Donald won’t be doing the talk in.
- Thread starter Wansbeck Viking
- Start date
Wansbeck Viking
Winger
He shouldn’t have to face abuse, I agree.
But If he can’t face criticism, perhaps being the owner of a football club isn’t for him.
But If he can’t face criticism, perhaps being the owner of a football club isn’t for him.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
Yes, because abuse should be an accepted corollary of owning a football club
There's a world of difference between constructive criticism (which is the only type worthy of a second thought, let alone a response) and personal abuse/threats.
silky mackem
Full Back
If you think he isn't coming because he will he criticised you are either extremely naive, stupid or both.
The blokes obviously had serious threats made against him/his family.
seanwharton
Central Defender
And that’s what the lad above is sayingYes, because abuse should be an accepted corollary of owning a football club
There's a world of difference between constructive criticism (which is the only type worthy of a second thought, let alone a response) and personal abuse/threats.
samaistonsrightfoot
Striker
Surprise surprise
AndrewP
Striker
If you think he isn't coming because he's afraid he'll be hurt them you're also naive.
The supposed threats happened long before this event was announced.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
He saying Donald should be able to take criticism. That's not why he's stopped engagement; he's stopped because of abuse.
Coeus
Striker
Yes, because abuse should be an accepted corollary of owning a football club
There's a world of difference between constructive criticism (which is the only type worthy of a second thought, let alone a response) and personal abuse/threats.
Is he getting abused like?
Would he get abused at a talk in?
Can the constructive criticism get the same air time and response rate that the abuse does?
Crikey, this party line escalated quickly.
Wansbeck Viking
Winger
Yes, because abuse should be an accepted corollary of owning a football club
There's a world of difference between constructive criticism (which is the only type worthy of a second thought, let alone a response) and personal abuse/threats.
You’ve just repeated what I’ve said.
If anyone gives him direct abuse at a talk in, ban them from the club.
If he can’t answer questions criticising some of the decisions he’s made, with genuine attempt to get answers, is it really worth his time running a club?
Mackemansj1
Striker
I’m not saying he didn’t get abuse but the way it’s being portrayed there would be proof everywhere. It very much looks like he’s ducking things atm.Yes, because abuse should be an accepted corollary of owning a football club
There's a world of difference between constructive criticism (which is the only type worthy of a second thought, let alone a response) and personal abuse/threats.
phillips10
Midfield
I think he needs to man the fuck up tbh and I’m a supporter of his.
Going on like a child at the moment.
Going on like a child at the moment.
viccarlton
Striker
Has he had abuse at any of the talk ins?
chopsfc007
Striker
He wouldn't get abuse at a talk in and if he did he could ban people from the club, whats the point in talk ins if he can't be questioned
silky mackem
Full Back
How do you know this? Or are you just referring to a separate episode of threats he received?
Why should he have to put up with any form of abuse?
