Sunday's back pages
- Thread starter mdingwall
- Start date
Waddell really is a bellend
Gibraltar Loyal
Well-Known Member
Waddell manages to mention a few other footballers indiscretions but fails to mention Tonev or Griffiths being racists...but then doesnt suit the narrative...what a pr!ck
mdingwall
Administrator
He's as obvious as Spiers - you can set your clock by him.
Sam English
Well-Known Member
How predictable of Waddell
Sydneyger65
Well-Known Member
An easier to read version of Waddell, fails to mention wee stinky as well.
Perugia, Italy, October 2003. The day before Dundee play the Italians in Europe.
Their then-owner Peter Marr is chatting to a couple of us when the subject of jail time comes up.
“We’ve aw been there, eh?” he says. We’re looking at each other wide-eyed, thinking, “Actually, no…”
The relationship between football and morality has always been fuzzy at best, nonexistent at worst.
People being “fit and proper” to run clubs, the bungs, greed, the misogyny, the paedophilia, the bullying, the historical lad culture of the dressing-room where rules on behaviour and decency only apply outside their vacuum-sealed existence.
And where fans are prepared to stomach pretty much any misdemeanour as long as a director puts his hand in his pocket, their right-back can make a tackle and their striker can score goals.
There’s an argument to say that anyone daft enough to hold football players up as role models for kids is welcome to their moral outrage when things go awry.
Because let’s face it, especially in this age of social media high ground, most are incapable of reaching the Everest of expectations we have.
But that doesn’t mean standards shouldn’t exist – and that you shouldn’t want your club to set them.
It was a subject raised last week about the rights or wrongs of Rangers signing Jon Flanagan, the former Liverpool right-back currently six months into a 12-month community order for a heinous assault on his girlfriend.
Should Rangers be signing him when his time’s not fully served? Should they be signing him at all?
Is there a line in the sand you cross when it comes to the moral tariff you apply to your players?
If so, where is it? And, maybe more importantly, who is the paragon of virtue who draws it?
All legitimate questions – and historically the game has fudged the answers.
Look at Livingston. Their assistant manager Davie Martindale was jailed for six-and-a-half years for his part in a cocaine-trafficking scheme.
Livi centre-half Declan Gallagher did 16 months of a three-year sentence for a brutal baseball bat attack that fractured a man’s skull.
His fellow Lions stopper Alan Lithgow was spared jail but given community service and branded a “nasty pervert” by a judge when found guilty of four counts of indecent exposure while kerb-crawling.
Paul McGowan at Dundee, now facing his fourth conviction after three previous for police assault, this time almost certainly with jail time attached.
Darian Mackinnon at Hamilton did two years and three months for assault as a kid.
Clyde were slaughtered for cosseting David Goodwillie in the midst of the civil case against him for rape and soft-soaping Ally Love for his racism.
There are probably others up and down the country who have escaped public scrutiny.
But ask their team-mates, anyone around their clubs or dressing-rooms, anyone who speaks to them, and they will all say that deep down they’re good lads who just made mistakes.
And some of that, having interviewed a few, you can corroborate. There’s remorse, contrition, a lack of recidivism. Some, not all. But where do we draw the line on what we’re outraged at and not prepared to accept in our back yard?
Only convictions? Only those with multiple offences?
What about Paul Gascoigne who left his wife Sheryl cut and bruised and with her arm in a sling after attacking her at Gleneagles in 1996?
Rangers should have sacked him on the spot at that time but didn’t and no charges were pressed. They stood by him.
That’s not anything I never said either in print or to Walter Smith at the time either.
We’re busy eulogising Cristiano Ronaldo in a week where he effectively bought himself out of a two-year jail sentence for tax evasion because he could afford the £16.4million ‘agreement’.
Lionel Messi isn’t a paragon of virtue in that department either but we don’t mind our kids wearing his name on the back of their shirt.
Hell, the guy who is going to be paying Flanagan’s wages is the most apposite case of the lot. Declared “fit and proper” by the SFA, Dave King’s convictions in a court in South Africa for tax offences raised questions about his suitability for the ownership of a supposed institution.
So tax evasion’s fine? Assault against men passable? But assaulting a woman is a hard no? Unless you admit to it but aren’t convicted?
We live in a supposedly civilised society – and part of that is that we believe as a matter of law in the rehabilitation of offenders. We subscribe to second chances.
People can come out of prison and go back to decorating your house or driving a taxi.
