[rodney]

 Search & Destroy, on 17 October 2024 - 01:35 PM, said:

2 points a game? Not good enough for you?

Inability to control a budget or man management? Don?t recall too much about this prior to Chelsea

So if colclough is convicted of violence and gbh you?re ok with that but not the fella dragged through the courts and found not guilty of all charges

And I?m the clown 🤡 😂

I?ve never mentioned Colclough have I?! And for what?s worth I have been consistent with never wanting him at the club. Go and have a chat with folks down at the club on their thoughts of Rowe?. No tears shed when he was sacked.

Time will tell whether a leopard changes its spots

[trickytrevsfanclub]

Let?s be honest here. When Rowe came in he was a breath of fresh air in what had been a dismal time for the club. But after his suspension all sorts of stuff came out about him not being a particularly nice chap. Whether he was guilty of this particular episode is neither here not there. There was enough other stuff came out for it to be obvious he had no future with us. Ultimately who would rather have Rowe in charge over Cook?

[Johnnyspireite7]

 trickytrevsfanclub, on 17 October 2024 - 02:03 PM, said:

Let?s be honest here. When Rowe came in he was a breath of fresh air in what had been a dismal time for the club. But after his suspension all sorts of stuff came out about him not being a particularly nice chap. Whether he was guilty of this particular episode is neither here not there. There was enough other stuff came out for it to be obvious he had no future with us. Ultimately who would rather have Rowe in charge over Cook?

S&D & COYB, one's got a love in with Rowe and the other despises Cook and his 'overblown' backroom staff for some reason.

[HaslandBlue58]

 prolurker, on 17 October 2024 - 12:57 PM, said:

Quick reminder 'not guilty' does not equal 'innocent'.

Some of what's come out this week makes me very glad we were rid of him when we did, terrible bloke.

Absolute agreement with you,and we have the usual names posting straight away who obviously do not understand your first sentence.

[Lincs Spireite]

Looks like a case of ' he said, she said '. So without evidence the jury can't pursue it any further.

[azul]

 trickytrevsfanclub, on 17 October 2024 - 02:03 PM, said:

Let?s be honest here. When Rowe came in he was a breath of fresh air in what had been a dismal time for the club. But after his suspension all sorts of stuff came out about him not being a particularly nice chap. Whether he was guilty of this particular episode is neither here not there. There was enough other stuff came out for it to be obvious he had no future with us. Ultimately who would rather have Rowe in charge over Cook?

Who can forget the "I'll bite your nose off you dweeb" incident at Maidenhead.

Did we ever find out who he was addressing, the other bench, a player or the crowd?

[ronpowellsbutler]

 azul, on 17 October 2024 - 02:53 PM, said:

Who can forget the "I'll bite your nose off you dweeb" incident at Maidenhead.

Did we ever find out who he was addressing, the other bench, a player or the crowd?

I was standing about five yards behind him at the time and I couldn’t hear what was happening. Maidenhead had an awning over the tunnel pathway so you couldn’t see both benches.

Not hindsight but having heard what these ladies were saying I couldn’t see a guilty verdict being returned.

However, unless he emigrates he will always be known as that dirty bloke.

This post has been edited by ronpowellsbutler: 17 October 2024 - 03:15 PM

[JonB]

 ronpowellsbutler, on 17 October 2024 - 03:12 PM, said:

I was standing about five yards behind him at the time and I couldn?t hear what was happening. Maidenhead had an awning over the tunnel pathway so you couldn?t see both benches.

Not hindsight but having heard what these ladies were saying I couldn?t see a guilty verdict being returned.

However, unless he emigrates he will always be known as that dirty bloke.

Not sure these days emigrating would be much of a saviour for him....simply googling his name will bring up the news articles.

[Phil V 72]

Don?t think the verdict will change the fact that he?ll never work in football again (in this country at least).

[calvin plummers socks]

 Phil V 72, on 17 October 2024 - 03:26 PM, said:

Don?t think the verdict will change the fact that he?ll never work in football again (in this country at least).

