So what do you do when your betting company’s stunt backfires and a man prone to depression feels he has no choice but to resign from the club he loves?
What do you do when a man resigns on realising that eating a pie in the dug-out in the full knowledge that his friends have placed money on him eating a pie in the dug-out has not only landed himself in trouble but embarrassed his club?
What do you do when you have clearly encouraged that man to break betting rules while making him a figure of fun for his weight problems?
Why, you shift the blame, of course. You point the finger elsewhere. You attempt to whip up ‘fan fury’. You make your man feel really bloody special by referring to him twice as ‘roly-poly goalie’ on the front page of your newspaper. And you keep using the word ‘sacked’ because ‘resigned’ would suggest that your man absolutely knew he had made an error of judgement and that you too might be culpable.
As his former manager Paul Doswell reveals on BBC Radio 5 live that Wayne Shaw was “crying” on the phone when resigning from the club and was “very, very sorry about the whole situation”, The Sun were claiming that he was ‘sacked over snack’. Because of course getting sacked over eating a pie is ludicrous, right lads? Lads? Lads lads lads.
If Mediawatch weren’t so disgusted by The Sun’s deliberate obfuscation of the facts, we would be amused by their use of the words ‘novelty bet’ on the front page. Because of course ‘novelty bets’ are placed by ‘novelty gamblers’ who can win or lose ‘novelty money’.
We might also be amused at the idea that ‘hundred of hits’ on a petition to reinstate Shaw (can you reinstate a man who has resigned?) is being cited as evidence that ‘FANS were fuming’. Fans of what? Wayne Shaw? The Sun? Banter? Definitely banter.
The Sun are right to say that Shaw has been ‘HUNG OUT TO PIE’. They’re just wrong about the identity of the executioners.