Did Harty seem a bit unbiased towards Knight?

[The Large One]

I think this season he has been a coward in not coming out and explaining the goings on. People will continue to blame him as there is nobody there to turn to. If he came out, told the truth and percentages of who wanted Wilkins sacked then i would be very happy.

He said it was a unanimous decision. It's one of the few things he has said about this whole sorry affair - that and it was not because he got the team to seventh place.

It's obviously not the answer you're looking for, but he has answered one of your questions.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Knight is not a coward but does display a certain arrogance and can be dismissive of supporters outside of the inner circle. I've met him and seen that first hand. All the Harty interviews I've heard him do he's got impatient and defensive at some point, sometimes almost sneering. Maybe it's just the way he comes across or the fact that he can't bottle his own frustration up very well. I'm sure he was expecting an easier ride on the roar. Whether he got it or not I don't know 'cos I didn't listen to it.

The antagonism between Harty and Knight is blown out of proportion though. Remember that he did come out publicly in support of Harty over the windowlicker nonsense.

 

[Storer68]

bizarrely andrew hawes was doing the commentary from port vale v aldershot for bbc surrey last night

 

[Gordon the Gopher]

Knight is not a coward but does display a certain arrogance and can be dismissive of supporters outside of the inner circle. I've met him and seen that first hand. All the Harty interviews I've heard him do he's got impatient and defensive at some point, sometimes almost sneering. Maybe it's just the way he comes across or the fact that he can't bottle his own frustration up very well. I'm sure he was expecting an easier ride on the roar. Whether he got it or not I don't know 'cos I didn't listen to it.

The antagonism between Harty and Knight is blown out of proportion though. Remember that he did come out publicly in support of Harty over the windowlicker nonsense.

That's one of the most accurate descriptions of Dick I've seen. From my couple of meetings with him and knowing others who have met him you are spot on! Would add that despite his flaws I still feel the club will always be in safe hands whilst he's in charge!

 

[Acker79]

He said it was a unanimous decision. It's one of the few things he has said about this whole sorry affair

I don't mean to get all conspirational, but isn't that essentially a play on statistics. I mean it's a simple "look - unanimous decision everyone voted in favour" comment.

Why did people vote in favour? Were they indifferent to it, just going with the majority of the board? Would they have voted against it if Brighton Legend, Micky Adams wasn't waiting in the wings (which would mean it wasn't that they wanted Wilkins out, more that they wanted Micky in)? Did someone threaten to pull financing if he didn't go? Did a key person threaten to quit? Were they scared by the dip in attendance and rather than looking at their role in unsettling the club over the christmas period they simply wanted to be able to point the blame at wilkins (I mean the contract negotiations between the players and the club unsettled the squad)? Or did they genuinely believe Dean wouldn't take us forward, and that it was best for the club for him to go?

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Why did people vote in favour? Were they indifferent to it, just going with the majority of the board? Would they have voted against it if Brighton Legend, Micky Adams wasn't waiting in the wings (which would mean it wasn't that they wanted Wilkins out, more that they wanted Micky in)? Did someone threaten to pull financing if he didn't go? Did a key person threaten to quit? Were they scared by the dip in attendance and rather than looking at their role in unsettling the club over the christmas period they simply wanted to be able to point the blame at wilkins (I mean the contract negotiations between the players and the club unsettled the squad)? Or did they genuinely believe Dean wouldn't take us forward, and that it was best for the club for him to go?

I would venture that its probably *a bit* of ALL the above.

 

[Deano's Invisible Pants]

I think this season he has been a coward in not coming out and explaining the goings on. People will continue to blame him as there is nobody there to turn to. If he came out, told the truth and percentages of who wanted Wilkins sacked then i would be very happy.

Sure - everybody would like to know exactly who said what (and why) on the Wilkins issue. As supporters most of us have an almost insatiable appetite for the 'real' story (I'm certainly no exception). But Brighton & Hove Albion is still a commercial entity and Knight has no more obligation to explain the rationale behind the board's decision-making than the chairman of any other private company. Indeed there may very well be good legal reasons for not going into Wilkinsgate any further than he already has done (Wilkins himself has not spoken out which suggests that there may be a mutual agreement to keep the circumstances of his dismissal out of the public domain. Take Russell Slade's departure from Yeovil as an example of what can go wrong when such an agreement is not adhered to.

