|
|
Post by kentgas on Jan 14, 2023 11:39:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 11:50:53 GMT
Good things:
"I’ve spent time with the owner, Wael al-Qadi, hearing of his plans for a 20,000-seater stadium"
Not so good things
"“I was deeply embarrassed. When I picked up the kids from school I was thinking these mums and dads are thinking I’ve been beating my missus up, especially with my narrative. If you knew my background, you’d think, ‘He’s a violent man.’"
Sorry JB. I don't think anyone who thought you did it before the trial now thinks you didn't do it. They think you got off on a technicality.
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,628 
|
Post by pirate on Jan 14, 2023 11:58:16 GMT
I've been hearing of the owners plans for a 20,000-seater stadium for years too. Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 11:59:56 GMT
I've been hearing of the owners plans for a 20,000-seater stadium for years too. Lol. True. Should have been Mangotsfied. |
|
|
|
Post by rusho'gas on Jan 14, 2023 12:04:18 GMT
Same, polarised type interview style Jeckyll and Hyde styleeeee. Nothing to see here, some nice touches from Gorringe though.
Despite the troubles, al-Qadi’s faith has not wavered since the moment he decided to appoint him. “I felt Joe was exactly what was needed to shake this place up,” al-Qadi says. “He’s played at the highest level, he’s a winner, very passionate, the kind of guy who elevates the club to where we want it to be.”
Barton says “no coaches talk like I do” but that his honesty is one of his best traits
That includes a new ground. “We are crying out for a modern stadium,” al-Qadi says. “What we have now [the Memorial Stadium] is an old, dilapidated rugby stadium. Bristol Rovers are like the Boca Juniors of Bristol, the first club of Bristol — five generations of fans come to games and it’s truly great to have. This my passion, my love.”
Gorringe moved from Brighton & Hove Albion because he could see Rovers’ potential. “If you look at the city, we are the people’s club of Bristol, hard-working, give everything you’ve got, a community club, authentic, unbelievable fans,” Gorringe says. “Joe encapsulates that underdog spirit. He cares about everyone here.”
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 18,628
|
Post by pirate on Jan 14, 2023 12:19:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 7th May 2022 on Jan 14, 2023 12:37:19 GMT
I think it’s a good, balanced article about the man and the manager. I love the bits from Wael and Gorringe. I think we do have good people in control of the club and Barton is doing a great job. The club is ready to take off if the stars align and we manage to get the stadium. It’s one hell of a big if, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 14, 2023 13:34:06 GMT
Good things: "I’ve spent time with the owner, Wael al-Qadi, hearing of his plans for a 20,000-seater stadium" Not so good things "“I was deeply embarrassed. When I picked up the kids from school I was thinking these mums and dads are thinking I’ve been beating my missus up, especially with my narrative. If you knew my background, you’d think, ‘He’s a violent man.’" Sorry JB. I don't think anyone who thought you did it before the trial now thinks you didn't do it. They think you got off on a technicality. Christ wouldn't like you on a jury!! |
|
|
|
Post by simonj on Jan 14, 2023 13:52:12 GMT
Enjoyed the read. Very honest I’d say. Flawed of course but becoming more fond of him as time goes on. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 14:30:24 GMT
Good things: "I’ve spent time with the owner, Wael al-Qadi, hearing of his plans for a 20,000-seater stadium" Not so good things "“I was deeply embarrassed. When I picked up the kids from school I was thinking these mums and dads are thinking I’ve been beating my missus up, especially with my narrative. If you knew my background, you’d think, ‘He’s a violent man.’" Sorry JB. I don't think anyone who thought you did it before the trial now thinks you didn't do it. They think you got off on a technicality. Christ wouldn't like you on a jury!! Not if you are guilty! |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 14, 2023 15:03:57 GMT
Christ wouldn't like you on a jury!! Not if you are guilty! Well he wasn't guilty was he |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 15:07:19 GMT
Well he wasn't guilty was he I'm not sure you can actually come to that conclusion from the outcome of the trial. If you remember, it was due to the prosecution not being able to rely on the main witness (his wife). Never really got the point of did he/didn't he. His wife changed her story. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 14, 2023 15:14:48 GMT
Well he wasn't guilty was he I'm not sure you can actually come to that conclusion from the outcome of the trial. If you remember, it was due to the prosecution not being able to rely on the main witness (his wife). Never really got the point of did he/didn't he. His wife changed her story. We can on the basis all the evidence wasn't heard,there was no verdict ergo under English law not guilty,would you have taken a guilty verdict if you were in the dock? |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 17:13:20 GMT
