyles need to be more spartan. I wonder if this was the real reason he was brought to the club - to rid us of the drinking culture- rather than for his on-field prowess.

Whether someone is well paid or not should not be taken into consideration in the CJS (unless you are facing a fine) nor for that matter should it matter whether you are high profile or not.

The law should be consistant.

I wouldn't mind betting that in all the weekends since last October there has been at least one fight somewhere in town involving beered up lads.I wonder how many of them will go to prison?

I completely agree that the behaviour of the three players was a serious breach of their proffesional conduct and they were fined by the club accordingly before they were convicted.

I also agree that they sent out completely the wrong message to youngsters that look upto them as role models.In no way do I condone what they did.

I welcome the apologese coming from the two released players and as others have commented - its now time to move on and put all this behind us.

[Dwile Flonker]

Whether someone is well paid or not should not be taken into consideration in the CJS (unless you are facing a fine) nor for that matter should it matter whether you are high profile or not.

The law should be consistant.

I wouldn't mind betting that in all the weekends since last October there has been at least one fight somewhere in town involving beered up lads.I wonder how many of them will go to prison?

I completely agree that the behaviour of the three players was a serious breach of their proffesional conduct and they were fined by the club accordingly before they were convicted.

I also agree that they sent out completely the wrong message to youngsters that look upto them as role models.In no way do I condone what they did.

I welcome the apologese coming from the two released players and as others have commented - its now time to move on and put all this behind us.

I'm not saying their sentences should reflect their wages; rather their behaviour should reflect their wages.

[downendcity]

I'm not saying their sentences should reflect their wages; rather their behaviour should reflect their wages.

Only a few weeks ago I noticed in the papers that Michael Ballack was "nicked" for not declaring the purchase of a designer handbag for his wife when going through German customs. I don't know what the cost of the handbag would be (£300-£400 tops) but his fine was something like £42000 because it was made proportional to his income!!!!

[Seend Red]

Whether someone is well paid or not should not be taken into consideration in the CJS (unless you are facing a fine) nor for that matter should it matter whether you are high profile or not.

The law should be consistant.

I wouldn't mind betting that in all the weekends since last October there has been at least one fight somewhere in town involving beered up lads.I wonder how many of them will go to prison?

I completely agree that the behaviour of the three players was a serious breach of their proffesional conduct and they were fined by the club accordingly before they were convicted.

I also agree that they sent out completely the wrong message to youngsters that look upto them as role models.In no way do I condone what they did.

I welcome the apologese coming from the two released players and as others have commented - its now time to move on and put all this behind us.

I think your conradicting yourself a little, on the one hand you say it doesnt matter if they are footballers on high wages they should be treated the same as everyone else, and then you say to you understand they are role models and sent out completely the wrong message to youngsters who look up to them, so surely they do have an extra responsibillity to society thus the judge sent out the correct message to these younsters by saying this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated and could result in possible jail time.

[Guest MaloneFM]

It would still have been a decent thing if the club paid some of the fine to the casualty unit at the BRI or put something back into the community. Damage limitation and all that.

[Rich]

Cant be bothered to read your no-paragraphs narrative mate, its making my eyes hurt - but I agree with your headline.

Lansdown has said they shouldnt be punished twice, and he's spot on. All this crap about the players about being role models is just that - crap. They're 22-25 year old lads with all the exuberance that any other lad of that age has. Saw the CCTV footage, and have to say, seen far worse than that without custodial sentences.

The fact that Brooker has been largely shite this season is a different matter altogether, but hopefully with what must have been a real worry behind him, he will get back to his best form now. I hope and expect both he and Orr to be back in the starting 11 on Saturday.

Sorry (mate) I set it out nicely on the screen and it came out like that.

I hope your eyes are okay for saturday.

Ps. your second paragraph's not, sod it do you teach English ?

[Robbored]

I think your conradicting yourself a little, on the one hand you say it doesnt matter if they are footballers on high wages they should be treated the same as everyone else, and then you say to you understand they are role models and sent out completely the wrong message to youngsters who look up to them, so surely they do have an extra responsibillity to society thus the judge sent out the correct message to these younsters by saying this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated and could result in possible jail time.

I suppose it does read like that if you read it one-dimensionally.

What I mean is that regardless of who you are or how much you earn you should be treated equally by the courts.'Extra responsibilty to society' is an entirely subjective view and not as far as I know a consideration in the law books.

I also said that the players involved breached the clubs code of conduct - which is not necessarily a criminal matter and were fined accordingly.They also let down those that look upto them.

