Re: Danny Drinkwater
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:12 am
Mores the point. We signed him knowing his history and it wasn’t an issuefidelcastro wrote:Not while he was here, he didn't.
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42007
Mores the point. We signed him knowing his history and it wasn’t an issuefidelcastro wrote:Not while he was here, he didn't.
Absolutely. I’m sure if Dyche has said it’s sorted it is.ClaretTony wrote:Some of the almost hysterical comments about Drinkwater on this board are incredible - the lad has made a serious mistake, it's done and dusted, but seems some on here can't wait to post to have a go at him.
Yes, and plenty of posters on here expressed their concerns. But JB really didn't let himself or BFC down whilst here, DD has.ClaretTony wrote:Joey's name had already been brought in prior to my comment - but the suggestion was that Drinkwater could be a bad apple. I would say, given what Joey had done then he was the most rotten apple you could bring in to your dressing room. Can't believe anyone didn't have serious, serious concerns when we signed him.
Vegas Claret wrote:probably why it's taken a few weeks for us to see the video !
Almost certainly is a small fraction.ClaretTony wrote:I think the overreaction on here to a bit of footage, which could well be a small fraction of everything that went on, is ridiculous.
You've missed the point entirely - given the comments on here about this Drinkwater incident and the potential for him to be a bad apple, it has to be asked why Dyche ever even considered signing one of the most rotten apples we'd had in the game for a long time. We signed him knowing what he'd done. Not relevant that he was as good as gold while he was here.boatshed bill wrote:Yes, and plenty of posters on here expressed their concerns. But JB really didn't let himself or BFC down whilst here, DD has.
Are people not entitled to dislike yobbish behaviour on here?ClaretTony wrote:I think the overreaction on here to a bit of footage, which could well be a small fraction of everything that went on, is ridiculous.
Similar.fidelcastro wrote:If Drinkwater should get 12 months for the headbutt, what should the other guy and his mates, who caused Drinkwater's injury get?
Just asking.
But just look at all the overreaction on here based on that. Just look at some of the shocking comments on the original thread.cricketfieldclarets wrote:Almost certainly is a small fraction.
Wouldn’t be at all surprised if someone spotted their chance of sixty seconds fame for attacking someone more successful and high profile than themselves...
Point missed againboatshed bill wrote:Are people not entitled to dislike yobbish behaviour on here?
It's not hysterical, it's opinion.
Different circumstances. In Ferguson's case it wasn't a drunken brawl where both parties seemed equally culpable.Quickenthetempo wrote:How much time did Duncan Ferguson get for the headbutt?
But how is that even relevant? QTT was suggesting that it was contradictory to think that Beardsley deserved the sack for racism but Drinkwater wouldn’t be sacked for assault. Why would Chelsea sack him for an incident that occurred away from work when they could sell him for tens of millions of pounds.cricketfieldclarets wrote:Il be honest. While I’d never condone racism. I’d rather be called a white whatever than head butted
Not making a point, just asking.ClaretTony wrote:Point missed again
I think your overreaction to the overreaction about overreacting is ridiculousClaretTony wrote:I think the overreaction on here to a bit of footage, which could well be a small fraction of everything that went on, is ridiculous.
three falls and a submissiontarkys_ears wrote:"dirty headbutt"?
So you're in a fight with someone, what are the rules?
Make sure your forehead is clean before you go out.tarkys_ears wrote:"dirty headbutt"?
So you're in a fight with someone, what are the rules?
Supposedly.GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Make sure your forehead is clean before you go out.
Also when hugging your opponent, make sure you connect properly with aforementioned clean forehead.
Wasn't DD jumped outside the bar afterwards by the other blokes mates?
That's a bit shady
Has he been accused of doing anything wrong?Quickenthetempo wrote:
Has the Scunthorpe player got in trouble with his club?
Do you believe in evolution? It takes millions of years for slight changes and it is still happening to our species. Hunt , eat , fight , fck , sleep and repeat was the daily routine for survival.boatshed bill wrote:Are people not entitled to dislike yobbish behaviour on here?
It's not hysterical, it's opinion.
Or how about being head butted by a monkey?Rileybobs wrote:Yer, but wud u rather b called a monkey or head butted?
On the grass.JohnDearyMe wrote:Any update on his fitness situation?
Jesus Christ and Muhammad are historical figures. God and Allah are myths.Quickenthetempo wrote:Jesus Christ certainly isn't.
