Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:51 pm  

[quote="Dave K."]
Well we were struggling for props at the time so the cynics will say we had to play him but then again we really needed Kelly but didn't play him

[Mild Rover]

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:59 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

Good, Rovers need to forget about the past and move on, outbursts from Hudge like this and ones aimed at fans won't help you move forward

Hudgell occasionally says things that I think are a bit rash. But we're all different, and it is generally best to be yourself. The caricature of a bloke on one long petulant strop is mostly a creation of Hull fans who dislike him for other reasons, IMO. Obtuse readings, embellishments and repetition have turned, what to my mind have been 3 or 4 unwise statements in 10+ years into a mythical litany of bitterness in some people's heads.

Mythical Litany of Bitterness. Good name for a heavy metal album if nowt else.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:12 pm  

Burtons Forearm wrote:

At the same time Rovers stuck by Walker Sunderland were being panned by the press and safeguarding services for sticking by Adam Johnson. Sunderland were being threatened with legal action by the victim.

So yes Rovers did stick there neck out for Walker. They had no idea where it would go legally or if more charges would be brought as often are in these cases. He's a classless pr#ck and you're a wum.

Johnson had been found guilty, Walker was not.

It's a tricky one, because society's attitude to some crimes are different to others, but the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the rules protecting employees still apply.

Basically, based on a purely benefit-risk basis, and an awareness of the reaction to a guilty verdict, if Rovers thought there was a good chance that the charges would stick, not suspending him would have been misplaced loyalty, and frankly a bit stupid. If they were confident that the charges would not stick, then they weren't sticking their neck out too much. There's the vagueries of the legal system, of course, but they're not of Adam Walker's making.

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 9:44 pm  

Walker's fecked off, he's always had rubbish hair and is as ugly as sin.

I'll say it to his ugly fizzog.

Glad you've gone you massive gormclops, none of us will miss you, you're not as good as you think you are and you can't tie your own shoe laces. And you have bad breath.

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:00 pm  

Burtons Forearm wrote:

He's a classless pr#ck and you're a wum.

Seems to have an opinion about everything...did you mean wum-an?

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:11 pm  

Sit down, Waldo wrote:

Seems to have an opinion about everything...did you mean wum-an?

I know, fancy having an opinion on a rugby forum, you would think this was kind of thing was meant for opinion and discussion.

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:10 pm  

Sandro II Terrorista wrote:

Walker's fecked off, he's always had rubbish hair and is as ugly as sin.

I'll say it to his ugly fizzog.

Glad you've gone you massive gormclops, none of us will miss you, you're not as good as you think you are and you can't tie your own shoe laces. And you have bad breath.

That's the spirit. This is the reasoned summation of the situation I and the other wittering forum botherers have failed to provide.

He is uglier than the b@stard off spring of a Tim Street and Ray French coupling (which would look like that thing off the goonies, which Walker does but with died dark hair).

The Walker brothers....twice as ugly.

Re: Players next year : Wed Oct 12, 2016 11:29 pm  

[list=] [/list][quote="Mild Rover"]Johnson had been found guilty, Walker was not.

It's a tricky one, because society's attitude to some crimes are different to others, but the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the rules protecting employees still apply.

Basically, based on a purely benefit-risk basis, and an awareness of the reaction to a guilty verdict, if Rovers thought there was a good chance that the charges would stick, not suspending him would have been misplaced loyalty, and frankly a bit stupid. If they were confident that the charges would not stick, then they weren't sticking their neck out too much. There's the vagueries of the legal system, of course, but they're not of Adam Walker's making.[/quote

Walker was found not guilty later. Rovers were supporting him and could see the risk of doing so directly as the Sunderland situation occurred whilst Walker awaited court.
Walkers defence case was made easier by the victims family running to the national Mail when he was charged. However Rovers supported him.
I'm glad he's gone. He did owe Rovers though and should have stayed.
As a player he's been our best forward at times but that's like saying Jeanette Kranky is the biggest in the play ground.
He's massively under achieved.

Re: Players next year : Thu Oct 13, 2016 3:16 am  

Burtons Forearm wrote:

That's the spirit. This is the reasoned summation of the situation I and the other wittering forum botherers have failed to provide.

He is uglier than the b@stard off spring of a Tim Street and Ray French coupling (which would look like that thing off the goonies, which Walker does but with died dark hair).

The Walker brothers....twice as ugly.

The thing off the goonie's is Danny Brough. I'd post a side by side but I'm awful at techy stuff

Re: Players next year : Thu Oct 13, 2016 6:04 am  

barham red wrote:

The thing off the goonie's is Danny Brough. I'd post a side by side but I'm awful at techy stuff

Brough was the mother gangster.

Walker was her off spring chained in the cellar.

I too am unable to provide pictorial evidence due technical incompetence.