So not coming out and telling you want to hear is not cowardice, it's simply a prudent approach to managing inteernal club information. Overall, with Insider's contribution on here we probably know more about what goes on at The Albion than supporters of the vast majority of clubs.

 

[Fourteenth Eye]

Sure - everybody would like to know exactly who said what (and why) on the Wilkins issue. As supporters most of us have an almost insatiable appetite for the 'real' story (I'm certainly no exception). But Brighton & Hove Albion is still a commercial entity and Knight has no more obligation to explain the rationale behind the board's decision-making than the chairman of any other private company. Indeed there may very well be good legal reasons for not going into Wilkinsgate any further than he already has done (Wilkins himself has not spoken out which suggests that there may be a mutual agreement to keep the circumstances of his dismissal out of the public domain. Take Russell Slade's departure from Yeovil as an example of what can go wrong when such an agreement is not adhered to.

So not coming out and telling you want to hear is not cowardice, it's simply a prudent approach to managing inteernal club information. Overall, with Insider's contribution on here we probably know more about what goes on at The Albion than supporters of the vast majority of clubs.

That my friend is spot on !!

 

[murraymints4brighton]

Sure - everybody would like to know exactly who said what (and why) on the Wilkins issue. As supporters most of us have an almost insatiable appetite for the 'real' story (I'm certainly no exception). But Brighton & Hove Albion is still a commercial entity and Knight has no more obligation to explain the rationale behind the board's decision-making than the chairman of any other private company. Indeed there may very well be good legal reasons for not going into Wilkinsgate any further than he already has done (Wilkins himself has not spoken out which suggests that there may be a mutual agreement to keep the circumstances of his dismissal out of the public domain. Take Russell Slade's departure from Yeovil as an example of what can go wrong when such an agreement is not adhered to.

So not coming out and telling you want to hear is not cowardice, it's simply a prudent approach to managing inteernal club information. Overall, with Insider's contribution on here we probably know more about what goes on at The Albion than supporters of the vast majority of clubs.

I agree to an extent but are situation at the moment warrants answers. There is something wrong at the club that we dont know about and the fact of the matter is that we will never know. I just want knight to explain at his vivid best what happened and the reasons for the sacking as we are entitled to have that bit of information.

If we were mid table then nobody would be questioning but its special and awful circumstances. I will completely lose faith in Knight if we dont here him on SCR in SOME capacity whether it be answering questions or Harty using his journalistic brilliance to get answers.

 

[The Large One]

That's quite a leap - to assume something is wrong purely because you/we don't know the answers.

Dick did also say that 'it was right to sack/get rid (can't remember the exact verb he used) of Dean for reasons I won't go into whatsoever...'

Granted, it's not ideal for the sake of clarity and a spirit of openness, but seeing as this is a matter between the club and Dean Wilkins (and we don't know whether he wants this plastered all over the media either - and his silence leads me to believe that he doesn't), we might just have to remain in the dark on this one.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Usually he sticks up for him however tonight he was stirring up talk of a fans phone in to ask questions and asking for answers. Finally Harty has seen what a mess Dick has made. He even at one stage, i think said "knight has had it easy in comparison" Is Harty back?

Gosh. So Harty DEFENDED DK when others were berating him for sacking Wilkins to bring in his beloved Thicky Adams, but has turned against him now that Adams has been given the well deserved heave.

Quelle surprise....

 

[vulture]

Utter, utter bollocks.

You gave Knight such an easy ride he had the cigars out and lets just say he didnt need to wipe his bum during the hour love in on the Albion Roar

 

[Storer68]

I don't mean to get all conspirational, but isn't that essentially a play on statistics. I mean it's a simple "look - unanimous decision everyone voted in favour" comment.

