Jump to content

Anthony Gerrard


Recommended Posts

Usually if it's a remark made which is not usually associated to a type of person it's apologise and move on.

In this case it's probably more to do with the person and the remark is being used as an excuse to get rid.

I would suspect that judging by his past he is not the best loved player in the dressing room and this was the excuse the club was looking for.

We don't need players like that so happy he's gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, losesome said:

Usually if it's a remark made which is not usually associated to a type of person it's apologise and move on.

In this case it's probably more to do with the person and the remark is being used as an excuse to get rid.

I would suspect that judging by his past he is not the best loved player in the dressing room and this was the excuse the club was looking for.

We don't need players like that so happy he's gone.

And yet we've been happy to take on a lad who has twice been banned for taking prohibited drugs. Standards seem out of kilter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kowenicki said:

 

No. Two employees being vile to customers. Perfect analogy.   Nice try though.  

It's kind of (I say kind of because he's not in a customer-facing role) like you randomly approaching the cashier and verbally abusing them whilst they're conversing with a colleague on their dinner break. I reckon they're fair game to give you a  mouthful back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ryan said:

It's kind of (I say kind of because he's not in a customer-facing role) like you randomly approaching the cashier and verbally abusing them whilst they're conversing with a colleague on their dinner break. I reckon they're fair game to give you a  mouthful back.

"he's not in a customer-facing role"   erm.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, kowenicki said:

 

are you for real?

 

If a cashier at a supermarket told a customer to go and thrown shit at themselves they would be sacked.  No question.  The right and wrongs of that we can debate, but it is the reality.

 

If a customer abuses a cashier, they'd get thrown out and banned. Probable that both parties were looking for an out but I doubt very much that a decent player with a transfer value would have been dismissed in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlanGrovesFanClub said:

"he's not in a customer-facing role"   erm.........

My comment is correct, unless he took up a position in the ticket office during the latter months of his contract...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ryan said:

My comment is correct, unless he took up a position in the ticket office during the latter months of his contract...

Classic strawman.

Supermarket cashier would not have his following on twitter.

Telling someone to throw shit at themselves is going to get you sacked at the vast majority of places.  As any customer facing staff will tell you, you get abuse all the time, and cannot respond and expected to remain calm under provocation, sometimes extreme provocation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Whitts said:

He will no doubt be reading all this chatter and relishing every moment.   he is a divisive character who has split opinion.  Time to draw a line under this one and focus on the players who now wear the shirt. 

^ This. It really isn't worth going any further. AG has been a twat and abused fans, the club, the town. I would imagine it was more the collective rather than one incident that saw him banned and binned. But it's done now. He's gone and what he says from here on in can be very easily ignored. He'll be back at BP in October and I'm sure he'll get pelters from start to finish. It won't achieve anything other than fuel his desire to slag the fans, the club, the town even more. So is it honestly worth biting any more? 

 

As far as the timing of the club's announcement goes, I think you may find that his 14 day appeal period expired on Wednesday, and the club announced it yesterday so as not to prejudice any last minute appeal by AG. That's it; goodbye Ant, thanks for what you did for us, but you're still a twat for being so unprofessional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, singe said:

Classic strawman.

Supermarket cashier would not have his following on twitter.

Telling someone to throw shit at themselves is going to get you sacked at the vast majority of places.  As any customer facing staff will tell you, you get abuse all the time, and cannot respond and expected to remain calm under provocation, sometimes extreme provocation.

How is it a strawman? I know customer-facing staff get dog's abuse from my own experience and I've had to bite my tongue many a time because retaliation would've rightly got me sacked on the spot. Footballers aren't customer-facing. They're paid to provide the service of a football match - there's no contractual obligation to interact with the fans (although most of them choose to do so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChaddySmoker said:

What about if it was at a shit throwing competition?

Can you not see that he wanted to be sacked and move on?