But if you knew, would you employ them? Only if they were cheaper than the non-convict quoting you?
It’s a moral rabbit warren.
So if they’re a good player who makes your team better, do you thole it?
Surely not? Surely we have to hold our clubs’ custodians to a higher standard?
In a football sense, Flanagan is a risk anyway.
There’s definitely a player there. I saw him in a closed-doors game against Tranmere at Liverpool’s Melwood training ground seven years ago, watching from the balcony with Kenny Dalglish and Stevie Clarke.
He had just turned 18 and Kenny loved him, thought he had all the tools to be a regular – hard as nails, bit of a Scouse swagger.
In the past four years though, since his high watermark in Brendan Rodgers’ Reds team in 2013/14, he has lost his way and played a total of 28 games, nine on loan last season at Bolton fighting relegation from the Championship.
So factor that in with all the adverse publicity and scrutiny – is it really worth it?
But that’s the problem. It’s not the question we should be asking. The question is: Is it right?
If you don’t set standards why would you ever expect anyone to live up to them?
The blind-eye is a cop out: “What they do on their own time or before they sign for us is none of our business.”
As is the ‘It was just the once’ defence. How many times before it’s okay to make a judgment on someone capable of doing it all?
Sure, everyone’s entitled to a second chance – the law and our basic civility dictates it.
But that doesn’t mean you have to be happy for your club being the one who gives them it.
Perugia, Italy, October 2003. The day before Dundee play the Italians in Europe.
Their then-owner Peter Marr is chatting to a couple of us when the subject of jail time comes up.
“We’ve aw been there, eh?” he says. We’re looking at each other wide-eyed, thinking, “Actually, no…”
The relationship between football and morality has always been fuzzy at best, nonexistent at worst.
People being “fit and proper” to run clubs, the bungs, greed, the misogyny, the paedophilia, the bullying, the historical lad culture of the dressing-room where rules on behaviour and decency only apply outside their vacuum-sealed existence.
And where fans are prepared to stomach pretty much any misdemeanour as long as a director puts his hand in his pocket, their right-back can make a tackle and their striker can score goals.
There’s an argument to say that anyone daft enough to hold football players up as role models for kids is welcome to their moral outrage when things go awry.
Because let’s face it, especially in this age of social media high ground, most are incapable of reaching the Everest of expectations we have.
But that doesn’t mean standards shouldn’t exist – and that you shouldn’t want your club to set them.
It was a subject raised last week about the rights or wrongs of Rangers signing Jon Flanagan, the former Liverpool right-back currently six months into a 12-month community order for a heinous assault on his girlfriend.
Should Rangers be signing him when his time’s not fully served? Should they be signing him at all?
Is there a line in the sand you cross when it comes to the moral tariff you apply to your players?
If so, where is it? And, maybe more importantly, who is the paragon of virtue who draws it?
All legitimate questions – and historically the game has fudged the answers.
Look at Livingston. Their assistant manager Davie Martindale was jailed for six-and-a-half years for his part in a cocaine-trafficking scheme.
Livi centre-half Declan Gallagher did 16 months of a three-year sentence for a brutal baseball bat attack that fractured a man’s skull.
His fellow Lions stopper Alan Lithgow was spared jail but given community service and branded a “nasty pervert” by a judge when found guilty of four counts of indecent exposure while kerb-crawling.
Paul McGowan at Dundee, now facing his fourth conviction after three previous for police assault, this time almost certainly with jail time attached.
Darian Mackinnon at Hamilton did two years and three months for assault as a kid.
Clyde were slaughtered for cosseting David Goodwillie in the midst of the civil case against him for rape and soft-soaping Ally Love for his racism.
There are probably others up and down the country who have escaped public scrutiny.
But ask their team-mates, anyone around their clubs or dressing-rooms, anyone who speaks to them, and they will all say that deep down they’re good lads who just made mistakes.
And some of that, having interviewed a few, you can corroborate. There’s remorse, contrition, a lack of recidivism. Some, not all. But where do we draw the line on what we’re outraged at and not prepared to accept in our back yard?
Only convictions? Only those with multiple offences?
What about Paul Gascoigne who left his wife Sheryl cut and bruised and with her arm in a sling after attacking her at Gleneagles in 1996?
Rangers should have sacked him on the spot at that time but didn’t and no charges were pressed. They stood by him.
That’s not anything I never said either in print or to Walter Smith at the time either.
