onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


Pope gets six game ban


Smugsy

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

He has an opinion of corrupt bankers who he believes fund war to make money.  His comments can be perceived as anti semitic if you are looking for it and have researched the nuances of what constitutes anti semitism

Actually, I'm not sure that's true. I've lived in Aylesbury for some years now and the Rothschild family used to have many stately homes here (Waddesdon, for instance) so maybe I am at an advantage and know more about the family than some simply due to where I live. If you know about the Rothschild family then you know they are a Jewish family who made their fortune through banking.

Pope's comments were NOT about corrupt bankers making money - it was about a family, a very rich Jewish family OWNING all the banks. He said "Rothchilds crowned champions of every bank on the planet" that's very different from an opinion of "corrupt bankers" - it's an opinion of "corrupt JEWISH bankers" - and there's the antisemitism.

I do think all the arguments about the length of ban, the appeal, the fairness, whether he knew and so on are secondary to the simplest thing of all - if he hadn't posted a load of rubbish on social media, he wouldn't be in this mess. I personally think the best response to this would be to take the punishment, learn from it, go to the education courses provided and pay attention to them (not YouTube videos)... and then come back onto the pitch, say nothing and bang in a load of goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

2 hours ago, Joe B said:

Pope is a backup forward. He played 45% of our minutes last season. Cullen finished the season stronger, we've signed a young lad to a 3 year deal, and Askey is insistent he wants another striker. Pope is a legend, the only of my lifetime, but I offered a fairly objective comment on his playing time moving forward (which is shared by many of this thread which you haven't commented on at all).

If you think thats condescending then you clearly have a personal issue with me.Fair enough pal. Let's leave it. First person I've ever felt the need to add to the 'ignore' list, and I've been in loads of debates on here.

now nown children, play nicely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

You were the one using your job to try and discredit others opinions on another thread.  Now suddenly its out of bounds... lol  come back again with that statement when you have your own teenagers...

That thread was about teachers though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

I wasn't necessarily aiming my whole post at you.

If Carol and Kevin think its worthwhile to appeal, then I will take there opinion over the condescending tones seen by our Joe.

Pope has been daft, but I simply don't buy this mock outrage.  Most people have no idea that the Rothschilds are even Jewish.  Most people condemning Pope are saying he is stupid and yet expect him to know about stuff they didn't know about themselves before they Wikipedia'd themselves up to justify there outrage.  Its very sad when a lad who has served the club so well can't get the benefit of the doubt from some of the pompous dullards on here.

In my case, mate, it's not outrage, it's exasperation.  He has been warned so many times and already banned twice because of his Twitter behaviour yet he carries on posting, and in this case, he does so on a subject which he confessed he knew nothing about.  You say folk on here have responding after wikipediaing - well Tom could have done exactly the same and none of this would have happened.

If Tom wants to engage in political debate on Twitter why in the name heaven doesn't he set up an account under a different name and say what the hell he likes?  Why must he express his political opinions as Tom Pope, footballer?  It's an ego thing isn't it.  And if he doesn't learn from this he is indeed crackers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Yes but he was trying to shut down opinion because he was a newly qualified teacher and others weren't.

We aren't footballers but we have an opinion on football without players being condescending and pompous about it.

He claims that teenagers are easier to engage, yet has no teenagers of his own.  I do so I am more experienced than he is, so its a bit of a hyperbolic taste of his own medicine.  Trouble is, he doesn't like it.  

Now I don't need to be an experienced teacher to know that if he adopts the condescending tone in his job that he has displayed here, he won't last long.  Anybody who has lived a few years more than 20 odd can tell him that and maybe somebody he will listen to should!

OK mate. We agree to disagree. No need for this. I don't get personal with you. Lets move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

yes he could have and should have.  He didn't but he does not deserve the vilification of some on here.

I don't do Facebook, twitter, Instagram or anything else so have no idea what he posts about.  

