Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
KM has strongly disagreed and laughed off the debacle of managers being forced to play certain players (I believe twice now). So if CP hasn't lied, which we all know he hasn't, that leave's just one..
Unfortunately, bless her, she's been stuck in a situation that without losing fan's trust she would have had to of lied, so she took that route and keeps up with the lies/misinforming as if she doesn't she will feel the wrath of many a fan.
Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
Not the greatest example as Chris Powell has said he knew the consequences of not picking the players and I woud imagine a condition of Riga's appointment - which was to save our status, gave him full control. The fact that not many network players played vindicates the accusation as Powell was sacked and inexpicably Riga was not kept on!
Reading that just pisses me off - that man (who has more dignity in his little finger than a certain Belgian I could mention) could still be guiding our great club if it wasn't for our megalomaniac owner and his unshakeable belief in his 'system' which means that it has to return to some sort of footballing year zero so that it can be reborn as just another network non-entity, stuffed to the gills with yes men and women who will do his bidding without input or criticism.
I've tried to remain stoic and objective over recent weeks, but now I just think 'f**k you very much, Roland'. I'd like to say that if you really try you can probably manage to eradicate every last vestige of character from our once proud club, but you'd probably just see it as a challenge.
Apologies for rant.....
Sounds like Powell has achieved the disruption he was after
Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
This is a sensible post but it does miss out two things that make a difference: firstly the fact that the managers who have resisted playing Roland's players (Powell, Riga, Peeters) are all now gone from the club, and secondly that the reports we've had from Powell, Dyer and Peeters indicate that RD at no point says (and these are your words) "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right." Dyer said that Powell was under immense pressure from Roland with regular emails coming through off the back of defeats, which really doesn't help, and Peeters' statement after his sacking hardly implied that Roland wistfully asks why his newest signing doesn't play and moves on. Roland cannot actually pick the team. He's over in Belgium and ultimately the head coach decides the line-up. Roland can't force managers to play certain players, but he can put pressure on the manager to do it and then sack them if they don't comply, which is exactly what has happened. If you honestly think that this kind of pressure doesn't amount to interference then I don't know what to say to you. Ultimately I'd say KM hasn't lied here, but only in the same way that it wasn't a lie to say that they were going to look for the best possible long term manager and still employed Luzon because he was the best candidate, honest, and it wasn't a lie to say the season ticket prizes were frozen, because actually we meant the non-earlybird prices so yes you're paying more but technically what we said is true. It's all technically true. Doesn't make them very trustworthy though
Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
This is exactly how I see it.
I'll be interested to hear then, what you make of the article when you have read it, and in particular this quote from CP
“I said to him re-sign Yann, it’s a no-brainer, he said ‘NO – I don’t think he’s good enough, we’ve got better strikers’
Reading that has shifted my opinion. Like I said, I'd been open minded about the network and refused to believe that RD would go so far as to directly tell his managers whom to play. I assumed that he had a general plan to sell off older high wage earners, and replace them with young-bloods. That's a strategy I could generally believe in, if it is executed pragmatically.
I honestly never believed that RD, a 67 year old micro-electronics engineer, who previously never even liked football, would go so far as to tell a football manager (be it CP or JR or GL) who is a good player and who is not. I just remembered when RD came to the Valley the first time. It was the Brighton match. He saw the state of the pitch. And then he saw a Yann Kermorgant masterclass.
So read the article, and do tell me how you react to this particular line, in the context of the article.
And then tell me that we were still wrong to bring it to your attention today.
I don't want to drag this out further because it is clear we disagree but as Prague said I didn't answer the question when I thought I had here goes.
I do not think this was a good time to conduct the interview and publish it particularly from the Trust. Had Weegie written it for VOTV then I might have viewed it differently. Airman said he was asked to give VOTV an interview with Chris Powell . Who approached him ? Clearly someone was trying to get the story out there for this weekend . That is probably where @bobmunro was getting mixed up in terms of Weegie and her interview and who had requested it .
I would thought a multi million pound business with such a high profile like Huddersfield Town would have a professional media operation not just what sounds like a gloried tea boy and I do appreciate that RD / KM etc will also use the same techniques. It is a sad fact of life these days . Information is suppressed until it is in someone's interest to disclose it.
I also want to say I will read the interview and have been very impressed with Weegie's previous articles in both TNT and VOTV . I just don't feel it was the right publication or time.
Someone who has previously contributed to the Voice and who is well known to Chris spoke to him during the week at their own instigation and offered me the interview for this weekend, not realising the last issue had come out a fortnight early. No agenda.
Possibly could have printed it in the next edition? Only two weeks away.
I only had this conversation on Wednesday afternoon. I was hardly going to contact to contact the Trust, tell them I now had an interview, and ask them to pull theirs so I couid run a different one a fortnight later.
