Dean Wilkins

[BigGully]

Thanks for the patronising comment!

You seem to have missed my point too. I was saying that as a chairman or board member you simply can't just let the manager do something you fundamantally disagree with. If the manager wants to buy a player who you believe is not right for the club, you have a right to say no, even if the fee is within the budget.

It doesn't make for good relations with the manager but, as a chairman and owner the ultimate decision lies with you, NOT the manager. If you have to overrule the manager on a number of decisions, then you have to admit you made the wrong appointment, and change things.

I am not saying that is what happened here; I simply don't know, and I am happy for it to be a matter between the board and DW.

But you have to substantiate what you mean that if the has been conduct that is fundamentally wrong.

That would be another issue entirely, but I am not aware of any such allegations.

 

[British Bulldog]

Some people on here can't stand people pointing out the TRUTH about their beloved chairman

For all your jest you could well be right there Ernest.

 

[British Bulldog]

Because she constantly posts semi-literate under-informed massively-slanted hugely-biased crap, much of which is seemingly based on "the TRUTH" emerging some day, a day that we're all still waiting for? Maybe it's that?

Are you sure it's not just the good old NSC sheep mentality again?

 

[BigGully]

You are told something 'in confidence' then COMPLETELY betray that trust by coming on here and discussing it. You further compound the treachery by hiding behind your NSC identity.

Whatever the rights, wrongs or wherefore's, that is pretty SHIT

That is a bit unfair.

I would suspect that the information offered by someone within the club, might at times wish that that information might become public knowledge, however would not want anyone to give an individual indentity.

 

[BigGully]

The way I see it is this:

I wouldn't trust a steward's word over a situation such as this. He's unlikely to be on the inside track, so to speak, but if Hammond was pissed off at that moment in time when steward 433 collared him, then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he might have said something that could be construed as "I'm fed up, I just want to get out of here" or something.

On the other hand, at least he's relaying an honest, straight forward first hand account to the rest of us. You, on the other hand, seem to speak third hand rubbish that nobody has a hope of confirming one way or the other and it sounds like nothing more than cantankerous, unsubstantiated meddling. You clearly don't have much of a clue about what is going on, and just because you know somebody who is clearly bitter about the top brass at the club for some reason, and who thinks they are on the inside track, it simply can't be taken as face value.

So I know you will tell me I can feel free to ignore your posts on such matters, but there really is no need to - I already do, thanks. And as it goes, I'm pretty far from being a member of the 'rose tinted spectacle' brigade you mention. I just find your posts utterly cretinous and very very bitter.

Get away..... you ignore my posts......your kiddin me too.

Well ignore and dont respond !!!

Try being a man of principle !!

 

[Knotty]

But you have to substantiate what you mean that if the has been conduct that is fundamentally wrong.

That would be another issue entirely, but I am not aware of any such allegations.

I haven't mentioned misconduct anywhere, simply decisions.

You have employed your manager to make footballing decisions, but even if you have never been a footballer or manager, you still have the ultimate right as an owner to countermand his decisions, or those of any employee. Time may prove you wrong, and cast doubt on your decision-making, but it doesn't remove your rights.

 

[Pavilionaire]

To try and get back on topic, I don't now see how Adams and Knight can POSSIBLY work with Wilkins again.

Imagine Adams going into work every day, asking Dick whether Wilkins had called and being told "No" every day for the best part of a month?

 

[Knotty]

That is a bit unfair.

I would suspect that the information offered by someone within the club, might at times wish that that information might become public knowledge, however would not want anyone to give an individual indentity.

Why use the words 'in confidence' then?

 

[steward 433]

To try and get back on topic, I don't now see how Adams and Knight can POSSIBLY work with Wilkins again.

Imagine Adams going into work every day, asking Dick whether Wilkins had called and being told "No" every day for the best part of a month?

According to someone else on here Knight, Adams & Wilkins have had a couple of meetings over the last week

 

[Pavilionaire]

If they HAVE met with a view to working together next season I'll be surprised. That's not what I'd expect of Adams at all, unless Knight was REALLY insistent he wanted to keep Wilkins, in which case I'd be worried.

 

[Hiney]

Why use the words 'in confidence' then?

Indeed.

'In confidence' means "I am trusting you with this information and don't want it to go any further".

 

[BigGully]

To try and get back on topic, I don't now see how Adams and Knight can POSSIBLY work with Wilkins again.

Imagine Adams going into work every day, asking Dick whether Wilkins had called and being told "No" every day for the best part of a month?

I think it is do-able.