Its not a contradiction at all.

[RedTop]

Whether someone is well paid or not should not be taken into consideration in the CJS (unless you are facing a fine) nor for that matter should it matter whether you are high profile or not.

The law should be consistent.

I wouldn't mind betting that in all the weekends since last October there has been at least one fight somewhere in town involving beered up lads.I wonder how many of them will go to prison?

I completely agree that the behaviour of the three players was a serious breach of their proffesional conduct and they were fined by the club accordingly before they were convicted.

I also agree that they sent out completely the wrong message to youngsters that look upto them as role models.In no way do I condone what they did.

I welcome the apologese coming from the two released players and as others have commented - its now time to move on and put all this behind us.

I agree with most of what Bristol Boy has said so won't repeat it.

However, I think people are getting two separate issues mixed up here. Punishment for the crime, and punishment/condemnation for what they did given their unique position as pro footballers.

1. Yes, everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. This means players should not get special treatment just because of who they are, and also that they should not be punished by the court system any more than if you or I had committed the same crimes.

2. They are, however, different from most in that their job makes them role models. They are quite happy to take the higher salaries that come from TV money, advertising and sponsorship that draws on their image. They have to accept also, then, that they live a more public life than most of us - though not to the same degree as a Premiership star. This is why, while I agree with most of what SteveL said, I disagree about blaming the media for carrying so much on it and putting it on the front page. The fact that we all wanted to know the detail of what happened so we could judge for ourselves, and are all still talking about it, demonstrates exactly why the media were justified in running so much on it. I know the day I went to the first game after the sentencing, I saw the Post, realised from the pictures on the front that they were carrying a large article on it, and bought the paper to read the detail so I could make my own judgement about how harshly or otherwise. I also wanted to read the opinions of others so I could gauge how my own fitted with the general consensus or otherwise - much as we do on this forum. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is the job of the media to give us all the detail and opinion we require to help us gauge for ourselves what happened, how justice was seen to be done and whether that fits with what we think the justice system should be doing. For the record, I have no problem with the sentences passed. They don't strike me as too harsh, but I DO think it is a disgrace that the bouncers appear to have got off scott free when injuries were clearly inflicted on the players.

There is also the issue of the players' day job. It is absolutely right that they should be punished for going on a huge booze bender and putting themselves in a position where they can end up ona brawl when they are supposed to be professional athletes. It is not the job of the courts, however, to deal with this or with the fact that they are role models who are supposed to set an example to those who follow them. It is the job of the club to take it into account and punish them for this element, which is not for a crime as such, but for the additional harm brought to the club and for acting in a way clearly detrimental to their role as footballers. They do deserve more condemnation than an ordinary 'man in the street' for what they did, since it not only brought the club into disrepute but clearly contravened the lifestyle that a club has a right to expect their players to follow in order to look after their bodies in the way athletes should and are paid bloody well to do. It was a breach of what the club expects from its players, which is a different thing entirely from criminal actions. Something acceptable for many people - going out and getting completely ratarsed - should be punishable in itself at a club like BCFC even without the aggrevating factors. That is why I disagree with the argument that the players were punished enough by the court system and should not be subject to additional measures by the club and why, even though the court system should punish them no more or less than others, their overall punishment should be greater than, say, a bloke plucking chickens at a chicken factory.

If SteveL and the board assure us additional action has been taken by the club, then it's time to move on. The players involved will have to work bloody hard to regain my trust. Not just because they lamped someone and went to jail, but because of the contempt they clearly showed for those of us who pay a fortune to watch them each week by going out on an all-day bender when they are supposed to be keeping their bodies fine tuned. That said, it does seem that the club has managed over the past year to improve the behaviour off the pitch of the players. There are fewer reports of players out on the town and that is how it should be.

But, no, Steve Brooker should not be reinstated as captain. Certainly not this season until he's proved he can set an example to the younger, more impressionable players, on and off the pitch of how a pro footballer should behave. You can't argue that it's all a long time ago. If I had known the details of what had happened in October last year, I would have argued he should have been stripped of the captaincy then. But at the time, the argument was that one should not jump to conclusions and find a man 'guilty' before he's had his day in court. Now we do know how he behaved, it's been proven in a court, and it should be made clear that this is not the example the club expects a captain to set to the rest of the club's players.

Roll on Saturday -assuming Brooker and Orr are at least in the squad - so we can start mending those fences and get back to concentrating on the football.

