Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Guess why that cunt Neil Barnetts been banned from the training ground? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Wasn't it for leaking stories to the press???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Wasn't it for leaking stories to the press????Mainly the story about John Terry rowing with Mourinho and basically getting him sacked.And it was true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Mainly the story about John Terry rowing with Mourinho and basically getting him sacked.And it was true.How do you know it was true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 How do you know it was true?People who leak to the press tend not to lie about the story.There's no reason for him to lie, it was obvious that something mayjor had happened, you dont just get sacked no matter what anyone says.John Terry got Mourinho sacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 People who leak to the press tend not to lie about the story.There's no reason for him to lie, it was obvious that something mayjor had happened, you dont just get sacked no matter what anyone says.John Terry got Mourinho sacked.Unless he was being paid for juicy tidbits and then he would have a reason to lie..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Unless he was being paid for juicy tidbits and then he would have a reason to lie.....Yeah but surely the reason was always going to be 'juicy' anyway no mater what it was so why lie?Makes you wonder eh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Yeah but surely the reason was always going to be 'juicy' anyway no mater what it was so why lie?Makes you wonder eh.I dunno, there has been so much crap flying about about this story and that story. I knew that Barnett was banned for leaking to the press but i wasn't aware there was anything specific. I would have thought also that if it was true and he did leak a story that damaging then he would be sacked completely rather than just banned from the training ground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 I dunno, there has been so much crap flying about about this story and that story. I knew that Barnett was banned for leaking to the press but i wasn't aware there was anything specific. I would have thought also that if it was true and he did leak a story that damaging then he would be sacked completely rather than just banned from the training ground.The club dont want it to get out that it was true?All speculation innit, sure is fun though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 The club dont want it to get out that it was true?All speculation innit, sure is fun though. Well there is no better place in the world for Bizarre speculation than Chelsea Football Club thats for sure :thumbsup: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,333 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 So is it true or not then ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 So is it true or not then ?Lol, it is assumed to be true, but then because it is not proved to be true it could be said to be speculation. Then again because it is specualtion it could be said it is true, but the asumption is that it is not true....clear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 So is it true or not then ?Personally I've been told that it is and trust my source, cant disclose that sort of information on here though.If you think back to the Rosenbourg at home game though, Terry certainly had the hump about something eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,333 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Lol, it is assumed to be true, but then because it is not proved to be true it could be said to be speculation. Then again because it is specualtion it could be said it is true, but the asumption is that it is not true....clear?If.......if.....if......oh forget it.Tell you what is odd though. -Googled ''Mourinho/Terry rift'' and the 'long' articles that appeared when Mourinho left, are no longer accessible. Either because they were true, or JT's lawyers had them removed.Water..Bridge..under etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,333 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Personally I've been told that it is and trust my source, cant disclose that sort of information on here though.If you think back to the Rosenbourg at home game though, Terry certainly had the hump about something eh?They'd had a row -that was for sure. Whether that contributed to Mourinho being impulsive and telling Abramovich to shove it, is a possibility, but whether he left just because of a row with Terry is iffy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 They'd had a row -that was for sure. Whether that contributed to Mourinho being impulsive and telling Abramovich to shove it, is a possibility, but whether he left just because of a row with Terry is iffy.Say that it all came out that it was true and that Terry was the MAIN reason Mourinho was outed, what would you personally think then? Would it be water under the bridge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 If.......if.....if......oh forget it.Tell you what is odd though. -Googled ''Mourinho/Terry rift'' and the 'long' articles that appeared when Mourinho left, are no longer accessible. Either because they were true, or JT's lawyers had them removed.Water..Bridge..under etc.Very odd mate.Good work Holmes, I think we're onto something here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EskWeston 696 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Lol, this is all getting very complicated. I remember at the time that JT was going to get his lawyers on the case when those stories came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fulham Broadway 17,333 Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Say that it all came out that it was true and that Terry was the MAIN reason Mourinho was outed, what would you personally think then? Would it be water under the bridge?Cant see it. Factors that saw him go -and it was on the cards -Arnesen, Grant, Shevchenko and Ballack, Roman hanging round the dressing room like a perv, general interference. Terry row could have been the catalyst but not the primary reason.Abramovich also tarting Klinnsman as a replacement -whether speculation or not, should have been denied by Abramovich.It all added to stress for Mourinho -and he was a bit impulsive himself -no qualms on walking out of Porto, when the whistle had barely been blown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gate 16 0 Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Lol, this is all getting very complicated. I remember at the time that JT was going to get his lawyers on the case when those stories came out.Yeah that's right, and nothing ever came of it. No law suit, fuck all.Because it was the truth and you cant sue (or whatever) for papers printing a true article.Get rid of the Essex cunt...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.