Did Warnock do these bad bad things on Saturday?

[From Despair To Where?]

What about the 66% who believe he instructed one of his players to cause physical harm to an opponent?

Are you a civil servant by any chance RR? What is it they say about lies, damn lies and statistics?

No ambiguity? Certainly not in the attempt to manipulate the poll to suit your arguement.

[Royal Rother]

I don't understand. The options are very clear. One would have to be Jade Goody-style thick to misinterpret it.

[From Despair To Where?]

I'm not misinterpretting it at all. You clearly are either ignorant of my point are are chosing to avoid it because it doesn't suit your viewpoint.

What about the more pertinent charge that Warnock behaved in a manner that inflamed an already volatile situation? Or are you suggesting that he was a completely innocent witness to a situation and had absolutely no role to play in it escalating?

How about a straight answer, please.

[Royal Rother]

I've posted this opinion 3 or 4 times in the last couple of days.

He (Coppell) did specifically say in one interview (or words to this effect) that he did not know what Warnock was really refrring to with the stamping action, but that he considered it an inappropriate thing to be doing in the immediate aftermath of a highly charged sending off incident, which was absolutely right of course.

Look, there should be no split of the vote at all if the voters have a brain cell or two! If they vote for the 1st option it means they obviously DON'T think he told anyone to break a player's leg. If they voted for the 2nd option they DON'T think he sent Gillespie on to do a number on Hunt. If they think he was guilty of BOTH charges then they take the 3rd option. What's difficult about that?

[From Despair To Where?]

But how can he be innocent of charges levelled at him when you fail to list all the charges. You just want it to be black or white. Warnock was sent off for adopting an aggressive attitude which is what the FA will look into, and from the evidence presented, he is clearly guilty. When the FA take his previous conduct into account, he will be hit with a hefty ban, as, quite rightly, will Wally. That is the crux of the whole incident. It will be impossible to prove either way whether he instructed his players to injure or not so the FA will disregard this in their investigation. It is therefore irrellevant. I just don't understand your apparent crusade to present Warnock as a wronged victim in all this when he was clearly one of the primary protagonists.

And as I and others have posted on a number of occasions over the past 3 days, Warnock's past record would suggest that it is not inconceivable that he instructed his players to go in hard in the full knowledge that it could cause injury. Clearly Gillespie, unlike Morgan, does not have the intellegence to strike a player on the blind side of the officials. It seems pretty clear that Warnock fosters the sort of attitude at the club that anything goes as long as you get away with it.

[Royal Rother]

Good grief. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's just a bit of fun not a bloody court of law!

[SpaceCruiser]

A bit of fun? You were the one being high and mighty about it all.

[Man Friday]

Royal Rother: I often agree with what you have to say but on this occasion your poll is flawed for exactly the reasons given by From Despair to Where and is therefore not worth completing.

[readingbedding]

But how can he be innocent of charges levelled at him when you fail to list all the charges. You just want it to be black or white. Warnock was sent off for adopting an aggressive attitude which is what the FA will look into, and from the evidence presented, he is clearly guilty. When the FA take his previous conduct into account, he will be hit with a hefty ban, as, quite rightly, will Wally. That is the crux of the whole incident. It will be impossible to prove either way whether he instructed his players to injure or not so the FA will disregard this in their investigation. It is therefore irrellevant. I just don't understand your apparent crusade to present Warnock as a wronged victim in all this when he was clearly one of the primary protagonists.

And as I and others have posted on a number of occasions over the past 3 days, Warnock's past record would suggest that it is not inconceivable that he instructed his players to go in hard in the full knowledge that it could cause injury. Clearly Gillespie, unlike Morgan, does not have the intellegence to strike a player on the blind side of the officials. It seems pretty clear that Warnock fosters the sort of attitude at the club that anything goes as long as you get away with it.

Very true.