We’re busy eulogising Cristiano Ronaldo in a week where he effectively bought himself out of a two-year jail sentence for tax evasion because he could afford the £16.4million ‘agreement’.
Lionel Messi isn’t a paragon of virtue in that department either but we don’t mind our kids wearing his name on the back of their shirt.
Hell, the guy who is going to be paying Flanagan’s wages is the most apposite case of the lot. Declared “fit and proper” by the SFA, Dave King’s convictions in a court in South Africa for tax offences raised questions about his suitability for the ownership of a supposed institution.
So tax evasion’s fine? Assault against men passable? But assaulting a woman is a hard no? Unless you admit to it but aren’t convicted?
We live in a supposedly civilised society – and part of that is that we believe as a matter of law in the rehabilitation of offenders. We subscribe to second chances.
People can come out of prison and go back to decorating your house or driving a taxi.
But if you knew, would you employ them? Only if they were cheaper than the non-convict quoting you?
It’s a moral rabbit warren.
So if they’re a good player who makes your team better, do you thole it?
Surely not? Surely we have to hold our clubs’ custodians to a higher standard?
In a football sense, Flanagan is a risk anyway.
There’s definitely a player there. I saw him in a closed-doors game against Tranmere at Liverpool’s Melwood training ground seven years ago, watching from the balcony with Kenny Dalglish and Stevie Clarke.
He had just turned 18 and Kenny loved him, thought he had all the tools to be a regular – hard as nails, bit of a Scouse swagger.
In the past four years though, since his high watermark in Brendan Rodgers’ Reds team in 2013/14, he has lost his way and played a total of 28 games, nine on loan last season at Bolton fighting relegation from the Championship.
So factor that in with all the adverse publicity and scrutiny – is it really worth it?
But that’s the problem. It’s not the question we should be asking. The question is: Is it right?
If you don’t set standards why would you ever expect anyone to live up to them?
The blind-eye is a cop out: “What they do on their own time or before they sign for us is none of our business.”
As is the ‘It was just the once’ defence. How many times before it’s okay to make a judgment on someone capable of doing it all?
Sure, everyone’s entitled to a second chance – the law and our basic civility dictates it.
But that doesn’t mean you have to be happy for your club being the one who gives them it.
The Paludrine Club
Well-Known Member
what about the poor bastard whos taxi is being haunted by Dirty Den?
Tormusk1872
Well-Known Member
Waddell in full metal jacket Fhanny Mode I see.
Truckerman
Well-Known Member
I see Waddell is talking a load of pish again.....FFS!! You would think Flannigan committed rape or murder...He done wrong by his own admission he was given a sentence and his girlfriend is standing by him saying ''it was out of character and a one off''.
Tormusk1872
Well-Known Member
I am still waiting for Suck to get flung out of Tesco with the wee wumman shouting; “this is no a library”.
JerseyLoyalist
Well-Known Member
If it wasn't for Rangers,they would have nothing to write about.
Tormusk1872
Well-Known Member
......And he sticks the boot into King at the same time.
Der Berliner
Well-Known Member
"Kroos missile" ... it took me some moments to compute that in-joke. 
mdingwall
Administrator
What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?
AnglianBear
Well-Known Member
Everyone talking about Gerrard, Souness & Smith. You can rely on Gordon Waddell to be talking absolute shite about Flanagan though.
No T in Mikhailichenko
Guest
Not sure about Woodburn.
Bear all
Well-Known Member
The bit about King is not at all in context of the piece he has written it just shows his hatred towards our Club.
Last edited:
Barrymoped
Well-Known Member
This is the key thing for me.
I don’t have a problem with most of the article as we knew this type of criticism would come but his complete blanking of any wrongdoing by the Shettlestons is embarrassing.
He is such a bitter Falkirk supporter, it’s so transparent.
Gibraltar Loyal
Well-Known Member
I might have misread the Waddell piece...no mention of Graham Rix ....??
High Society
Well-Known Member
He’s a dog, end of
Hank
I love Fish Sticks in my mouth
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Have those cu.nts ever been right about anything?
Oh, not forgetting “Dirty Den haunts my taxi!”
bilkobear
Well-Known Member
Waddell uses his public platform to shoehorn in as much negatives about Rangers as possible whilst 'keeping the good name of Celtc at all times clean'.
One has to wonder what Waddell has omitted to report about this club over the years?
