Jump to content

Fawkurt v Smurn - THE P&B DERBY


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 542
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 hours ago, Div said:

I know #bitegate has now had it's time but I was at the Saints calendar signing night tonight and I spoke to Jack Baird.

He confirmed that the blood that was on his sleeve was actually from Lee Miller's wound as most of you suggested :P

I won't tell you what else he said, as he'd get in trouble :)

So now that you've admitted you completely made up the story to suit your agenda ....when to be honest you were annoyed at your shite team being easily beaten again(and slightly more annoyed than usual cause you'd taken the lead & therefore would have won easily I think the story went) a personal written apology to every Falkirk player & fan would suffice. I'm happy to pm you my address for mine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know #bitegate has now had it's time but I was at the Saints calendar signing night tonight and I spoke to Jack Baird.

He confirmed that the blood that was on his sleeve was actually from Lee Miller's wound as most of you suggested [emoji14]

I won't tell you what else he said, as he'd get in trouble [emoji4]




:lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, distresseduke said:

So now that you've admitted you completely made up the story to suit your agenda ....when to be honest you were annoyed at your shite team being easily beaten again(and slightly more annoyed than usual cause you'd taken the lead & therefore would have won easily I think the story went) a personal written apology to every Falkirk player & fan would suffice. I'm happy to pm you my address for mine

:1eye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bobby_F said:

Correct.

But obviously can't be easily proved; and for Saints to spend time and energy to try to do so - when it may hurt Falkirk, but wouldn't actually help Saints - doesn't make any sense.

Nonsense.

You're just desperate to try to prove that your player had some justification for his thuggish behaviour. If Miller had bitten him (not just Baird's arm hitting Miller in the teeth) there would have been a mark and Saints would have been jumping up and down about it. Looking at Ross and Fowler's demeanour throughout the game I'm certain that they would have taken any opportunity at all to discredited the Falkirk player and present an excuse, not to mention the possibility of reducing Baird's suspension.

If Lee Miller had bitten Baird he would deserve to be slaughtered for it, with a lengthy suspension thrown in, so why haven't pictures of the mark made by this bite been presented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

I'm surprised Baird had the red neck to appear at fans event after costing his side a possible 3 points on Saturday due to his utter stupidity.

Probably part of his punishment from the club is to attend these types of events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

I'm surprised Baird had the red neck to appear at fans event after costing his side a possible 3 points on Saturday due to his utter stupidity.

Our fans tend to be pretty forgiving when the young players make mistakes. Jack may well have cost us points last weekend but he'll learn from it.

He was provoked, but he shouldn't have lashed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, distresseduke said:

So now that you've admitted you completely made up the story to suit your agenda ....when to be honest you were annoyed at your shite team being easily beaten again(and slightly more annoyed than usual cause you'd taken the lead & therefore would have won easily I think the story went) a personal written apology to every Falkirk player & fan would suffice. I'm happy to pm you my address for mine

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Div said:

Our fans tend to be pretty forgiving when the young players make mistakes. Jack may well have cost us points last weekend but he'll learn from it.

He was provoked, but he shouldn't have lashed out.

Hes 20 not 16. I've seen numerous young players come through our ranks over the last few years and never seen any of them lamp an opponent in full view of the ref.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Hes 20 not 16. I've seen numerous young players come through our ranks over the last few years and never seen any of them lamp an opponent in full view of the ref.

Here's Bia-Bi nutting Ross Millen in 2014

JS44351574.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Hes 20 not 16. I've seen numerous young players come through our ranks over the last few years and never seen any of them lamp an opponent in full view of the ref.

As I said, he shouldn't have lashed out, I've not seen anyone defending that action.

I'd expect the club might have internally fined him, and he's missing two games. Can't keep on punishing people forever though, everyone makes mistakes.

As long as he learns from it then hopefully the episode will make him react differently if a similar situation arises in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hes 20 not 16. I've seen numerous young players come through our ranks over the last few years and never seen any of them lamp an opponent in full view of the ref.


It's only his second full season though, he's still learning. Even players in their 30s do ridiculous things.

The boy had a moment of thuggish stupidity and on the face of it maybe cost us at least a point. He'll learn from it.

Fair play to Div for saying he was wrong, this forum would be a boring place if everyone did that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, wee_bairn said:

Of course it was. I believe the original claim that Lee Miller gave him a nibble but the suggestion of piercing under armour and skin was hilarious. From what I had heard your story wasn't too far away from the truth. 

 

3 hours ago, ShaggerG said:

Nonsense.

You're just desperate to try to prove that your player had some justification for his thuggish behaviour. If Miller had bitten him (not just Baird's arm hitting Miller in the teeth) there would have been a mark and Saints would have been jumping up and down about it. Looking at Ross and Fowler's demeanour throughout the game I'm certain that they would have taken any opportunity at all to discredited the Falkirk player and present an excuse, not to mention the possibility of reducing Baird's suspension.

If Lee Miller had bitten Baird he would deserve to be slaughtered for it, with a lengthy suspension thrown in, so why haven't pictures of the mark made by this bite been presented?

ShaggerG, I was quoting a Falkirk fan on here saying there's something in the bite story.  I actually posted about this on Saturday night before Div did - and was told about it by another Falkirk fan.

Seems like there's something in it - but there's no definite proof available - therefore Saints (probably very unhappily) are going to have to let it lie.

As always, you should look for motive.  People just don't lose the plot quite as badly as that for nothing?

What's your explanation - a Materazzi/Zidane incident?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sergie's no1 fan said:

 


It's only his second full season though, he's still learning. Even players in their 30s do ridiculous things.

The boy had a moment of thuggish stupidity and on the face of it maybe cost us at least a point. He'll learn from it.

Fair play to Div for saying he was wrong, this forum would be a boring place if everyone did that.

 

Did he? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...