I'm not sure you can actually come to that conclusion from the outcome of the trial. If you remember, it was due to the prosecution not being able to rely on the main witness (his wife). Never really got the point of did he/didn't he. His wife changed her story. We can on the basis all the evidence wasn't heard,there was no verdict ergo under English law not guilty,would you have taken a guilty verdict if you were in the dock? This topic has been done to death on the forum. You can search all you want. The case was stayed. That is not the same as not guilty and acquitted. My original comment was that those people that thought he was guilty before would not have changed their mind after the court fiasco. The only reason that the court case was stayed was that his wife changed her statement. Those that would have thought he was guilty before would look at the fact there is a power imbalance in the relationship and would see that when there is such a power imbalance, the victim changing their statement is quite a regular occurrence. Speak to an organisation like Women's Aid and they will be able to explain why this happens. I could owe you an apology here: If you thought that he was guilty before the case and now think that he is not guilty after the case. That her injuries were due to friends trying to break up the incident, rather than the things that were said on camera (like being thrown to the floor and kicked in the head) then I am wrong and you are the only person that I have known to think he was guilty before and not guilty after the court shenanigans. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 14, 2023 17:21:57 GMT
We can on the basis all the evidence wasn't heard,there was no verdict ergo under English law not guilty,would you have taken a guilty verdict if you were in the dock? This topic has been done to death on the forum. You can search all you want. The case was stayed. That is not the same as not guilty and acquitted. My original comment was that those people that thought he was guilty before would not have changed their mind after the court fiasco. The only reason that the court case was stayed was that his wife changed her statement. Those that would have thought he was guilty before would look at the fact there is a power imbalance in the relationship and would see that when there is such a power imbalance, the victim changing their statement is quite a regular occurrence. Speak to an organisation like Women's Aid and they will be able to explain why this happens. I could owe you an apology here: If you thought that he was guilty before the case and now think that he is not guilty after the case. That her injuries were due to friends trying to break up the incident, rather than the things that were said on camera (like being thrown to the floor and kicked in the head) then I am wrong and you are the only person that I have known to think he was guilty before and not guilty after the court shenanigans. I'm not sure what your on about,I did not give any thought to his guilt or not before the case,would have waited to see the evidence and as that's not happened ,there is no case and therefore logic dictates he is not guilty . |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Jan 14, 2023 17:30:34 GMT
We can on the basis all the evidence wasn't heard,there was no verdict ergo under English law not guilty,would you have taken a guilty verdict if you were in the dock? This topic has been done to death on the forum. You can search all you want. The case was stayed. That is not the same as not guilty and acquitted. My original comment was that those people that thought he was guilty before would not have changed their mind after the court fiasco. The only reason that the court case was stayed was that his wife changed her statement. Those that would have thought he was guilty before would look at the fact there is a power imbalance in the relationship and would see that when there is such a power imbalance, the victim changing their statement is quite a regular occurrence. Speak to an organisation like Women's Aid and they will be able to explain why this happens. I could owe you an apology here: If you thought that he was guilty before the case and now think that he is not guilty after the case. That her injuries were due to friends trying to break up the incident, rather than the things that were said on camera (like being thrown to the floor and kicked in the head) then I am wrong and you are the only person that I have known to think he was guilty before and not guilty after the court shenanigans. The case was stayed because the Judge said that Barton would not get a fair trial, due to poor case handling by the Crown Prosecution. Staying the case was the legal route which the Judge had to take in this situation. I’ve heard nothing about the Crown appealing the Judge’s decision. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 14, 2023 18:09:09 GMT
"Over the past year, I’ve spent time with the owner, Wael al-Qadi, hearing of his plans for a 20,000-seater stadium"
Just a pity Weal won't share any of those plans with the fans.
