Scholes gone

[nzlatic]

16 minutes ago, Lags said:

Al vindicated, OWTB miscarriage of justice.

 

Said it before and I'll say it again, every chairman that's ever been in football will leave the manager/head coach in no doubt who he doesn't rate, does rate in meetings. Is this pressure?. Also it seems accepted when it suits that (x) player didn't start another game because it would have triggered a new contract. I guess it depends who's talking or who the the player is.

 

We've all seen some shite wrote down the years guessing what's really going on...and yes I'll have been guilty of it to.

So despite first hand accounts from ex players and managers all suggesting what they're doing is far from the norm, you're saying its no worse or different than what goes on at other clubs?

 

Clarke, Wild, Wellens, Scholes etc... all liars/axe grinders?

[oafc 123]

14 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

So despite first hand accounts from ex players and managers all suggesting what they're doing is far from the norm, you're saying its no worse or different than what goes on at other clubs?

 

Clarke, Wild, Wellens, Scholes etc... all liars/axe grinders?

And Shez, who was the first to witness what AL was like

[Chaddyexile84]

1 minute ago, nzlatic said:

So despite first hand accounts from ex players and managers all suggesting what they're doing is far from the norm, you're saying its no worse or different than what goes on at other clubs?

 

Clarke, Wild, Wellens, Scholes etc... all liars/axe grinders?

I’m glad others have responded as I really couldn’t be bothered 

[mickjagger]

1 hour ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

I’m glad others have responded as I really couldn’t be bothered 

 

What is your opinion then?

[Chaddyexile84]

5 minutes ago, mickjagger said:

 

What is your opinion then?

my opinion on this topic is listed several posts above, I was referring to responding to Lags specifically as I find his posts tedious in the extreme and to suggest a decision of an arbitrary body based on the balance of probabilities (51-49) as “vindication” is absurd 

[Lags]

2 hours ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

my opinion on this topic is listed several posts above, I was referring to responding to Lags specifically as I find his posts tedious in the extreme and to suggest a decision of an arbitrary body based on the balance of probabilities (51-49) as “vindication” is absurd 

 

So, with all the sticks to hit Al, you still choose the one he was cleared of?. Just to bore you a little more. 

[Lags]

4 hours ago, oafc 123 said:

It's funny because with all of Corney's faults, I don't think he was ever accused of tampering  

 

And I'll gaurentee Corney left managers in no doubt about certain players. 100 % certain. 

Oafc123. Again this isn't directed at you, its just I've replied on your post. I ain't fighting Al's corner or BO come what may. I've repeatedly posted they've made mistakes, which conveniently gets forgotten. Just beat them for the mistakes, not everything. 

In this instance an independent body saw for Al, and made Scholes pay a 5 figure sum. See it for what it is. There's plenty other shite Al can be seen at fault. Hit him with that. 

It's balance, without it am a tedious fucker. Makes me laugh there's 100 posts how this and that is BO fault and they ain't tedious. Perhaps 2 out of the 100 are!! By all means full ya boots on the 2.

Once again recently we've seen resignations from the trust and I'd wager its due to keyboards giving out grief. The only reason I see for most of it is jealousy. Those guilty of it, know it

[Lags]

5 hours ago, nzlatic said:

So despite first hand accounts from ex players and managers all suggesting what they're doing is far from the norm, you're saying its no worse or different than what goes on at other clubs?

 

Clarke, Wild, Wellens, Scholes etc... all liars/axe grinders?

 

The post was about Scholes who lost and now pays a 5 figure sum. I am trying to highlight not absolutely everything you can beat the villians with. There's plenty of stuff to do that. Choose the right ones, it becomes more effective and true. 

Just to pick up on one point, didn't wild go on radio and say live on air, Al didn't interfere? 

Of course those who see all in Al bad passed that off that wild had no choice but to say it. Well he did have a choice, and used it. 

[GlossopLatic]

5 hours ago, Lags said:

 

The post was about Scholes who lost and now pays a 5 figure sum. I am trying to highlight not absolutely everything you can beat the villians with. There's plenty of stuff to do that. Choose the right ones, it becomes more effective and true. 

Just to pick up on one point, didn't wild go on radio and say live on air, Al didn't interfere? 

Of course those who see all in Al bad passed that off that wild had no choice but to say it. Well he did have a choice, and used it. 

 

That would be Pete Wild who despite being a shoe in for the role and being a lifelong fan left the club to take charge of National league side Halifax Town.

 

In the all things Latics podcast he highlighted his decision to leave was based around the recruitment and that he would had very little say in it and it would be determined by the sporting Director.