[Godzilla]

Just one point that I've been thinking about, that's on-topic but slightly away from the discussion above, (so without wanting to move too far away from some of the interesting points RedTop etc. have raised)...

If in the squad, Brooker and Orr are going to get booed by some fans tomorrow. They're going to get booed for something they did 11 months ago, even though those same fans would have (probably) already forgiven them and cheered for them since then. Isn't that the most bizarre situation to be in? Particularly considering in the last 11 months, as far as I'm aware they haven't actually done anything wrong?! (With the exception of Bradley Orr's antics at Northampton, of course).

I'm kind of dreading it, because I know whilst they'll recieve support from the majority, there will be some idiots, as there always are.

To be honest, I just agree with BB's final sentiments; let's try and put this whole incident behind us and support our players.

[newboy]

I agree with most of what Bristol Boy has said so won't repeat it.

However, I think people are getting two separate issues mixed up here. Punishment for the crime, and punishment/condemnation for what they did given their unique position as pro footballers.

1. Yes, everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law. This means players should not get special treatment just because of who they are, and also that they should not be punished by the court system any more than if you or I had committed the same crimes.

2. They are, however, different from most in that their job makes them role models. They are quite happy to take the higher salaries that come from TV money, advertising and sponsorship that draws on their image. They have to accept also, then, that they live a more public life than most of us - though not to the same degree as a Premiership star. This is why, while I agree with most of what SteveL said, I disagree about blaming the media for carrying so much on it and putting it on the front page. The fact that we all wanted to know the detail of what happened so we could judge for ourselves, and are all still talking about it, demonstrates exactly why the media were justified in running so much on it. I know the day I went to the first game after the sentencing, I saw the Post, realised from the pictures on the front that they were carrying a large article on it, and bought the paper to read the detail so I could make my own judgement about how harshly or otherwise. I also wanted to read the opinions of others so I could gauge how my own fitted with the general consensus or otherwise - much as we do on this forum. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is the job of the media to give us all the detail and opinion we require to help us gauge for ourselves what happened, how justice was seen to be done and whether that fits with what we think the justice system should be doing. For the record, I have no problem with the sentences passed. They don't strike me as too harsh, but I DO think it is a disgrace that the bouncers appear to have got off scott free when injuries were clearly inflicted on the players.

There is also the issue of the players' day job. It is absolutely right that they should be punished for going on a huge booze bender and putting themselves in a position where they can end up ona brawl when they are supposed to be professional athletes. It is not the job of the courts, however, to deal with this or with the fact that they are role models who are supposed to set an example to those who follow them. It is the job of the club to take it into account and punish them for this element, which is not for a crime as such, but for the additional harm brought to the club and for acting in a way clearly detrimental to their role as footballers. They do deserve more condemnation than an ordinary 'man in the street' for what they did, since it not only brought the club into disrepute but clearly contravened the lifestyle that a club has a right to expect their players to follow in order to look after their bodies in the way athletes should and are paid bloody well to do. It was a breach of what the club expects from its players, which is a different thing entirely from criminal actions. Something acceptable for many people - going out and getting completely ratarsed - should be punishable in itself at a club like BCFC even without the aggrevating factors. That is why I disagree with the argument that the players were punished enough by the court system and should not be subject to additional measures by the club and why, even though the court system should punish them no more or less than others, their overall punishment should be greater than, say, a bloke plucking chickens at a chicken factory.

If SteveL and the board assure us additional action has been taken by the club, then it's time to move on. The players involved will have to work bloody hard to regain my trust. Not just because they lamped someone and went to jail, but because of the contempt they clearly showed for those of us who pay a fortune to watch them each week by going out on an all-day bender when they are supposed to be keeping their bodies fine tuned. That said, it does seem that the club has managed over the past year to improve the behaviour off the pitch of the players. There are fewer reports of players out on the town and that is how it should be.

But, no, Steve Brooker should not be reinstated as captain. Certainly not this season until he's proved he can set an example to the younger, more impressionable players, on and off the pitch of how a pro footballer should behave. You can't argue that it's all a long time ago. If I had known the details of what had happened in October last year, I would have argued he should have been stripped of the captaincy then. But at the time, the argument was that one should not jump to conclusions and find a man 'guilty' before he's had his day in court. Now we do know how he behaved, it's been proven in a court, and it should be made clear that this is not the example the club expects a captain to set to the rest of the club's players.

Roll on Saturday -assuming Brooker and Orr are at least in the squad - so we can start mending those fences and get back to concentrating on the football.

Wow. Quite frankly I really couldn't have put it any better.