Is Holt's latest twitter update aimed at McNally?

[iluveadie 0]

Has anyone noticed Holt''s latest Twitter update? He posted it around the time of the press conference, seems to be taking the mickey out of Mcnally''s shiny forehead. or am I jumping to conclusions?!

Seems rather childish of him to be honest.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I''m pretty sure that he Tweeted that during the 45 minute wait for Hughton & McNally to appear. According to some of the responses it was aimed at a Journalist.

 

Let''s just all get off his back for a few days and give Hughton a chance to talk him into staying, yeah?

[Pete Raven 276]

That was aimed at our David Cuffley who''s head apparently had its own fan club during the 45-minute wait on SSN.

[iluveadie 0]

[quote user="iluveadie"]

Has anyone noticed Holt''s latest Twitter update? He posted it around the time of the press conference, seems to be taking the mickey out of Mcnally''s shiny forehead. or am I jumping to conclusions?!

Seems rather childish of him to be honest.

[/quote]

Okay, fair enough, I stand corrected!

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="iluveadie"][quote user="iluveadie"]

Has anyone noticed Holt''s latest Twitter update? He posted it around the time of the press conference, seems to be taking the mickey out of Mcnally''s shiny forehead. or am I jumping to conclusions?!

Seems rather childish of him to be honest.

[/quote]

Okay, fair enough, I stand corrected!

[/quote]

Do you all think its to much to ask to get off this topic right now and leave it up to our manager to sort out, as he said earlier He wants Holt to stay,lets give him the chance to keep Holt

[Aggy 752]

In short Pete, yes, I do think it''s too much to ask. He''s our captain, top scorer and player of the season for the last three years. And he wants out. Until we know he''s staying or going, I think we''re going to keep talking about it.

Hughton said that any manager would want a player of Holt''s ability, but realistically, I don''t think Hughton is going to have much say on the matter.

I must admit when I saw Holt''s tweet for the first time, I thought it was aimed at McNally as well, but there was a pinkun retweet which cleared that up. Had I not seen the pinkun explanation though I would have been slightly peeved by the comment too. It would have been extremely unprofessional and out of order for Holt to make such a comment about McNally, so if people thought that''s who it was aimed at, I think they''re well within their rights to bring the question up!

[city4eva 207]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"]

I''m pretty sure that he Tweeted that during the 45 minute wait for Hughton & McNally to appear. According to some of the responses it was aimed at a Journalist.

 

Let''s just all get off his back for a few days and give Hughton a chance to talk him into staying, yeah?

[/quote]

 

If only all the idiots could read and take notice of this excellent advice

[Shankslad 0]

Non Twitererers just have to sit here and try to figure out what the **** you''re all talking about!

 

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Ok so to conclude, Twitter is a fantastic aid to media moral panics and if used correctly could hold entire nations in line.Love how everyone reads something and makes thier own assumption, just the fact that people type before they think gets them in trouble.Twitter''s moto or logo should incorporate the moniker " Think before you Tweet"

[blahblahblah 2]

"I must admit when I saw Holt''s tweet for the first time, I thought it was aimed at McNally as well, but there was a pinkun retweet which cleared that up. Had I not seen the pinkun explanation though I would have been slightly peeved by the comment too. It would have been extremely unprofessional and out of order for Holt to make such a comment about McNally, so if people thought that''s who it was aimed at, I think they''re well within their rights to bring the question up! "

I do wish people wouldn''t get so worked up getting offended on behalf of other people. Especially when the basis for the offence is based on their own misunderstanding.

[Aggy 752]

Whose behalf was I getting offended on? Pete asked if we could give the Holt thing a rest for a while and I answered him.

[tom cavendish 0]

Why is Holt having a go at a local journalist?

[blahblahblah 2]

"I must admit when I saw Holt''s tweet for the first time, I thought it was aimed at McNally as well, but there was a pinkun retweet which cleared that up. Had I not seen the pinkun explanation though I would have been slightly peeved by the comment too. "

Why would you be peeved ? The comment is not about you. You thought it was about some bloke you''ve never met, who does an admin job for a team that wears a shirt you feel you have some geographic allegiance to.

Now that you know the comment is about a journalist, are you peeved ?

Honestly, it''s like Jonathan Ross all over again.

[Aggy 752]

Why would I be peeved that one of the club''s employees was making unprofessional comments about his boss in the public domain? Especially when that employee happened to be possibly the most valuable on-field asset at the club and, with such a comment, had essentially killed any chances of him ever playing for the club again? Think it through!

As for now that I know the comment is about a journalist point, I''m not sure what that has to do with anything. Pete asked if we could give the Holt thing a rest. My response was that if Holt makes ambiguous statements on his twitter account (that could be about the CEO of the club) then people aren''t going to give it a rest, are they.

[blahblahblah 2]

"Why would I be peeved that one of the club''s employees was making unprofessional comments about his boss in the public domain? Especially when that employee happened to be possibly the most valuable on-field asset at the club and, with such a comment, had essentially killed any chances of him ever playing for the club again? Think it through! "

But you don''t actually know either of them. Surely, in this purely hypothetical situation, they are big enough to look after themselves and sort it out between them.

Your emotion is meaningless to the hypothetical situation, and leaves you being angry about something you are powerless to do anything about.

"if Holt makes ambiguous statements on his twitter account (that could be about the CEO of the club) then people aren''t going to give it a rest, are they. "

140 characters. Limited grasp of English. Go ahead, be specific with those tools.