 

You also didn't answer the question either are Scholes Wellens Wild Clarke all liars?

 

You used to be a very good poster on here fair honest and reasoned. You have reduced yourself to being Barry Owens attack dog. 

[JoeP]

There's a difference between a Chairman giving his opinion on a player (and giving the manager the option of ignoring that opinion..) and a Chairman imposing a player on a manager and forcing him to play said player.. 

[nzlatic]

7 hours ago, Lags said:

 

The post was about Scholes who lost and now pays a 5 figure sum. I am trying to highlight not absolutely everything you can beat the villians with. There's plenty of stuff to do that. Choose the right ones, it becomes more effective and true. 

Just to pick up on one point, didn't wild go on radio and say live on air, Al didn't interfere? 

Of course those who see all in Al bad passed that off that wild had no choice but to say it. Well he did have a choice, and used it. 

As Glossop has pointed out, you haven’t answered my questions. 
 

Is what the current board/owners are doing in terms of ‘interference’ no different to what happens at other clubs?

 

The people who’ve said what happens is not normal, are they lying about it?

 

[Lags]

2 hours ago, GlossopLatic said:

 

That would be Pete Wild who despite being a shoe in for the role and being a lifelong fan left the club to take charge of National league side Halifax Town.

 

In the all things Latics podcast he highlighted his decision to leave was based around the recruitment and that he would had very little say in it and it would be determined by the sporting Director.

 

You also didn't answer the question either are Scholes Wellens Wild Clarke all liars?

 

You used to be a very good poster on here fair honest and reasoned. You have reduced yourself to being Barry Owens attack dog. 

 

Absolutely not. When he needs criticism he gets it from me. Please don't ignore where I say there's plenty of stuff to beat them with. It's tedious the amount of posts citing BO fault!! regardless what it is. It's playground populist shite.

 

Are all these people mentioned liars? I very much doubt some of the claims are not true. Do I think Al as interfered? yes. I can also say without fear of contradiction that Corney also gave part of the reason he sacked a manager was he didn't agree with some of the players he played. The ultimate interference if you want.

 

Did Wild lie when he went on record to say Al didn't interfere or when later he said he did? 

[Lags]

1 hour ago, nzlatic said:

As Glossop has pointed out, you haven’t answered my questions. 
 

Is what the current board/owners are doing in terms of ‘interference’ no different to what happens at other clubs?

 

The people who’ve said what happens is not normal, are they lying about it?

 

 

 

See above post.

 

Do I think Al and Mo have brought in players...yes, a big yes. Have sporting directors in other clubs brought in players...yes a big yes.

 

Said it this week, I'd rather a manager bring in his own players, standing and falling on his decisions.

 

Once again, on this scholes issue, scholes lost, Al was vindicated. We live in a rule of law country (yes I know it wasn't a law court, but the principle stands), so in this instance, why is it for many a clear miscarriage? if it had gone the other way would these posters be questioning the decision or would it be clear evidence by an independent body chat? see my point.

[BP1960]

1 hour ago, JoeP said:

There's a difference between a Chairman giving his opinion on a player (and giving the manager the option of ignoring that opinion..) and a Chairman imposing a player on a manager and forcing him to play said player.. 

 

But he did play him, so therefore by definition he wasn't forced to.

He also quit and wasn't sacked.

[Chaddyexile84]

17 minutes ago, Lags said:

 Al was vindicated. We live in a rule of law country (yes I know it wasn't a law court, but the principle stands)

And in law a “not guilty” is not vindication or a declaration of innocence - only that guilt was not proven 

[nzlatic]

15 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

 

See above post.

 

Do I think Al and Mo have brought in players...yes, a big yes. Have sporting directors in other clubs brought in players...yes a big yes.

 

Said it this week, I'd rather a manager bring in his own players, standing and falling on his decisions.

 

Once again, on this scholes issue, scholes lost, Al was vindicated. We live in a rule of law country (yes I know it wasn't a law court, but the principle stands), so in this instance, why is it for many a clear miscarriage? if it had gone the other way would these posters be questioning the decision or would it be clear evidence by an independent body chat? see my point.

I'll have one last go.  I'm not asking whether you think AL/ML have brought in players.  I'm asking specifically if you think that the level of their 'intereference' in team affairs is similar to what happens in many other clubs... ie telling a manager who to pick, banishing out of favour players to train with the youth team, bringing in a large amount of trialists into training sessions unannounced, coming into the dressing room on match day, signing players the manager has explicitly rejected and anything else that has been claimed that I've forgotten.  Just to confirm, you are saying this is all normal stuff?

