Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Alan Davies and Hillsborough-gate: what's your level of outrage?

Just had a quick google, 15 April has fallen on a weekend 7 times (including this year) since Hillsborough, while a precedent has been set for Liverpool not playing on this day there has never been an instance that I know of where this decision would effect another team. I'm really not sure where I stand on this now to be honest.
 
Fedayn said:
My question would be why did he even bother raising it? Not as if he's got any connection to the game or that weekend? Not as if he was asking a question with any real hope of change or use. Just an attention seeking twat frankly.
Click to expand...
I didn't hear the rest of the programme/conversation. Did he shoe-horn it in, or was it natural?

purenarcotic said:
But how a club chooses to commemorate an event is entirely their choice and not for us to comment really. The fact Man U play on the Munich anniversary doesn't provoke outrage because that is their choice. The fact Liverpool don't want to play is entirely their choice and should be respected as much as any other decision relating to anniversaries.

Frankly it's a completely non-issue.
Click to expand...
You're spot on that it's a non-issue, but what I'm thinking is where the precedent could lead. For instance, if Muamba's cardiac arrest had had a worse outcome, could Bolton legitimately do the same thing with March 17th? February 6th for Man U? We could all come up with other dates that various football clubs could very reasonably claim as tragedies for them and their fans. In purely practical terms, that could make organising the competitive calendar a nightmare.

That hasn't happened, which is why it's a non-issue as you rightly say. But I can see his point in a hypothetical way.

butchersapron said:
Blah abuse blah
Click to expand...
Yawn.
 
gunneradt said:
why?

does that mean any tragedy involving a football club would mean no fixture ever again? Davies is spot on. It helps that he doesn't like scousers very much - or at least liverpool fans :D
Click to expand...

No said it would mean that, but do carry on talking shite as ever.
 
Corax said:
You're spot on that it's a non-issue, but what I'm thinking is where the precedent could lead. For instance, if Muamba's cardiac arrest had had a worse outcome, could Bolton legitimately do the same thing with March 17th?
Click to expand...

Are you comparing the Muamba incident with Hillsborough?
 
Blame lays squarely with the FA IMO, in their desperate grab for the Wembley cash. Both games could have been played on the Saturday, Spurs Chelsea at Wembley and Liverpool Everton somewhere practical like OT.
 
If LFC and the fans feel that it should not be played on this date then that should be taken into account, while it is not the first or worst disaster involving fans the way that the Police and the media colluded in blackening the names of those involved and the subsequent cover up which looks like it went right to the very top at government level certainly makes it unique and has ensured that the wounds are not only still raw but have had salt rubbed into them.
 
Fedayn said:
Where did anyone say that?
Click to expand...

It's the implication that something needs to be 'like Hillsborough' for a club to be able to not want to play on a certain date. If Bolton felt the Muamba incident (if he had died) was something they wanted to commemorate by not playing why couldn't they, and where would the cut off point be , was the Bradford fire sufficient to warrant special allowances, I'm all for clubs wanting to commemorate tragedies and this is an FA fuck up but as people have said, in the case of Liverpool a precedent has been set but that precedent has also been set for other clubs which is the point Corax was making.
 
Termite Man said:
It's the implication that something needs to be 'like Hillsborough' for a club to be able to not want to play on a certain date. If Bolton felt the Muamba incident (if he had died) was something they wanted to commemorate by not playing why couldn't they, and where would the cut off point be , was the Bradford fire sufficient to warrant special allowances, I'm all for clubs wanting to commemorate tragedies and this is an FA fuck up but as people have said, in the case of Liverpool a precedent has been set but that precedent has also been set for other clubs which is the point Corax was making.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the Muamba incident was not the same as 96 people dying, not at all and the only way you can see equivalence between the two is if you're a massive twat. I don't see why Liverpool or other clubs having special allowances for this is a big deal really.
 
Termite Man said:
It's the implication that something needs to be 'like Hillsborough' for a club to be able to not want to play on a certain date. If Bolton felt the Muamba incident (if he had died) was something they wanted to commemorate by not playing why couldn't they, and where would the cut off point be , was the Bradford fire sufficient to warrant special allowances, I'm all for clubs wanting to commemorate tragedies and this is an FA fuck up but as people have said, in the case of Liverpool a precedent has been set but that precedent has also been set for other clubs which is the point Corax was making.
Click to expand...

There was/is no implication. There is the obvious point about the massive difference between Hillsborough and Muamba aswell. If the families of the dead and the Bradford City themselves wanted a similar remembrance why would it be opposed by anyone?

None of the problems created tjis weekend would have happened were it not for the FA and their idiotic semi-final at Wembley change.
 
sleaterkinney said:
Yeah but the Muamba incident was not the same as 96 people dying, not at all and the only way you can see equivalence between the two is if you're a massive twat. I don't see why Liverpool or other clubs having special allowances for this is a big deal really.
Click to expand...