I still maintain that I will trust Carol's judgement regarding an appeal over Internet outrage.  

I'm inclined to agree with this last sentence.

Ordinarily I wouldn't waste time, money and energy appealing in this case, unless there has been a strong precedent set of the EFL reducing their punishment in similar circumstances.  The fact that Tom is a repeat offender would be enough to incur the wrath of those sitting in judgement.

If anything, the ban should've been less, whilst the fine should've been greater, and Tom should pay he fine out of his own pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

yes he could have and should have.  He didn't but he does not deserve the vilification of some on here.

I don't do Facebook, twitter, Instagram or anything else so have no idea what he posts about.  

I still maintain that I will trust Carol's judgement regarding an appeal over Internet outrage.  

I think you’re confusing outrage with exasperation.  I haven’t seen any outrage on here - just exasperation that he keeps making the same mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

I think you’re confusing outrage with exasperation.

I agree. All the moaning about 'mock outrage', 'internet outrage' etc. is a bit cringey and risks trivializing a serious issue. I think I only need somebody to use the word 'snowflake' now and I will have completed my bingo card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FA saw no intent so it's not illegal (?)... so it breached their rules/policies....  if that's the case it's probably incorperated into some agreement/contract pope signed... breaching that agreement once is a mistake, doing it multiple times is stupid.

From what I remember (?) The tweet was about a banker who happened to be Jewish not a Jew who happened to be a banker.

If the club decide to appeal it's their prerogative.  I would guess they would appeal the punishment not the decision.

If the club don't have a clause in players contracts 're tweeting/social madia they should have.

One of the earliest references to money lenders (bankers?) being bad I can remember was Jesus kicking them out of the temple...... yes we could argue it was the fact the temple was the wrong place to conduct business.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor old Tom - being victimised again for being stupid on social media !   It is not the first time, nor the second, he has been reprimanded for making daft comments out of place !  He is supposed to be a professional sportsman - a role model, and a hero to those just growing up. He is now scheduled to miss 13% of the league matches, ok it may be reduced on appeal but it wont be nullified because he is a repeat offender. Is he going to loose 13% of his income ?  You bet your life he's not !  Through his own stupidity he is robbing the Vale of his much needed availability. Because of the wear and tear his body takes over a season he is never going to be able to play all matches and as we saw last season he is not always first choice so to put himself in position where the EFL can take away 13% of his availability is just bringing the closure of his career that much closer. Even though he has been a great servant to the club not being available to play is a prime reason for not renewing contracts. Why pay a player who cannot play?  Do we really have that much money to throw away.  Great servant yes - but he is closing his career far too quickly through gross stupidity.   As he cant think before he prints he should close all his social media outlets and do all his talking through the Sentinel - at least that gets edited before it is published. When his Vale career is over he can spout whatever he wants on whatever medium because it wont hurt the Vale. Carol and Kev are building a great reputation for the Vale through their words and actions - pity others cant follow their example 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, geosname said:

From what I remember (?) The tweet was about a banker who happened to be Jewish not a Jew who happened to be a banker.

If the club decide to appeal it's their prerogative.  I would guess they would appeal the punishment not the decision.

If the club don't have a clause in players contracts 're tweeting/social madia they should have.

 

This distils my thoughts on the matter. Similarly, for me objecting to The Irsaeli state’s treatment of the Palestinians isn’t antisemetic.

I also think Pope should have got off twitter a long time before this and not been retweeting stuff, it’s unprofessional and brought the club into disrepute whatever about his intentions / beliefs. From the club’s point of view, I think they should have clauses to prevent players making an eejit of themselves on social media and while on the one hand I think the punishment should be all a fine, on the other, if the club could have done something contractually to shut him up before this they have to take their lumps in terms of the ban.

I can’t get my head around one of the club’s most senior players and an ambassador for the club behaving like this, the guy’s 35 for goodness sake, grow up. I love the guy but he frustrates the hell out of me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...