Saturday, 6 June 2009

Gordon Smith outdoes Tony Adams in mental breakdown stakes

A few highlights from Gordon Smith's breakdown live on BBC Radio Scotland:

* The neds were not given life bans, its just that they will not be chosen again.
* Footballers don't play football for the whole of their lives so life bans don't exist
* They could be picked again in 15 or 20 years time (yes he really said that)
* Why did no-one use the terminology "career ban"? (yeah because retired players often turn out for Scotland. I hear Danny McGrain has been polishing his boots just in case)
* We've made it totally clear that both players will never play again but they could if circumstances change.

At various points Smith claims the ban was Burley's decision and at others contradicts himself by saying it was an SFA board decision.

I wouldn't want this guy as my defence counsel.

He then goes on to make an analogy with a life ban from a nightclub where the management of said nightclub decides that the life ban no longer applies.

The essence of his message appears to be "pay no attention to any statements I make as it could all change tomorrow"

The CEO of the SFA is nothing better than a complete and utter joke figure.

God even Craig Brown was criticising him.

At 4.25 & 8.27 Smith actually hits the nail on the head when he highlights the contrast between the press reaction to Burley/the SFA's actions and those of Walter Nosurname. Of course the most mindnumbingly obvious conclusion is avoided by these particular lapdogs (Tom English excepted) in a smoke and mirrors muddle of contradictory and baffling arguments.

The simple fact is the SFA CEO is being hung out to dry for failing to appease Rearrangers by punishing Scott Brown to "even things up".

There's a hackneyed phrase - "no journalist ever scored a goal or saved a penalty". True but their machinations do and have, had tangible effects on the game in this country. Overwhelmingly to the benefit of the establishment team. The situations regarding Bougherra (twice), Lafferty, McDonald and Loovens proves that unequivocally

No comments:

Post a Comment