Not too sure whether Wilkins will fancy it though.

I would suspect that Wilkins has met with Adams and discussed many of his concerns.

I gotta feeling that Wilkins would not have to see much of DK and in anycase I reckon it might be DK that feels a little uneasy.

If however Wilkins is offered a tenable role, it does show how highly Wilkins must be regarded by the club if DK's personal relationship has deteriated so much whilst still offering Wilkins such a critical position.

 

[steward 433]

If they HAVE met with a view to working together next season I'll be surprised. That's not what I'd expect of Adams at all, unless Knight was REALLY insistent he wanted to keep Wilkins, in which case I'd be worried.

Thinking about it that seems most likely or he would have just paid him off there and then?

 

[BigGully]

Indeed.

'In confidence' means "I am trusting you with this information and don't want it to go any further".

Why not use the word pendantic !!!

 

[Man of Harveys]

Are you sure it's not just the good old NSC sheep mentality again?

I can honestly say that I have no idea what that might be - in about 8-9 years of posting on here, I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of whatever you perceive this mythical "good old NSC sheep mentality" might happen be - other than views that people happen to disagree with, perhaps.

Of course, if, say, you openly support the BNP; or think that Martin Perry and Dick Knight are a pair of embezzling incompetents, for example, then to make out there's a "sheep mentality" might be a cheap and tawdry pathetic of describing people who might actually disagree with those opinions.

 

[BigGully]

I can honestly say that I have no idea what that might be - in about 8-9 years of posting on here, I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of whatever you perceive this mythical "good old NSC sheep mentality" might happen be - other than views that people happen to disagree with, perhaps.

Of course, if, say, you openly support the BNP; or think that Martin Perry and Dick Knight are a pair of embezzling incompetents, for example, then to make out there's a "sheep mentality" might be a cheap and tawdry pathetic of describing people who might actually disagree with those opinions.

I am afraid that 'sheep mentality' is a direct assessment by some of YOUR brain !!

 

[Pavilionaire]

It's an interesting one this. Knight set out his stall by offering Wilkins the coaches job, but he would have done that with Adams consent. However, given the fact Adams wanted the Albion job desperately I reckon he would have agreed to almost anything, including the retention of Wilkins.

What concerns me is that there is a good chance this set-up WON'T work, and it
could potentially f*** up the season. We know Adams plans to sign 5 or 6 new players, so potentially half of Wilkins team could lose their places to Adams men.

If results don't go our way and Adams walks in to Knight and says it's not working the Wilkins faction will be unhappy. Does the club really need to be taking these risks? The alternative is for Adams to bring in his own men - at least there shouldn't be any baggage with that course of action and it won't break the season.

 

[Man of Harveys]

I am afraid that 'sheep mentality' is a direct assessment by some of YOUR brain !!

OK OK - that's certainly convinced me...

 

[British Bulldog]

I can honestly say that I have no idea what that might be - in about 8-9 years of posting on here, I've never seen any evidence whatsoever of whatever you perceive this mythical "good old NSC sheep mentality" might happen be.

Lets just hope Bozza never decides to have an advertisment for mint sauce at the top of the page, It could lead to a mass flounce.

 

[Kylies Stunt Arse]

It would be quite reasonable to dismiss Reid's and Mcfaul's comments, both have barely played a game during Wilkins reign, one blighted by injury, the other not regarded as having a role to play in Wilkins quest for promotion.

7th place should have vindicated many of Wilkins decisions, however these two released players started this 'red herring' of questioning Wilkins man mangement.

Why is it a "red herring"? Just because you don't believe it? Or because it came from two minor players deemed, by you, to hold a grudge? I happen to believe it to be true.

Any players decision not to comment would in most cases strengthen the argument that it was a mutiny of two released players, however you have chosen to use the silence of the current playing staff to somehow prove that they too support this view.

That is bizaare in the extreme.

Is it? I mean your view that silence from the remaining players involved indicates mutiny by two that are pissed off doesn't hold water either. It just means that the other players have not aired their views either way IN PUBLIC. That certainly does not make you right.

Maybe more importantly I am sure there are many on here that even if they support the removal of him as manager would baulk at your views that he lacks social skills is paranoid and egotistical.

I am sorry that is a character assassination too far.

Ah diddums, have I hurt you or your precious Wilkins feelings? As I said before I think the man is most definitely paranoid and egotistical. I'm not going to elaborate much further on why I think that, but I will say that it is based on first hand experience as much as it is on things others have said to me. I really couldn't care less if people would baulk at it, I'm not bothered whether people agree either. It's my opinion.