Football Forum | Ticket Forum | Off-Topic Forum | All

AKA ERNIE 10:46 Sun Apr 16
Sakho refused to be sub

According to to claret n hugh so may well be bollox sakho declardd himself fit to start yesterday then when billic said he would be on bench he then claimed to be injured.

Sydney_Iron 10:51 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Either total bollocks or Sakho has a screw loose, not even Messi would expect to walk straight back into a side after a long injury, common practice and common sense for them to be eased back in.

If it is true then he’s gone for sure, problem is who the fuck will buy him unless its on the cheap and even then there may be few takers given his attitude and injury/fitness concerns.

Hopefully though utter bollocks.

gank 11:02 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Bilic should go public on this like he did with Payet. Fast-track him out.

(if true)

1307 11:06 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Gang that 8s a ridiculous post.
Bilic going public on Payet cost the club £10 million.

You my friend are obviously a PAYE man and not a self thinking business owner.

gank 11:09 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

One way of looking at it is that it cost the club £10million. Another way is that it earned us £25million.

It also ensured the supporters didn't lynch Bilic as we definitely would have done if it looked as though Bilic had dropped Payet.

It's not all about money.

happygilmore 11:12 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

he hasn't shown much interest in playing all season, so probably made up bollix.

Baggins 11:13 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Bilic had no choice but to go public. None at all.

If this is true, then it's Sakho being a cock. Hopefully it's just made up bollocks.

fivestar 11:14 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Gank wank is a door to door salesman so no point asking that shit cunt about sakho......thick cunt

Willtell 11:16 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

How often should managers fall out with players? Bilic seems to do it a lot and Sakho, Adrian and Arbeloa seem to be the latest...

Sven Roeder 11:33 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

The story on the Friday was that Bilic wasn't happy with Sahko's level of fitness so left him behind
Huffers seems to be MATES with Sahko so can probably give us his side of the story
Personally I wouldnt be surprised if we don't see Sahko again this season.
Imagine the only way he will be here next season is if Bilic isn't

grasshopper 11:35 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

diafra-sakho-west-hamDiafra Sakho’s absence from the team against Sunderland today was this morning put down to “a knock in training” by a senior club insider.

As we reported earlier, the manager had claimed at his presser on Thursday that Sak should be fit for the trip to the north east today.

But the striker failed to make the squad and we were told when making the obvious inquiry this morning that he had taken a knock in training and that given his lack of match fitness no risk was being taken.

However, he insisted: “I absolutely promise you that he will be available for the match next week against Everton at the London Stadium.”

Knocks in training seem to be common currency at West Ham as a reason for a player’s non appearance – could it be the medical staff are continuing to pull the things on this one?

A simple statement would be enough if that is the case!

1964 11:36 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Possibly true, hasn't Sakho had strops on before?

Full Claret Jacket 11:38 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

If this is true it's a pity.
More iffy man management from Bilic really. He seems to fall out with players and then leave them out to make a point often to the detriment of the team.
He chooses Calleri over him repeatedly not because he is a better player but because he has better attitude. I get that in one sense but the noises from the club were that Sakho had worked really hard to get back to fitness and he's not had any real time on the pitch since.
He'll be fit in time for a move away instead of being given a chance when the season is already dead.

Will probably go on to get 10-15 goals at another club whilst we struggle to find a striker who can score.

Sven Roeder 11:45 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Refused to be sub v Arsenal at home last season. Think we were told that was a 'knock' but he was left out of the Man U cup replay the following midweek. In what appeared to be an understandable punishment
We may well have won that with him available so the cunt possibly cost us the FA Cup.

Your mum 11:49 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

If true show him the door

Dagenhammer 11:58 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Sven Roeder 11:45 Sun Apr 16

Agree totally - if he had not sulked for the Arsenal game, he would have been considered and probably played against Man U and we would have gone onto win the cup.

claret on my shirt 12:04 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Don't believe this story one bit

Takashi Miike 12:09 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

old cunt southon shit stirring again, why do people keep reading his garbage?

, 12:40 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

I would not know of most of the stuff written about the club but for somebody posting it on this Board.

Ron Greensward 1:04 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

Can see him joining BFS next year at Palace and good riddance.

Hermit Road 1:21 Sun Apr 16
Re: Sakho refused to be sub

He seems like a wrong un but at some point you have to question the man-management when there are so many players throwing their toys out of the pram.

Page 1 - Next