Martin Samuel

Martin Samuel, now of the Daily Mail got himself a new fan after I read this masterpiece:

"... at the moment when an independent committee first hit West Ham United with the biggest fine in the history of the Premier League, then announced they would have done something far worse had only they got their backsides in gear earlier, [and here comes my favourite part] the Tevez inquiry pretty much decked common sense with a flying head-butt.
So to have a further investigation based on the meaning of an oral cuddle between Scott Duxbury, the West Ham chief executive, and Kia Joorabchian, owner of Tevez, cannot be classed simply as stupid.
It is post-stupid, in the way some TV shows are described as post-modern when concerned with ironic self-reference and absurdity.
Indeed, one such post-modern cartoon, the wonderful Ren and Stimpy, made by Canadian animator John Kricfalusi, actually contained a segment entitled Ask Dr Stupid, with foolish logic that pre-empted the Tevez inquiry by a good 15 years.
Yet, somehow even a psychotic chihuahua and his idiot fat Manx cat accomplice never got quite as stupid as this lot."

Thanks Martin, thanks!
Please have the guts to keep this coming also at your new position!


Prince H said...


(by the way:

Hakan said...

Guess I'll have to bookmark Daily Mail then. Martin Samuel is one of my favourites. Unfortunately I've lost touch with some of the finer points of this legal wrangle. Even so, I'll risk the wrath of Bubbleview's legal team by suggesting that the investigation shouldn't boil down to what was said between these two gentlemen(?) since that can never be proved, but rather focus on the concept of unilaterally tearing up an agreement and then continue to play Mr Tevez.
I'm no wiser after reading this article. But it's great fun.
Disclaimer: This is not intended to in any way suggest any wrongdoing whatsoever on the part of West Ham United FC.

Joppe - said...

Don't worry, speak freely you are among friends. In my book you're as much an untouchable as ever CC :)

This is an issue with so many turns that I cannot say I have a clear picture.
The unilateral tearing of the contact was, however, accepted by the PL. I have a hard time finding that West ham should be held responsible after seeking and getting the acceptance of the PL for this action.