Darron Gibson

[ToffeeDan]

well they will be now you've pointed it out.
Thanks @ToffeeDan

Too late now, I'm merely stating that, earlier, the picture showed it and that now it doesn't.

 

[Professor Toffee]

Gibson did his ACL and both hamstrings escaping the scene of the crime

 

[Lionel Naismith]

Gibbo's cheque book will be coming out. Anyone with a normal job would get sent down, he won't.

 

[The Equaliser]

Gibbo's cheque book will be coming out. Anyone with a normal job would get sent down, he won't.

For 'driving without due care and attention, driving with excess alcohol and failing to stop after a road traffic collision' (in which no-one was injured) ? Don't think so.

May as well go the whole hog and send him to IS for a beheading.

 

[Brennan]

Gibbo's cheque book will be coming out. Anyone with a normal job would get sent down, he won't.

Not true.

 

[Harryflashman]

For 'driving without due care and attention, driving with excess alcohol and failing to stop after a road traffic collision' (in which no-one was injured) ? Don't think so.

May as well go the whole hog and send him to IS for a beheading.

I think we'd have to know the circumstances , the injuries and nature of the collision and exactly what readings he give . I'll be honest in my opinion I'd say it's far from Clear cut either way what the end result will be .

If he's completely ratted doing 95 and on the wrong side of the wrong and the bloke isn't good that's one thing , just over and the fella doesn't have high vis or lights and he's caught him with his wing mirror it's another .

Pretty sure most of us don't know so we're guessing and speculating made easier in many cases given the rumours surrounding him and his injury record .

It's a wait and see really at the minute isn't it ?

 

[Huyton Layne]

None of this would have happened if we'd just turned him in to glue back when I suggested it.

 

[The Equaliser]

I think we'd have to know the circumstances , the injuries and nature of the collision and exactly what readings he give . I'll be honest in my opinion I'd say it's far from Clear cut either way what the end result will be .

If he's completely ratted doing 95 and on the wrong side of the wrong and the bloke isn't good that's one thing , just over and the fella doesn't have high vis or lights and he's caught him with his wing mirror it's another .

Pretty sure most of us don't know so we're guessing and speculating made easier in many cases given the rumours surrounding him and his injury record .

It's a wait and see really at the minute isn't it ?

Yes it is. Although the fact that no-one was injured would suggest that your 2nd scenario is more likely. Hitting a cyclist even at 30 mph is likely to cause serious injury so he is unlikely to have been speeding. Let's wait for the facts to come out in the court case before passing sentence.

 

[blueblue]

Yes it is. Although the fact that no-one was injured would suggest that your 2nd scenario is more likely. Hitting a cyclist even at 30 mph is likely to cause serious injury so he is unlikely to have been speeding. Let's wait for the facts to come out in the court case before passing sentence.

I think we should just go straight to the beheading...after all supporting a football club is turning into a blood sport.

 

[ftk43]

I've come to the conclusion that we should release him IF he's gonna be convicted by the law.

It's one thing that he's always injured, it's not his fault, but the fact the he's bringing this type of publicity to our club is completely different issue. And stop bringing up the 'what if Stones/Lukaku did it?' aka 'What about Duncan's/Pienaar's cases?' point, he's not valuable enough to us as a player to be given a pass about a situation like this.

And the point about him 'losing his job' is just stupid. He's set for life already and i'm 100% sure some will sign him up on a free. It's just not gonna be us.

 

[Harryflashman]

Yes it is. Although the fact that no-one was injured would suggest that your 2nd scenario is more likely. Hitting a cyclist even at 30 mph is likely to cause serious injury so he is unlikely to have been speeding. Let's wait for the facts to come out in the court case before passing sentence.

I wasn't wanting to have a go at him , certainly over this .

I'm Disappointed but given my lifestyle & history not the type to throw stones . I did say earlier and wasn't being judgmental but their have been stories so it being him , rightly or wrongly didn't surprise me . For me though it's certainly not a sacking Job on the face of it or even close to be honest .

 

[turner]

He's a liability and now we have an excuse to get rid if his contract has a misconduct clause. No moral judgements needed, simply business. If he wants counselling he can do what everyone else in the world has to do and visit his gp or pay for it himself. And if he thinks he's been hard done by, someone should send him the post by Uknightbreed to see how lucky he is that the cyclist is okay.

 

[Harryflashman]

He's a liability and now we have an excuse to get rid if his contract has a misconduct clause. No moral judgements needed, simply business. If he wants counselling he can do what everyone else in the world has to do and visit his gp or pay for it himself. And if he thinks he's been hard done by, someone should send him the post by Uknightbreed to see how lucky he is that the cyclist is okay.

You'd bin him because he's 'not good enough' but if he was one of our better players you'd be ok with that ? Therefore your finally sentence is a bit irrelevant isn't it ? Or would you feel the , morals are relevant if you'd feel the same whoever it was and although i'd probably disagree I can see where that argument comes from . Using accidents or outrage To justify a financial decision seems a bit cheap to be honest .

 

[toffeestillidie]

Yes it is. Although the fact that no-one was injured would suggest that your 2nd scenario is more likely. Hitting a cyclist even at 30 mph is likely to cause serious injury so he is unlikely to have been speeding. Let's wait for the facts to come out in the court case before passing sentence.

No on seems to be discussing this part:

"This is in relation to an incident on Sunday August 16 where police were called to reports that a car had collided with a cyclist on Park Road, Trafford, and failed to stop before pulling into a petrol station on nearby Dunham Road and colliding with a pump," a spokesman said.

If what's been reported by BBC is correct, he was involved in two collisions, one with a cyclist, and one with a pump, in a matter of minutes. People don't hit things with their cars twice in quick succession like that unless they are impaired.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

You'd bin him because he's 'not good enough' but if he was one of our better players you'd be ok with that ? Therefore your finally sentence is a bit irrelevant isn't it ? Or would you feel the , morals are relevant if you'd feel the same whoever it was and although i'd probably disagree I can see where that argument comes from . Using accidents or outrage To justify a financial decision seems a bit cheap to be honest .

You have to admit that in a perverse sort of way, it's sort of a bonus that it's only gibson.....I'm sure the fume level'd be higher if it were Lukaku or one of the higher profile players. Not only because of their value to the team and the club (financial sense) but because of their sheer stupidity & possible loss incurred due to a potential prison sentence?

I'd still want them sacked, regardless.

No on seems to be discussing this part:



If what's been reported by BBC is correct, he was involved in two collisions, one with a cyclist, and one with a pump, in a matter of minutes. People don't hit things with their cars twice in quick succession like that unless they are impaired.

I have. How the bleedin' hell do you hit a petrol pump when you can't even go (safely) more than about 8mph in a forecourt?