Barrow AFC.net

barrowfan_chris wrote:So these two sponsors/fans travelled to watch Barrow v Gainsborough and decided to make up a sexist comment?

No. It was at Gainsborough.

barrowfan_chris wrote:So these two sponsors/fans travelled to watch Barrow v Gainsborough and decided to make up a sexist comment?

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

That's not the point and you know it's not.

xerxes wrote:

barrowfan_chris wrote:So these two sponsors/fans travelled to watch Barrow v Gainsborough and decided to make up a sexist comment?

No. It was at Gainsborough.

My mistake

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

I'm not to bothered about what he did or didn't do.
I'm just think it's all hypocritical of the club and the mail(if they knew).
Like Chris said in an earlier post,a fan swears the club ban him and the mail give him a half page story.

But they cover this up.


Ha , look what club have put on official website today. http://www.barrowafc.com/kickitout/

I wondered where he was against Dover.

In all seriousness, this is a double standard from club and from the Evening Mail. I'm not sure which is more concerning.

How has this not been mentioned before ?!

Not been a great week for the club.

Bad news doesn't get reported.

Maybe it'll be in the film they were making?

The possibility that she misheard something amongst the noise that goes on at a football match isn't considered but a defence witness sitting nearby and not hearing anything is dismissed for that reason. Her husband's evidence and its contradictory nature gives rise to the possibility that he may have been supporting her without actually having heard anything himself. Based on the evidence provided I think the verdict should have been "not proven" as opposed to guilty or not guilty.

Lol at the irony of this article being posted on the official website today: http://www.barrowafc.com/kickitout/

Re comments as to whether the evidence would stand up in a court of law etc, bear in mind that the standard of proof required in a FA disciplinary hearing is "balance of probabilities" (rather than "beyond reasonable doubt"). In other words, in this case is it more likely or not that Edmo said what he is alleged to have said?

With regards to whether or not the NWEM was aware of this, even by the general standards of so-called journalism at said rag, surely Steve Shaw must have know, either having been told directly by someone at the club, or by regularly tracking of the FA disciplinary releases, or at the very least him asking Edmo after any of the last 3 games why he hasn't been on the touchline.

Remarkable this hasn't been reported by local media. Collusion in keeping it quiet? An oversight? Regardless, why hasn't the club done its job properly and publicised this? Hiding the judgement shows contempt for the campaigns to be inclusive through football, and the fans.

I was stood behind the dugout at the game and heard the comment that I'm assuming it is referring to. It was in bad taste and not what you would expect from a 'professional' manager. It probably is what you would expect from a group of mates hanging out in the pub. He said it to the bench! I wonder who reported it as I don't think the liner was in earshot when he said it!

Come and sit at the front of the bus. We were talking about this on Tuesday night. Not like you lot to miss something.

Edmo out

it's safer for them to stay further back - then there's no risk of getting grabbed by you and ending up in your cellar....