Saint Without a Halo Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 follow the link! http://www.skysports.com/story/0%2C%2C11096_6362092%2C00%2Ben-USS_01DBC.html Apologies if posted elsewhere!
doddisalegend Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 follow the link! http://www.skysports.com/story/0%2C%2C11096_6362092%2C00%2Ben-USS_01DBC.html Apologies if posted elsewhere! Ouch would be nice not to be be the butt of media jokes and scorn just once.
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 Bloody hell, NC is NOT going to be happy. I hope he doesn't try to take on Sky now, as they own our website. I'm sure they'll have no issue taking it down...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 And Sky has no axe to grid does it.......does it?
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 And Sky has no axe to grind does it.......does it?
SuperMikey Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 Just a bit more Murdoch propaganda, nothing to see here.
trousers Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 follow the link! http://www.skysports.com/story/0%2C%2C11096_6362092%2C00%2Ben-USS_01DBC.html The author starts off in 'sensationalist conjecture' mode before concluding that "other more understandable factors" (or words to that effect) may be involved in Pardew's departure. Nothing new to see here....
Rowan Gorilla 5 Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 What a load of guff. "If nothing else works a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
angelman Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 One thing that they haven't mentioned, is that neither Pardew nor the LMA have said anything about the sacking. Which rather suggests that there has been agreement reached about non-disclosure of what has happened. This is usually to the benefit of the employee.
jam Posted 7 September, 2010 Posted 7 September, 2010 One thing that they haven't mentioned, is that neither Pardew nor the LMA have said anything about the sacking. Which rather suggests that there has been agreement reached about non-disclosure of what has happened. This is usually to the benefit of the employee. Do you mean the big fat pay off which would be put in jeopardy if AP spoke to the media?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now