Why did people vote in favour? Were they indifferent to it, just going with the majority of the board? Would they have voted against it if Brighton Legend, Micky Adams wasn't waiting in the wings (which would mean it wasn't that they wanted Wilkins out, more that they wanted Micky in)? Did someone threaten to pull financing if he didn't go? Did a key person threaten to quit? Were they scared by the dip in attendance and rather than looking at their role in unsettling the club over the christmas period they simply wanted to be able to point the blame at wilkins (I mean the contract negotiations between the players and the club unsettled the squad)? Or did they genuinely believe Dean wouldn't take us forward, and that it was best for the club for him to go?

Perhaps, just perhaps, they all agreed that Wilkins had to go

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Knight is not a coward but does display a certain arrogance and can be dismissive of supporters outside of the inner circle.

I've found the exact opposite. Always found him completely approachable and more than willing to talk to anybody. In fact on a couple of Albion public occasions he's been bloomin' hard to shake off! Half an hour into the conversation, when he's LONG forgotten where he's supposed to be, or who he's talking to, you almost have to stop him in mid-flow and say 'Oi! Dick! NO! Sorry, but I've REALLY got to go and meet me mates now! GO AWAY!!'

Dick Knight, He's Alright

 

[Storer68]

Just for the conspiracy theorists amongst you....

Promotion would not have saved Wilkins from the sack5:10am Friday 8th August 2008

Comments (5) Have your say »

By Andy Naylor »

Chairman Dick Knight insists Dean Wilkins would still have been sacked as manager even if Albion had been promoted. He has also denied claims the former boss was treated shabbily by the club.

Wilkins was axed in May after steering the Seagulls to seventh place in League One, just outside the play-offs. He was offered a senior coaching role, which he turned down several weeks later.

Knight told supporters at the annual fans’ forum at Withdean last night: “I didn’t believe he would take us forward in the way I wanted the club taken forward. “I can assure you the same decision would have been made by the board, whether we had been promoted or not.”

Knight, quizzed further on the departure of Wilkins, added: “We did not treat him shabbily. We offered him a very good job to stay and he declined to take it.”

 

[Don Quixote]

Did any of you ACTUALLY listen to the show??

I did, they had a nice coffee with uncle Dick and a chat over a biscuit.

 

[The Large One]

You gave Knight such an easy ride he had the cigars out and lets just say he didnt need to wipe his bum during the hour love in on the Albion Roar

You be quiet, you.

Come back when you've listened to it.

 

[Storer68]

I did, they had a nice coffee with uncle Dick and a chat over a biscuit.

Hob nob or a digestive?

We have a right to know

 

[Sweeney Todd]

We the fans have every right to know why a man who had built a team and nurtured it from the youth team to the first team was sacked. We are the lifeblood of the club. The chairman made a bad situation worse by choosing to hide behind the cloak of confidentiality. He is still making a bad situation worse nearly a year after the event. Because I have a season ticket, I am a Gold Member of the club. But being so, it seems, does not entitle me to know why a progressive and innovative manager was ousted by the chairman. I wouldn't care so much had not Dean Wilkins been doing a superb job and had not his successor made such a horrible mess of a promising situation.

 

[Acker79]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they all agreed that Wilkins had to go

Which I believe I covered with the last possibility in my list. Point is "the board voted unanimously" does not explain their reasoning. Perhaps half the board voted because it was what Knight wanted, and Knight had some nefarious scheme going on (I jest), or perhaps they all felt Dean was not the right man.

And from the article you posted:

“I didn’t believe he would take us forward in the way I wanted the club taken forward. “I can assure you the same decision would have been made by the board, whether we had been promoted or not.”

Dick Knight didn't believe dean was taking the club forward in the way dick knight wanted.
The board would have voted the same way if we'd have been promoted.

Dick knight himself makes it clear he was unhappy. He didn't say "the board was unhappy". And since he then went on and specified that the board made the decision, you can't argue he is simply saying "I" when he means "the board".

Given this quote from Dick Knight himself, I don't think it's unreasonable to question if the board themselves were actually unhappywith Wilkins or if they were motivated by other things.

Bringing this motivation into the open can possibly stop the board making a similar mistake again.