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

Some of you on here need to get a life. Our grant likes the banter. I''m sure he is one of the main wind up merchants in the dressing room. He probably knows the reporter well and has a laugh and joke with him and is dishing out the banter. Twitter is full of banter. Get a grip people. This is all getting out of hand. Let''s let hootun do his thing and keep big grant on to lead the team next season. We need him

[blahblahblah 2]

"Some of you on here need to get a life. Our grant likes the banter. I''m sure he is one of the main wind up merchants in the dressing room. He probably knows the reporter well and has a laugh and joke with him and is dishing out the banter. Twitter is full of banter. Get a grip people. This is all getting out of hand. Let''s let hootun do his thing and keep big grant on to lead the team next season. We need him."

This.

[Aggy 752]

I wouldn''t have been peeved because I was worried about McNally''s feelings though. I would have been peeved that a player felt it was appropriate to say personal and somewhat childish things about his boss (and seemingly the public spokesperson of the board) on a public website.

If he wants to go then that''s fine, but I wouldn''t expect him to slag off the CEO with personal silly insults. As it turns out, he didn''t. But that wasn''t the point I was making. The point was that if there is some confusion as to whether Holt is or is not making such comments about the CEO, then people aren''t going to ignore them just because there''s a new manager here, given that Holt has been such a key player for us over the past three seasons.

[blahblahblah 2]

"The point was that if there is some confusion as to whether Holt is or is not making such comments about the CEO."

In that situation, you would be getting annoyed about some bloke you don''t know winding some other bloke you don''t know up.

Life is too short, surely ?

[Aggy 752]

If it was two random blokes then yes. However, when it''s the club captain slagging off the club CEO (for argument''s sake) then of course I would be slightly annoyed by it, as it is completely unprofessional.

However, if you feel that it would be ok for a player to slag off the CEO then I think we may have to agree to disagree, because you''re not going to convince me of that unfortunately.

[blahblahblah 2]

"However, if you feel that it would be ok for a player to slag off the CEO then I think we may have to agree to disagree, because you''re not going to convince me of that unfortunately. "

It''s not ok, but I''m not going to get wound up about it - what can you realistically do about it ?

[Aggy 752]

Not a lot more than discuss it on a message board, which was the point I was making in the first place.

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

But he didn''t slag the CEO off so you are wasting your life as I am, posting about something that actually never happened and the thing that actually happened people like you take out of context. Get a grip of yourself ffs. Get a life!!!

[Aggy 752]

Some massive over-reactions from people on this thread. The opening poster essentially asked if Holt''s tweet was about McNally. As soon as someone said it wasn''t he accepted that and didn''t make any more of it.

Pete then said can we give the holt thing a rest. I said, to summarise, that if people see a tweet that from Holt that was potentially slagging off the CEO, then they''re not going to "give it a rest".

Not sure what is bad about either of those?

And who has taken anything out of context? I think you''ll find that in the first thread to mention this, I was the first person to say that the pinkun had retweeted Holt''s tweet and said that it was about "cuffers".

The only point I''ve made on this thread is that the holt thing isn''t going to be given a rest, especially when he makes tweets at the start of a press conference involving McNally where he slags some mystery person off and says "he knows who he is" at the end. Yes, it turns out it was just harmless banter with a member of the press, but if people aren''t aware of that, then they''re more than within their rights to ask about it on the pinkun messageboard don''t you think?

So, in response BGH, nobody has said he did slag off the CEO. We''re not actually posting about the tweet in itself anymore (the OP was admittedly, but he was asking who it was about and then left it alone once he had his answer), I''m currently making the point that the Holt issue won''t be dropped, nothing to do with the actual tweet itself per se. And nobody has taken it out of context.

In light of that, could you make it clear what exactly it is I need to get a grip on?

[Alan_Grey 0]

This is how false rumours start.It''s also how pillocks are exposed as such.

[Aggy 752]

And, for the record, BGH, the only thing that has been taken out of context on this thread is my first post and the OP''s post. Some people seem to think that both of us are slagging off Holt or starting a rumour, and some seem to think I am taking offence on other people''s behalf.

On the contrary, the OP made a point about an ambiguous tweet that Holt sent out on a public website. He asked whether he was jumping to conclusions and, if so, who the tweet was about. When he was told it wasn''t Holt, he acknowledged that and left it alone. How is that starting a rumour or anything other than trying to find out what Holt was tweeting about?

And as for my post, I was merely responding to Pete and stating that the Holt thing won''t be left alone firstly until we get answers, and secondly because Holt keeps it in the public domain with his tweeting. Even though this one wasn''t about the incident, he has posted two or three tweets about wanting to leave over the past couple of months and has on a couple of occasions ''retweeted'' things with the #Holtforvilla hashtag, so it is hardly unreasonable for people to be slightly sceptical and questioning of Holt''s tweeting patterns.

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]"I must admit when I saw Holt''s tweet for the first time, I thought it was aimed at McNally as well, but there was a pinkun retweet which cleared that up. Had I not seen the pinkun explanation though I would have been slightly peeved by the comment too. "

Why would you be peeved ? The comment is not about you. You thought it was about some bloke you''ve never met, who does an admin job for a team that wears a shirt you feel you have some geographic allegiance to.

Now that you know the comment is about a journalist, are you peeved ?

Honestly, it''s like Jonathan Ross all over again.[/quote] ha ha ha

[Bryangunnshairline 0]

Do do do. Aggys is a moaner , do do do aggys got a shiny head ....

[Branston Pickle 3,635]

This thread is rather stupid, but a completely different slant is that it suggests Hokt was watching the feed, so will have heard exactly what was said...let''s hope CH and GH get together ASAP to smooth things over.

[Aggy 752]

Posters don''t seem to be too keen on people taking offence on behalf of other people.

I''m curious what their take on people feeling embarrassed on behalf of other people is?