Dyche said it had all been dealt with, agreed. But, it had only been dealt with, on the facts known at the time. If Davenport didn't mention the butt, and the video wasn't available at that time, then this needs looking into by the club, did he lie to dyche? Did he hide the truth?. Would his punishment have been more, had the video been available at the time.ClaretTony wrote:It had and Dyche said so.
ksrclaret wrote:He’s a drunk and a chav.
For those two reasons alone, it’s not surprising that some on here are relating to him.
Hi Grumps, we are making the assumption that "the facts known at the time" are only the facts known on this board at the time. As I've posted previously, Sean Dyche has made his public statement and everything else is "kept inside the club." We would expect that Sean will have asked about all the facts. We would hope that DD is "a grown man" (or whatever Sean's phrase was) and that DD has provided the full facts to Sean in their discussions and that Sean is managing the situation with knowledge of and in full possession of all the facts. Of course, we can expect Sean will have further discussions if he now feels some facts weren't disclosed.Grumps wrote:Dyche said it had all been dealt with, agreed. But, it had only been dealt with, on the facts known at the time. If Davenport didn't mention the butt, and the video wasn't available at that time, then this needs looking into by the club, did he lie to dyche? Did he hide the truth?. Would his punishment have been more, had the video been available at the time.
Not one single person on here knows what was, and wasn't said in that meeting, and let's not pretend otherwise
It is possible to have a beer before an away game and not attempt to drive home while over the limit or lay the nut on someone on a dancefloor. I've done it myself many times.Paul Waine wrote:btw and not aimed at any particular posters, I find it ironic that (almost - just in case I can't prove "every") every thread on here speaking of going to a game, whether home or away, and also many of the "holiday/travel advice tips" includes advice on where to go for a drink before a game and drinking plans after the game, maybe even "a good night out" is referenced. I also recall many mentions of bene.
What I'd not noticed before was how many fans we have who are working towards their "temperance society" membership. I've been a zero alcohol guy last few years for health reasons. Where do you guys meet up before away games? It might be fun to join you.
Who the hell is going to pay 20 million for Drinkwater?Rileybobs wrote:Why would they sack someone they can probably sell for £20m?
Back on the grass for a few weeks then he'll no doubt be touch and go till about January.JohnDearyMe wrote:Any update on his fitness situation?
Was going to mention Billing myself. 15 million quid for someone who is better than our current starting midfielders seems like good value to me. But of course the official line is the players just aren't out there, and worse is that lots of our fans swallow it.claretspice wrote:Whilst I understand the Barton analogy and take the point that Dyche backed himself to channel Barton and presumably did the same with Drinkwater, it's hard to escape the conclusion that we've taken a bit of a gamble on a character who has some pretty major flaws. As has been pointed out this isn't his first alcohol related misdemeanour this year and you have to wonder if this caused his decline at Chelsea or was caused by his decline at Chelsea.
Of course this could present an opportunity for us. Realistically the only way we can afford to sign Drinkwater permanently is if no one else wants him, and the only way no one wants him is if he's been playing badly or his reputation precedes him. If Dyche can help him help himself, then hes still a fine player.
Either way, there was a thread over the summer about how on paper, Philip Billing was the sort of midfielder we might look at. There were some extremely pointed responses - including from folk now defending Drinkwater- to the effect that we wouldn't dream of looking at at characters who could upset the apple cart. In the light of Drinkwater's carry on that's now looking extremely suspect, particularly when Billing has been an ever present in a team which has just gone third in the league.
I suspect that at some point someone will.jrgbfc wrote:Who the hell is going to pay 20 million for Drinkwater?
It's just blind loyalty because he's a Burnley player for now.Elizabeth wrote:It's a week since Dyche gave this player his backing. The latest disclosure ,whether Dyche knew about it or not, may leave the club with no option other than negotiate with Chelsea to take him back.
I don't understand the support the player is receiving now from some posters .
Don't worry if Drinkwater played for another club the same people defending him would be calling him all the names under the sun. Plus they don't want to admit that we've had another summer where Dyche and the Board have failed to adequately strengthen our team.Elizabeth wrote:It's a week since Dyche gave this player his backing. The latest disclosure ,whether Dyche knew about it or not, may leave the club with no option other than negotiate with Chelsea to take him back.
I don't understand the support the player is receiving now from some posters .
1. It's not blind loyalty - and I don't think anyone is supporting what he's actually doneQuickenthetempo wrote:It's just blind loyalty because he's a Burnley player for now.
Once he goes back, attitudes will change.