He shouldn?t have after his initial ban!
Still
Can?t believe no due diligence was done by Carson at the time

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

 Search & Destroy, on 17 October 2024 - 12:45 PM, said:

I?ll wait for the apologies

Before you dislocate your shoulder smugly patting yourself on the back, let's remember what really happened, shall we?

Chesterfield Football Club took entirely appropriate action when confronted by a serious allegation. In fact courageous action, given the backing Rowe had received and it's league position at the time.

However rather than adopting the measured and moral approach of most you chose to sneer. To scorn. To accuse the Trust of being that silly made up word 'woak'.

And not because of any considered legalistic arguments, but a sexist 'men will be men and women should just get on with it' one.

Which quickly descended into barely disguised victim blaming.

That jeering only continued when they performed the major coup of returning Paul Cook to Sheffield Road. His moves mocked. His teams taunted. The Club's failings celebrated.

Then even when the authorities vindicated Town's decision by charging Rowe, your snide derision remained relentless. A case brought by officials fully informed of it's details dismissed by childish sarcasm.

Well we'll never know exactly what happened between Rowe and the masseur. Who told the truth and who lied. But we do know he was entrusted with a hugely important position in football terms, and a much more important one in family terms.

Yet chose to place his own sexual satisfaction before both.

So "apology"?

I'd say you owe everyone associated with CFC a long and grovelling one...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 17 October 2024 - 05:32 PM

[Cactoise]

^^ Well said Sir

[Johnnyspireite7]

 calvin plummers socks, on 17 October 2024 - 04:23 PM, said:

He shouldn?t have after his initial ban!
Still
Can?t believe no due diligence was done by Carson at the time

Why do you insist that Rowe was appointed by Carson when the ********* had already left the building?

[calvin plummers socks]

 Johnnyspireite7, on 17 October 2024 - 04:43 PM, said:

Why do you insist that Rowe was appointed by Carson when the ********* had already left the building?

Easy tiger!
Well whichever clown hired him should have had more sense

[Mr Mercury]

 azul, on 17 October 2024 - 02:53 PM, said:

Who can forget the "I'll bite your nose off you dweeb" incident at Maidenhead.

Did we ever find out who he was addressing, the other bench, a player or the crowd?

Wasn?t there a rumoured near punch up on the team bus as well, with a player I?d have put money on winning.
Like most have said he was a breath of fresh air when appointed and just what the club needed but things, if you read between the lines, similar to the Darren Brown saga, completely different scenarios of course, seemed to be unravelling pretty quickly after a promising start.
So there may well be a man who thinks his career has been ruined or a woman who feels let down by the justice system, or both, but in terms of CFC a parting of the ways was seemingly innevitable.

[Benno Spire]

A few points to digest.1/ if Rowe was innocent why did he resign2/ If innocent why when first interviewed would only respond with no comment
I?ve heard enough stories of how he spoke to others and behaved at the club to know we are well rid of him

[Spireiteranger]

This case is a classic example of why the Scottish court system is better with the 3rd option of not proven.
That?s exactly what this is. Clearly guilty but very difficult to prove?.

[Westbars Spireite]

 Benno Spire, on 17 October 2024 - 04:50 PM, said:

A few points to digest.1/ if Rowe was innocent why did he resign2/ If innocent why when first interviewed would only respond with no comment
I?ve heard enough stories of how he spoke to others and behaved at the club to know we are well rid of him

There are any number of reasons to say no comment.

[Looker-on]

 Phil V 72, on 17 October 2024 - 03:26 PM, said:

Don?t think the verdict will change the fact that he?ll never work in football again (in this country at least).

Someone will be desperate enough. Oldham, for instance.

[Town_Fan]

 Spireiteranger, on 17 October 2024 - 04:55 PM, said:

This case is a classic example of why the Scottish court system is better with the 3rd option of not proven.
That?s exactly what this is. Clearly guilty but very difficult to prove?.

If he was clearly guilty, he would have been found guilty.

I have no doubt JR is a complete bell end but you cant just say stuff like this.