IMO, your post does a fantastic job in justifying those "every players got his price" comments of late. "Sell to buy" has also been factored into our brains without question too.. How come there's a mandatory acceptance of this approach all of a sudden..?
I'll keep mentioning, "Sell to buy" and "every player has his price" were NOT popular terminologies a few months back..?
Good points well made Chico.
It's the age old ethical/moral question "Do the ends justify the means?".
"The means" ('sell to buy' & 'every player has a price') were previously seen as morally unacceptable and they, therefore; did not "justify the ends". That "morality", it would seem, goes out the window as people perceive "the ends" as having changed. So when push comes to shove (and for most on here); morality is based solely on the ends justifying the means.
In short; most people will set aside the things they, previously found 'moraly' objectionable if the outcome is deemed positive. It would seem that most folk on here believe that FSG's plans for the club are positive and therefore their actions are wholly acceptable.
Whether the (potential) sale of Agger would bring a positive outcome is a whole other debate. Personally I couldn't see that Brendan would see it as having any benefit to the club and said so from 'the off'.
------------------------
Waking up to an ethical debate on the Agger thread - whodda thunk it?
Ah F**k it... might as well go the whole hog and give a short English lesson while I'm here:
apologist [əˈpɒlədʒɪst] n: a person who offers a defence by argument.
Not exactly an insult... unless you
are, in fact, an ignorant, fuckwit, who didn't actually know what it means. Be good y'all.
Logged
