Hardly..

Whether you're explicitly stating that Gentle is somehow to blame or merely implying it through your snide insinuations, you're still out of order.

Hmm I think the term snide is used in error, because it is anything but. Any who.

'Frequent media bashings'? Perhaps you'll be able to give us some examples? Or maybe you were just being snide.

Or did you mean somebody else?

It's not for now, but I hope the club do investigate internally to see if more can be done in the future.

Hmmm. Pretty sure that wasn't the whole sentence. You've chopped the first part off and selectively quoted it to try to justify your weak argument. Very poor.

It's not weak pal, you, Staffs FC and others rubbished claims of potential mental health problems yesterday. Stating that because you wasn't one of Pearson, Gentle, McRae or Seymour you didn't know. Well, it turns out you could tell from 'the outside'.

Firstly, I am by no means being snide, why I see it fit to defend myself bemuses me.... Anyways, the media bashings was a collective statement, how about the below from the Saturday game with Widnes.

"It's not good enough," said a frustrated Gentle. "We need to make changes.

"I've got the same faces making the same mistakes over and over, so I can't stick with them any longer."

Hardly fills the players with confidence especially the ones that did make the mistakes to which Gentle refers too.

Now, that's the full quote. What I meant by 'more than that' (but which I couldn't explicitly state yesterday for fear of copping a ban/being sued) was if he's gone out and had a skinful then decided to drive home.

Clearly that was not the case, but it still doesn't mean that every man and his dog has to take a share of the blame for yesterday's accident. Seymour has had issues for a long time and acted as he did on Sunday because of a mental illness. The only thing to blame for that is the illness itself.

What mustn't happen is for people to casually apportion blame to individuals at the club without the slightest shred of evidence to support such accusations.

This thread is a crock of shiit and should be locked

This I completely agree with. I shall leave it there as this really isn't time to be taking moral high ground over the issue and I apologise for the initial 'dig'.

I said you had no evidence of mental health problems. With the information we had yesterday, it could quite easily have been something else alrogether. Unless you know him personally, it is impossible to say with any certainty whether he has mental health problems. You speculated, and by chance you were right. Don't make out like it's some kind of special insight you have, though.

And what I said was that unless you were AP, BS or PG, there's no way you could say, as you did, that it's 'obvious' that Seymour has been mis-managed.

Agreed. We'll leave it there with no hard feelings.

Exactly right.