 

I meant 'he' move on

but I think that you should too-and avoid checking him out on twitter-both you and LeesLover

Me? I've hardly bothered him on Twitter. If he thinks he's hard done by he should ask Gary Linekar or Wrighty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ryan said:

How is it a strawman? I know customer-facing staff get dog's abuse from my own experience and I've had to bite my tongue many a time because retaliation would've rightly got me sacked on the spot. Footballers aren't customer-facing. They're paid to provide the service of a football match - there's no contractual obligation to interact with the fans (although most of them choose to do so).

Because you are trying to say he is not customer facing , which is a distraction from the fact he interacts with customers all the time on Twitter and has a very public role. Your strawman argument is that he is not technically interacting with customers whilst on the pitch. And of course from time to time he interacts with fans whilst on the pitch anyway.
 

He should not be telling a fan to throw shit at themselves. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deyres42 said:

It was a childish insult which may or may not have been interpreted the wrong way.

 

If that constitutes gross misconduct then we are all in trouble I think.

‘Go and throw shit at yourself’. Is there a different way of interpreting it??? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gary1906 said:

‘Go and throw shit at yourself’. Is there a different way of interpreting it??? ?

I don't know if it is technically possible to "throw" anything at yourself, as throwing is defined as a forward, propelling motion. I wonder if by "shit" he actually meant abuse...or am I giving him too much credit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wardie said:

I don't know if it is technically possible to "throw" anything at yourself, as throwing is defined as a forward, propelling motion. I wonder if by "shit" he actually meant abuse...or am I giving him too much credit?

Yeah I understand what you mean. If that was what he meant though you would have thought that he would have appealed his dismissal. If it was me I would want to clear up any misunderstanding and clear my name at the same time. He could then have left the club with a much higher standing than he’s ended up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, singe said:

Because you are trying to say he is not customer facing , which is a distraction from the fact he interacts with customers all the time on Twitter and has a very public role. Your strawman argument is that he is not technically interacting with customers whilst on the pitch. And of course from time to time he interacts with fans whilst on the pitch anyway.
 

He should not be telling a fan to throw shit at themselves. That's it.

A footballer is not obligated to be customer-facing. Whilst a large percentage of them do choose to interact with fans it is not part of their job description - if every footballer decided tomorrow that they will not interact with the fans they could freely do so without violating the terms of their contract. I do not believe the relationship between a football supporter and a footballer is the same as the relationship between a cashier and customer in, say, a supermarket. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

If someone is weird enough to tweet abuse at a footballer because he had a joke with a teammate then whatever 'banter' comes back at you is fair game. Don't give it out if you can't take it back. 

 

As I said earlier, the incident which Leeslover described where AG was rude and refused to have a picture with a young fan was bang out of order - if he honestly felt that strongly he could've politely declined rather than being a total dick about it. If the sacking was based on this occurrence I would've completely understood but the club cited the social media comments. I'm honestly struggling to see how telling someone to 'throw shite at themselves' in a jokey manner is punishable by anything other than a slap on the wrist. It's not like it was a personal/hurtful dig, you'd have to be a weapons-grade offendotron for that comment to upset you (that's not aimed at you Singe and I'm not suggesting that you personally were upset/offended).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gary1906 said:

Yeah I understand what you mean. If that was what he meant though you would have thought that he would have appealed his dismissal. If it was me I would want to clear up any misunderstanding and clear my name at the same time. He could then have left the club with a much higher standing than he’s ended up with.

Which possibly indicates that he literally meant what he said. It all comes across as messy and muddled but I don't know how much information the club are legally entitled to disclose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ryan said:

A footballer is not obligated to be customer-facing. Whilst a large percentage of them do choose to interact with fans it is not part of their job description - if every footballer decided tomorrow that they will not interact with the fans they could freely do so without violating the terms of their contract. 

 

I’m leaving the whole Gerrard argument alone now but (and this isn’t a dig

 

you will find that fan interaction actually is written into their contracts - it includes the school, hospital and charity visits. They have to do them as part of their job 

 

granted I don’t think it extends to Twitter 

Edited by Buckshawlatic
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.

×
×
  • Create New...