Bruce spot-on with Bramble; Bardsley needs a rocket too

Is it a breach of Salut! Sunderland‘s policy of getting fully behind the Lads before matchday to support Steve Bruce’s comments on the Titus Bramble affair? I don’t think so.

Bramble has been suspended pending a club investigation into those aspects of the early-hours Yarm incident that concern club discipline. He therefore plays no part in the approach to West Brom at home tomorrow.

Like Bruce, I have no idea of the truth or otherwise of the suspicions on which Bramble was held in the cells overnight and questioned about an alleged sexual assault and possession of a class A drug. The player is innocent of any offence, in the eyes of the law and in mine, until such time as he is proved guilty.

But Bruce was quite right to echo my own thoughts about where Bramble found himself at that hour of the day, so soon after playing badly in the 2-1 defeat at Norwich and with a key opportuntity to redeem himself only three days away.

The manager told the Shields Gazette: “There’s a police investigation going on into Titus, and obviously I’m restricted in what I can say, but for me, the big disappointment is he shouldn’t have been there in the first place.

“With the rewards footballers get, they have a responsibility, a moral responsibility, and I don’t think footballers should be in nightclubs on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, especially after you have just been beaten – and how badly he had performed against Norwich as well.

“If it was me, I would be locking myself away for 24, 48 hours and burying my head, and making sure when training comes around that I’m going to go and perform better than I did on Monday night.”

And while he’s on, Bruce might have a word with another of his squad who is unavailable for tomorrow.

If Phil Bardsley’s lawyer was accurately quoted in the remarks he made in support of the player’s unsuccessful bid to avoid a six-month totting-up driving ban, it must have been among the most fatuous appeals in judicial history.

Essentially: my client will be inconvienced in getting to and from training, his partner will have to get up earlier to take the child to school and it was only for a few minutes in any case that he parked so inconsiderately (in order to undertake the can’t-wait business of collecting some winnings on a bet). Or have I been dreaming; were those comments made only in some old episode of Monty Python?

Ha’way the Lads that remain available for selection! Collectively, you’ve a lot to prove.

* No comments in breach of the principle of innocent until proved otherwise will be permitted.

M Salut

9 thoughts on “Bruce spot-on with Bramble; Bardsley needs a rocket too”

  1. That’s a shame Pete. I would doubt whether the quality of CCTV would prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had taken someone else’s ticket. Morally if someone else has paid for a ticket they have every right to do what they want with it including a gift to a stranger. No surprise and fitting that this should happen in Thatcher’s back yard.

  2. The ubiquitous CCTV , Jeremy. The parking machine (which I never got to) made it clear that it was not allowed. Napier Parking run the Sleaford car parks for North Lincolnshire District Council. Remember, this is the home county of Margaret Thatcher, still has grammar schools and uses the likes of Napier Parking to terrorise inhabitants and visitors.

  3. End of season game at Oldham. It was the promotion season to the top flight under Reid. Midweek game. We won 1-0, thanks to a Kevin Ball goal.

    We got back to the retail park where we had parked to find my mate’s car clamped. The shredded ends of the labels they had used to stick up warning notices after we parked were all over the ground. We called the cops and they turned up to no avail. It was the only time that I’ve been threatened with arrest after providing my furious description of the bloke in the car who had done the clamping. It cost us a 100 quid, but during the wait I made sure that the clamper got at least 250 quids worth of personal abuse.

  4. When we played Mansfield in a pre season friendly many years ago I parked in the adjoining retail park whilst I went to pick up my ticket. In the queue I bumped into a mate and we decided to go to the Early Doors for a pre match pint or three and I totally forgot about the restricted parking. Cost me £30. Didn’t bother arguing though.

  5. First question here Pete.

    How did they know that you “accepted a ticket from another vehicle”? Can they prove it?

    Secondly, who on earth are Napier Parking and what legal right do they have to fine you?

  6. I have to confess that I have committed a similar crime to that of Bardsley. I stopped in Sleaford for lunch on the trek home on Tuesday and was given a ticket by Napier Parking for the heimous crime of “accepting a ticket from another vehicle”. So, as well as having to witness a dismal performance at Carrow Road, I picked up a £40 fine. And me a pensioner!!!

  7. “If it was me, I would be locking myself away for 24, 48 hours and burying my head…” that’s pretty much what Steve Bruce DOES do. At least Bramble’s clubbing activities give SB something to be disappointed about other than the team’s activities on the field. I guess Titus won’t be included in the next go-kart track outing.

  8. Well events will take their natural course and the truth will come out into the allegations against Bramble. Let’s hope so any way.

    I found the reports into Bardsley’s appeal really bemusing. Having already accumulated several penalty points (you might say yellow cards) for previous traffic offences, he would have been critically aware of the fact that a further offence would result in a temporary ban. Such is the arrogance and in this case sheer stupidity of a professional footballer that he flaunts the law in the most crass way possible. He lost his licence because he was too lazy to park properly. Having proven himself to be a fool, he seeks to further confirm his own idiocy with an appeal for clemency for punishment for an offence which could have been averted so very easily. “Fatuous” is the word you used to describe this appeal, as “fatuous” is exactly what it is. The “fatuous” nature of it derives from the same arrogance and ignorance which led Bardsley to the very situation where he lost his licence. He had the money to pay for top counsel, which would have been beyond the means of the average bloke in the street, and clearly felt that his the privilege provided by his considerable resources would work further to his advantage. He’s performed well in the team in recent times but he in this instance he has made himself look a complete arse. I hope a valuable lesson has been learned by him, but I doubt it.

Comments are closed.

Next Post