Stoke City: Michael Owen Forced to Apologize to Bradford City After Twitter Gag
As Bradford stunned Aston Villa 3-1 to continue their golden run in the competition, the former England international posted on Twitter comments about Bradford being "on fire"—words that seemed to be insensitive given the history of Bradford and fire.
The Daily Mail explains the reason behind the sensitivity.
On Saturday May 11, 1985, 56 people were killed after a fire at the Valley Parade stadium. 258 others needed treatment for burns after a match or cigarette end dropped onto rubbish that had accumulated under the main stand.
The wooden structure went up in flames 40 minutes into Bradford's match against Lincoln City as the record crowd looked on.
Owen had originally posted a tweet about how well Bradford were playing, and that he was delighted to see the footballing minnows playing so well.
However, he was soon forced to apologize after learning the poor memories that his message had (unintentionally) arisen amongst fans.
What a game this is. Bradford are on fire! #carlingcup— michael owen (@themichaelowen) January 8, 2013
Been made aware that my earlier Bradford tweet was worded inappropriately. Obviously wasn't meant like that. Sorry if it offended anyone.— michael owen (@themichaelowen) January 8, 2013
Opinion seems split as to whether Owen's comments were of an inappropriate nature or not, with some element of naivety believed to be existent in the tweet.
But even still, nobody can be saying things like that—naive or not—and Owen was right to apologize for his poor choice in words.
Hopefully, the Football Association, who have been much more involved with Twitter comments in recent years, see it the same and do not decide to pass further judgment on Owen.
That would be political correctness gone crazy.
What do you make of Michael Owen's comments on Bradford?
Comment below or hit me up on Twitter: Follow @dantalintyre
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?