One can only speculate but it is difficult not to suspect the worst.
One has to wonder what Waddell has omitted to report about this club over the years?
One can only speculate but it is difficult not to suspect the worst.
johnkp
Well-Known Member
I think we all know what Waddell (and just about every other so-called journalist in Scotland) has omitted to report about Celtic over the years, bb.
Bearinabluehose
Well-Known Member
Very good... i will be using this to describe him from now on ... its a perfect description.
hot orange
Well-Known Member
Did you really buy the Sunday Sport?
What was the front page?
What was the front page?
hot orange
Well-Known Member
Waddell is better suited to hanging about under bridges. He's a troll. An ugly,overweight, pock-marked troll.
Quijibo
Well-Known Member
The Waddell piece isn’t as bad as I expected.... it’s the definition of a nothing piece. He doesn’t make any strong conclusion either way.
What I found disconcerting was that he just casually dropped peadophilia into the piece, as if he knew he couldn’t ignore it but felt it necessary to change the sentence flow to almost pass it by.
It’s surely the most vile thing anyone could be convicted off?
What I found disconcerting was that he just casually dropped peadophilia into the piece, as if he knew he couldn’t ignore it but felt it necessary to change the sentence flow to almost pass it by.
It’s surely the most vile thing anyone could be convicted off?
Morality Waddell? No mention of beasting boys and covering it up or the paedophile ring. Morality indeed.
He and his ilk have no right to speak of morality. They still assist one vile club to this day.
Morals don't count for the unmentionables.
Sweep sweep sweep
williewoodburn
Well-Known Member
They are all just trying to stoke up arguments amongst our support, best ignored.
I wonder how many of our haters pollute FF for the same reason ?
I wonder how many of our haters pollute FF for the same reason ?
Shamrock hand and crown
Well-Known Member
Love the back pages . Follow Follow in the morning and then Heart and Hand in the afternoon.
IrvineLoyal
Well-Known Member
Funny how that fat ugly %^*& Waddell never mentions anything mentally challenged
What about offering a youth player a contract to stop him reporting sexual assault
Paying a convicted nonce £250k a year for 4 years
Wee jinky, thumbheid tonev etc
Waddell is a scumbag
What about offering a youth player a contract to stop him reporting sexual assault
Paying a convicted nonce £250k a year for 4 years
Wee jinky, thumbheid tonev etc
Waddell is a scumbag
The Goalie
Well-Known Member
waddell saying he told Walter Smith to sack Gazza. Like Walter Smith would be concerned what that idiot had to say.
Wonder if he told celtic or the SFA not to employ Faither Burns after his conviction for drink driving?
Wonder if he told celtic or the SFA not to employ Faither Burns after his conviction for drink driving?
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
Exactly this.
It was a cert that this would be his piece today.
The Paludrine Club
Well-Known Member
stop cutting my grassEven a broken clock is right twice a day. Have those cu.nts ever been right about anything?
Oh, not forgetting “Dirty Den haunts my taxi!”
I laughed at that. Aye no bother Gordon, we will sack a prized asset. Now phuck off back to writing drivel ha ha
A diseased one. Syphilis face
tazzabear
Well-Known Member
Some things need highlighted, bud.
Not though, that he's put the boot in, we need to expect this, but there is still a distinct lack of balance and a downright refusal to be critical of others and worse.
No big secrets being addressed by the coward Waddell?????????
Waddell writes the below with not a hint of Irony
“There are probably others up and down the country who have escaped public scrutiny.”
Just Wow
“There are probably others up and down the country who have escaped public scrutiny.”
Just Wow
Brant Hurley
Well-Known Member
Those who deliberately conceal wrong-doing are as vile as the paedophile perpetrators & their parent club. Aren't they, Waddell?
temperance
Well-Known Member
That Waddell article is so disjointed it beggars belief, and that passes for "journalism".
DougieJones
Well-Known Member
That paragraph about King is basically cut and pasted into every article Waddell writes. Absolutely nothing to do with the issue in question. Does this hack think Dermot Desmond’s business practices are squeaky clean? Money laundering, Lithuanian banks used as fronts to avoid tax etc etc. - why not at least mention that all millionaires are looking for an angle to save money. No, better to paint DK as the sole panto villain of Scottish football, keep in with your dwindling core market.
In a word, a page of nothing, not fit for a cat to piss on.
In a word, a page of nothing, not fit for a cat to piss on.
