Exactly this. What a ****ty way to treat the man, out in the public eye as well.
Printable View
Erse yes, bigot no.
What a shambles!
I couldn't believe that Gazza was ever considered for such an accolade, when his best known goal came in a vital Euro 96 game playing against Scotland for the Auld Enemy. I could understand if it was the Scottish League doing this, to respect those who did great acts to promote the Scottish Leagues. But an Englishman who's best known for a goal against Scotland.
:agree::agree:
The double standards on display reassure me that traditional values still hold firm.
Interesting to note how many psychiatrists, and psychologists contribute to Hibs.net, by the way - amazing what you can learn by reading the tabloids, and adapting a concerned countenance.
I wonder how many of you would feel comfortable saying his weight loss is due to cancer? The sad fact is, none of us know what's going on in that guy's head, it's bad form to discuss it in such an offhand and uninformed way.
I don't know why he was nominated anyway. That entire Rangers team was full of outstanding internationalists.
He did do time in jail.
Total tosh.Nothing to do with the SFA.The panel choosing the nominees is made up of football journalists/media and nominations can be made by the public or discussions by the panel.In fact it’s SFA people who have brought about the withdrawal of the nomination .Still don’t let facts get in the way.
Sadly, there would appear to be more than a suspicion.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...verything.html
The statement was very poor I thought. He's not getting it because of his 'health'.. Why would anyone think it was ok to say this?
My point is we are quick enough to condemn other players for their misdemeanors, I.e. wife beating, alcoholics blah blah blah. When over the years our players aren't squeaky clean.
For football alone damn right he deserves to be there. By far the best player that I have ever seen in Scottish fitbaw since following Hibs from 1979. He was also a character that sadly lacks in world football these days.
Is there a 'complete character' stipulation? I ask because I don't know what the criteria are. As far as I'm aware it's based solely on what the nominees contributed to the game, which in Gazza's case was a lot.
If he's excluded, then I'd wager there are a good number of inductees who had troubled personal lives. Jim Baxter and Jimmy Johnstone immediately spring to mind. Would anyone question their inclusion? And would George Best be excluded had he been Scottish?
If there's a clause which states something along the lines that as well as being an oustanding player/manager etc a nominee must also have been a clean-living, mentally stable character then I imagine they'd have to de-select a good many.
The SFA are incredible really. They shoot themselves in the foot all the time. They claim to have concerns about Gazza's health.
What they're worried about is that he might do something radge at their fancy event.
Read the statement by Club 1872 earlier. Good to see the caring side of The Rangers again. Pity most of their members probably can't read. Club 1690 would suit them better.
http://club1872.co.uk/news/paul-gasc...me-nomination/
Much of that has already been covered on here
"All the best on the back of his health challenges?" Wtf does that mean?
Otherwise the usual whitaboot bile, from those small town knuckle draggers.
They have the uncanny knack of destroying your sense of reason and fair play by steaming into every argument with their gun boat diplomacy.
I actually think they had a good argument, before they started playing the victim card. For them to complain about convicted racists, well you couldn't make it up
He should never ever have been nominated in the first place but to do so, opening him up to abuse from all sides then take it away from him is honestly unforgivable. The man has very serious mental health issues and this is the kind of thing which could knock him off the rails again.
SFA should hang the heads then be given their marching orders.
That's a matter of speculation. I do think they shouldn't have gotten into the matter, by citing his "health".
For all we know, he could have cancer, or liver disease. We wouldn't be trying to second guess what's going on there, would we?
"Mental health issues" seems to be a cop out for basically saying someone's behaviour is strange, but not really being able to explain why
To me, he is a daft laddie that can't take responsibility for his own life, and deliberately sabotages attempts to make him grow up. I still don't think he should be denied the hall of fame entry on those grounds though.
Serious "mental health issues" tend to be a lot more debilitating than his, check out Frank Bruno's story, for the devestation it can cause people.
Andy Gray feels he should be nominated for Scottish Footballs Hall of Fame :confused:
:worms:
He has been known to have had mental health issues for many years.
Apart from the addiction issues that have blighted him especially with booze, he has had OCD for a long time - the D of which stands for disorder.
Gascoigne has done some stupid things and downright bad things - for that he must face the music, but it's unfair to dismiss his health issues, which have been well-documented.
My point is, it's unfair to say that this episode has anything to do with his mental health, when nobody has said it is. It's quite wrong, in fact.
Whether you think his past history points to serious mental illness, depends on whose word you take for it, and how you define serious mental illness.
Just because something is in the paper, doesn't make it true.
Of course it isn’t but current officers of Scottish football museum include Alan Mcrae and ****ing Campbell Ogilvie.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/c...52276/officers
So are you. You rarely get past the sentence that gives you an excuse for virtue signalling. There was so much to consider in what I posted, but guess which bit you're talking about?
I think it's fair to say that his health shouldnt have been used as the reason for not giving the award.
If he is mentally ill, or does have another illness, it should have nothing to do with his eligibility for the hall of fame.
Likewise, assuming that the health problems cited are mental health based is equally pop psychology. My big bear is that armchair psychiatrists analyse people's mental health in a way that the wouldn't analyse physical health.
You are right to point out i am guilty of that myself. Possibly illustrating the dangers and poor taste of speaking about
any aspect of people's health in public
I shouldn't have given my opinion (he's a waster) no more than anybody else should be giving theirs. I'd feel even guiltier if I didn't think he uses it as a crutch, and comes back with a different diagnosis, every time he needs attention, it has to stay out of jail.
There is no reason he shouldn't be in the hall of fame because if that though