|
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 18:13:18 GMT
This topic has been done to death on the forum. You can search all you want. The case was stayed. That is not the same as not guilty and acquitted. My original comment was that those people that thought he was guilty before would not have changed their mind after the court fiasco. The only reason that the court case was stayed was that his wife changed her statement. Those that would have thought he was guilty before would look at the fact there is a power imbalance in the relationship and would see that when there is such a power imbalance, the victim changing their statement is quite a regular occurrence. Speak to an organisation like Women's Aid and they will be able to explain why this happens. I could owe you an apology here: If you thought that he was guilty before the case and now think that he is not guilty after the case. That her injuries were due to friends trying to break up the incident, rather than the things that were said on camera (like being thrown to the floor and kicked in the head) then I am wrong and you are the only person that I have known to think he was guilty before and not guilty after the court shenanigans. The case was stayed because the Judge said that Barton would not get a fair trial, due to poor case handling by the Crown Prosecution. Staying the case was the legal route which the Judge had to take in this situation. I’ve heard nothing about the Crown appealing the Judge’s decision. Yes, Stayed as they wouldn't call his wife as a witness. |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jan 14, 2023 18:27:27 GMT
This topic has been done to death on the forum. You can search all you want. The case was stayed. That is not the same as not guilty and acquitted. My original comment was that those people that thought he was guilty before would not have changed their mind after the court fiasco. The only reason that the court case was stayed was that his wife changed her statement. Those that would have thought he was guilty before would look at the fact there is a power imbalance in the relationship and would see that when there is such a power imbalance, the victim changing their statement is quite a regular occurrence. Speak to an organisation like Women's Aid and they will be able to explain why this happens. I could owe you an apology here: If you thought that he was guilty before the case and now think that he is not guilty after the case. That her injuries were due to friends trying to break up the incident, rather than the things that were said on camera (like being thrown to the floor and kicked in the head) then I am wrong and you are the only person that I have known to think he was guilty before and not guilty after the court shenanigans. I'm not sure what your on about,I did not give any thought to his guilt or not before the case, would have waited to see the evidence and as that's not happened ,there is no case and therefore logic dictates he is not guilty . Actually that bit did actually happen. The 999 call was presented in court and bodycam footage of his wife: Body-worn footage played in court captured Mrs Barton saying: “I was pushed and kicked about and stuff.” The officer noted “a bit of a lump and some blood”. Speaking to a female officer, Mrs Barton said her husband “just flipped out” and “threw me down”. “He was kicking me about,” she said, holding an ice pack to her head. She added that the alleged attack came “out of the blue”. “I just want him to be removed from the premises,” she said. Then she wrote a letter saying that everything she said and was recorded on video was incorrect. You obviously have missed the long threads about this that basically split the fan base into pro and anti JB. The pro JB people would say that it was the drink talking when she got interviewed on body cams. The anti JB people would say that she changed her mind after realising that there is an unequitable power dynamic in the relationship and that she was pregnant. We don't really know what happened as we weren't there. But the court case didn't present enough evidence for anyone to change their original thoughts on the part JB played. I am anti JB as a person. I wouldn't choose to go down the pub with him. I think JB the manager has turned things around for us but there is still alot of work to be done before he becomes a 'great' in my eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Jan 14, 2023 18:47:36 GMT
I'm not sure what your on about,I did not give any thought to his guilt or not before the case, would have waited to see the evidence and as that's not happened ,there is no case and therefore logic dictates he is not guilty . Actually that bit did actually happen. The 999 call was presented in court and bodycam footage of his wife: Body-worn footage played in court captured Mrs Barton saying: “I was pushed and kicked about and stuff.” The officer noted “a bit of a lump and some blood”. Speaking to a female officer, Mrs Barton said her husband “just flipped out” and “threw me down”. “He was kicking me about,” she said, holding an ice pack to her head. She added that the alleged attack came “out of the blue”. “I just want him to be removed from the premises,” she said. Then she wrote a letter saying that everything she said and was recorded on video was incorrect. You obviously have missed the long threads about this that basically split the fan base into pro and anti JB. The pro JB people would say that it was the drink talking when she got interviewed on body cams. The anti JB people would say that she changed her mind after realising that there is an unequitable power dynamic in the relationship and that she was pregnant. We don't really know what happened as we weren't there. But the court case didn't present enough evidence for anyone to change their original thoughts on the part JB played. I am anti JB as a person. I wouldn't choose to go down the pub with him. I think JB the manager has turned things around for us but there is still alot of work to be done before he becomes a 'great' in my eyes. Most fans have now moved on, why don't you just do the same? |
|
