Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Fao: Mike


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 49
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :smiliecap1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :tiphat:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...