Really what some of you are saying is that the Trust shouldn't publish anything controversial, even if it's of interest to fans. It's a strange argument, in my opinion.
Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
Any remaining RD/KM apologists out there please answer me this:
Who do you believe to be telling the truth about Roland's interference in team selections, Katrien or the views provided by Powell/Dyer/Peeters and Rednic?
In my opinion Miere's comments at the recorded VIP meeting are grounds for a libel suit by Powell/Dyer/Peeters. I wish them every success.
I am sorry but like the interview process and the denial about Mrs Luzin's bona fide twitter acount she is just lying to us. Murray and Meire are just RD's stooges, simple as that.
OK, as Covered End quite rightly points out, I have said exactly the same things time and time again on this, but I do think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding that is hugely, hugely damaging to the club at the moment. So I will make one last comment and then leave it alone - after all, you have asked an honest question, so deserve an honest answer from someone who is an 'apologist' (although not one who believes that everything that RD has done has been right).
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
This is exactly how I see it.
Agree entirely StevieK, well said.
Same question to you then Large, that I posted to Addickted above. You always understood that RD considered YK to be not good enough? And that's ok with you?
Comments
Put simply, it depends entirely what you mean by 'interfere in the team'. Both sides will have an honestly held, but different view, and as a result both sides are telling the truth from their perspective and so are, very understandably, hurt by the implication that they are lying - and so the spiral goes down and down.
As I say, I believe that it is simply a question of what you see as 'interference'. If, for example, RD says to his coach: "We have bought you this player, and I am told that he is really good, so why aren't you playing him? I really think you should." And the coach replies "I am not playing him because he is not good enough and would not give us the best chance to win." RD then says "OK, it is your decision, you play who you think is right."
In this scenario, has RD 'interfered' in the team?
From the coach's point of view - 'yes', his boss had put him on the spot and said that he disagrees with him.
From RD's point of view - 'no' he gave his opinion on the team (didn't he have a responsibility to do that when we were hardly winning every week?) but when the coach said what he wanted, he swallowed the amount of money that he had spent on the player and let the coach get on with it.
Again, depending on your definition of 'interference' of course there was some - all the Liege players that were added to the squad was 'interference' in a way (and, in hindsight, most were a complete mistake, which the club has admitted to), but I do not think that most people are talking about, as long as there was no insistence that they should play.
If you think that 'interference' means that RD has stopped his coaches from playing who they wanted and insisted that he should play those who RD wanted, then I have the same three questions:
1, Why did the rubbish network players (Nego, Thurram, Polish Pete, who was the Turkish bloke?) actually play almost no games between them?
2, Can you name me just three occasions from the last 18 months or so since RD took over (other than the oft repeated Nego and Thurram - I suspect that RD learnt his lesson after these) when clearly superior squad players were left out in favour of RD's favourites?
3, Why has SCP not named any other examples of players that he was forced to play (other than Thuram and Nego's five games combined) and why have none of the other coaches who have worked in the UK for RD (I don't know about Belgium or elsewhere) not named any other players that they were forced to play ahead of clearly superior squad players?
Conclusion - nobody lied, not RD/KM, nor SCP. Both sides are telling the truth from their own perspective. There are no pantomime 'goodies' and 'baddies' and I do think that it is hugely damaging to the club
Unfortunately, bless her, she's been stuck in a situation that without losing fan's trust she would have had to of lied, so she took that route and keeps up with the lies/misinforming as if she doesn't she will feel the wrath of many a fan.
Ultimately I'd say KM hasn't lied here, but only in the same way that it wasn't a lie to say that they were going to look for the best possible long term manager and still employed Luzon because he was the best candidate, honest, and it wasn't a lie to say the season ticket prizes were frozen, because actually we meant the non-earlybird prices so yes you're paying more but technically what we said is true. It's all technically true. Doesn't make them very trustworthy though
He must really hate working for RD.
“I said to him re-sign Yann, it’s a no-brainer, he said ‘NO – I don’t think he’s good enough, we’ve got better strikers’
Reading that has shifted my opinion. Like I said, I'd been open minded about the network and refused to believe that RD would go so far as to directly tell his managers whom to play. I assumed that he had a general plan to sell off older high wage earners, and replace them with young-bloods. That's a strategy I could generally believe in, if it is executed pragmatically.
I honestly never believed that RD, a 67 year old micro-electronics engineer, who previously never even liked football, would go so far as to tell a football manager (be it CP or JR or GL) who is a good player and who is not. I just remembered when RD came to the Valley the first time. It was the Brighton match. He saw the state of the pitch. And then he saw a Yann Kermorgant masterclass.
So read the article, and do tell me how you react to this particular line, in the context of the article.
And then tell me that we were still wrong to bring it to your attention today.