I think Muamba was just a poor example by Corax. The question still needs answering though , at what point does something become worthy of commemoration and justify the refusal to play games on the anniversary?

Would the Bradford fire be sufficient or would more people of had to die there, the fact remains a precedent has been set and if a club feels they don't want to play on the anniversary of an event then who is qualified to make the judgement that it's worthy/unworthy. You have already said that the hypothetical situation if Muamba had died isn't the same, IF Bolton didn't want to play on that anniversary would you support their decision?
 
sleaterkinney said:
Yeah but the Muamba incident was not the same as 96 people dying
Click to expand...
It's not no. But that brings us into the territory of deciding just how much loss of life, and what circumstances, warrant a commemoration of this nature. Can you see how that could be problematic?

It's all hypotheticals because other clubs haven't asked for anything like that, so it's not a problem - it just could be in hypotheticaland. Davies point wasn't necessary, and he may well be a twat - I've not paid enough attention to him to form an opinion tbh. All I'm saying is that I can understand the point he was making. I'm sure everyone else can too really.
 
sleaterkinney said:
Yeah but the Muamba incident was not the same as 96 people dying, not at all and the only way you can see equivalence between the two is if you're a massive twat. I don't see why Liverpool or other clubs having special allowances for this is a big deal really.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone begrudges them not playing on that day but in this instance it directly impacts on Chelsea's next game against Barca. If the FA have an agreement that's fine, but both semi's could have been played on Saturday, to everyone's agreement but for the FA dictating that both games MUST be played at Wembley.
 
butchersapron said:
Wow
Click to expand...
Corax said:
I didn't hear the rest of the programme/conversation. Did he shoe-horn it in, or was it natural?


You're spot on that it's a non-issue, but what I'm thinking is where the precedent could lead. For instance, if Muamba's cardiac arrest had had a worse outcome, could Bolton legitimately do the same thing with March 17th? February 6th for Man U? We could all come up with other dates that various football clubs could very reasonably claim as tragedies for them and their fans. In purely practical terms, that could make organising the competitive calendar a nightmare.

That hasn't happened, which is why it's a non-issue as you rightly say. But I can see his point in a hypothetical way.


Yawn.
Click to expand...
Don't ever do anything because something different could happen. You're a disgrace.
 
Termite Man said:
I think Muamba was just a poor example by Corax. The question still needs answering though , at what point does something become worthy of commemoration and justify the refusal to play games on the anniversary?

Would the Bradford fire be sufficient or would more people of had to die there, the fact remains a precedent has been set and if a club feels they don't want to play on the anniversary of an event then who is qualified to make the judgement that it's worthy/unworthy. You have already said that the hypothetical situation if Muamba had died isn't the same, IF Bolton didn't want to play on that anniversary would you support their decision?
Click to expand...
I'd support them yeah, but i don't think they would. tragedies like Bradford and hillsborough are so rare and have such a big impact on a community that it seems a bit silly and a bit cuntish to have a whinge about "precedents".
 
Termite Man said:
I think Muamba was just a poor example by Corax. The question still needs answering though , at what point does something become worthy of commemoration and justify the refusal to play games on the anniversary?

Would the Bradford fire be sufficient or would more people of had to die there, the fact remains a precedent has been set and if a club feels they don't want to play on the anniversary of an event then who is qualified to make the judgement that it's worthy/unworthy. You have already said that the hypothetical situation if Muamba had died isn't the same, IF Bolton didn't want to play on that anniversary would you support their decision?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have a problem if Bolton wanted to do that no. I doubt very much it would be the case though. 'Natural' death like that is not the same, but i'd see no reason why to criticise their decision.
 
I won't be reaching for my carpentry set over this, but Davies is still an insensitive cunt. Ironically though all the things he listed about Dalglish - tight-mouthed, furious, frowning, leaning-forward, bitter Glaswegian ranting - are actually the reasons I like him. :)

However if this story about him attacking a homeless man after a night in the Groucho are true, I hereby apply for the post of Chisel Wielder in Chief.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alan-davies-drunken-bite-attack-527529
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

isvicthere?
Alan Shearer: MotD "back of the net" watch.
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
isvicthere?
isvicthere?
Hollis
What are your Top 4 Pemier League predictions 23/24?
Replies
18
Views
562
tommers
tommers
marty21
Your football "career" .
2 3
Replies
87
Views
2K
imposs1904
imposs1904
Humberto
  • Locked
Liverpool 24-25. Resilience - in a new era and being outspent.
Replies
14
Views
489
Humberto
Humberto
editor
Concerns grow about the environmental and health impact of 3G pitches
Replies
0
Views
194
editor
editor
Back
Top Bottom