 

Oh and on Pete Wild, my guess would be that while he was employed by AL he didn't want to rock the boat, and only felt comfortable being more open once he'd left.  So yes, I'd guess that he did lie about it while still the manager.  And that is a guess based not on any personal agenda, but on logic given how AL has treated employees he considers go against the party line.

[Lags]

19 minutes ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

And in law a “not guilty” is not vindication or a declaration of innocence - only that guilt was not proven 

 

Who won and who lost?

[Lags]

16 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

I'll have one last go.  I'm not asking whether you think AL/ML have brought in players.  I'm asking specifically if you think that the level of their 'intereference' in team affairs is similar to what happens in many other clubs... ie telling a manager who to pick, banishing out of favour players to train with the youth team, bringing in a large amount of trialists into training sessions unannounced, coming into the dressing room on match day, signing players the manager has explicitly rejected and anything else that has been claimed that I've forgotten.  Just to confirm, you are saying this is all normal stuff?

 

Oh and on Pete Wild, my guess would be that while he was employed by AL he didn't want to rock the boat, and only felt comfortable being more open once he'd left.  So yes, I'd guess that he did lie about it while still the manager.  And that is a guess based not on any personal agenda, but on logic given how AL has treated employees he considers go against the party line.

 

You don't need to try one more time. How many times do I need to say I believe Al as interfered?

 

So you asked earlier if I believed a number of ex managers/head coaches are liars. I think you've answered that one yourself also.

[Chaddyexile84]

4 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

Who won and who lost?

And this is the man who mentioned “playground populist shite”

I’m done feeding this particular troll - onto mute you go. Have a lovely day 

[Lags]

1 minute ago, Chaddyexile84 said:

And this is the man who mentioned “playground populist shite”

I’m done feeding this particular troll - onto mute you go. Have a lovely day 

 

Suits me brother. Scholes lost and Al won the case. There it wasn't hard.

[singe]

9 hours ago, Lags said:

 

Once again recently we've seen resignations from the trust and I'd wager its due to keyboards giving out grief. The only reason I see for most of it is jealousy. Those guilty of it, know it

Codswallop. Unless they've done something you've just castigated Pete Wild for, and "lied" about it. Is that something you approve of under different circumstances then? The truth will be more complex. 

 

The confidence in the Trust has been completely eroded by the actions of the most recent Board Rep cosying up to the owner of the club, defending him. Totally undermining their work. 

Rather convenient. 

The Trust needs to fight back and take a new direction, get back to its original aims of holding the club to account if it is to survive. Do that and people might just support it rather than attack it. 

[Lags]

3 minutes ago, singe said:

Codswallop. Unless they've done something you've just castigated Pete Wild for, and "lied" about it. Is that something you approve of under different circumstances then? The truth will be more complex. 

 

The confidence in the Trust has been completely eroded by the actions of the most recent Board Rep cosying up to the owner of the club, defending him. Totally undermining their work. 

Rather convenient. 

The Trust needs to fight back and take a new direction, get back to its original aims of holding the club to account if it is to survive. Do that and people might just support it rather than attack it. 

 

I haven't castigated no one. Least of all Pete Wild. I answered a question posed to me with the truth what happened, Nothing more.

Down the years there have been plenty sat on the trust board who have resigned citing abuse. Whether your confidence in the trust as been eroded or not doesn't alter my point. 

[Dave_Og]

24 minutes ago, singe said:

Codswallop. Unless they've done something you've just castigated Pete Wild for, and "lied" about it. Is that something you approve of under different circumstances then? The truth will be more complex. 

 

The confidence in the Trust has been completely eroded by the actions of the most recent Board Rep cosying up to the owner of the club, defending him. Totally undermining their work. 

Rather convenient. 

The Trust needs to fight back and take a new direction, get back to its original aims of holding the club to account if it is to survive. Do that and people might just support it rather than attack it. 

 

 

The trust has never recovered from the original rep falling victim to Stockholm Syndrome.  Been on the backfoot ever since.

[nzlatic]

53 minutes ago, Lags said:

 

You don't need to try one more time. How many times do I need to say I believe Al as interfered?

 

So you asked earlier if I believed a number of ex managers/head coaches are liars. I think you've answered that one yourself also.

Those weren't my questions. 
 

Have a good weekend

[Lags]

1 minute ago, nzlatic said:

Those weren't my questions. 
 

Have a good weekend

 

You too brother.