Get Off Dean Wilkins Back !!!

[Ernest]

Unfortunately that is a trait of DK, he is never around when there is critiscm flying about but is always at the forefront when it is backslapping time.

That is Dick Tight down to a tee

 

[BigGully]

Apart from the fans phone in the other week.

Was that not the self congratulation bit ??

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

Was that not the self congratulation bit ??

No, the 'famous five' one. Personally, I couldn't give a stuff if he wants to congratulate himself. I wouldn't, but then I am a different person.

 

[The Large One]

Hold on I didnt say I want to hear nothing, it would be extremely interesting to hear loads of gossip, no doubt however I want to hear the truth.

I have never said that information should not be free flowing, but critical issues including current playing staff and any ongoing negotiations should be dealt with sensitively.

He should not put the club, including his Manager in a position that might make their current and future work more difficult.

I cringed when I heard DK do a character assassination on Hammond and others in recent weeks and as for his self congratulation on Murray without a mention for Lloyd, Wilkins and his staff was damning.

We get to hear two conflicting stories - yet choose (via your 'true belief') to believe one over the other. You want to hear the truth? Which one - the truth as you want it to justify your 'true belief' - or the actual truth? As I said before, it seems to matter not one jot what Dick Knight says - you have already made your mind. Therefore, his statements are - to you - redundant.

You want Dick to remain quiet on the subject, but you don't want to hear 'nothing' either?

What was the character assassination on Hammond? Can you remind me?

 

[BigGully]

We get to hear two conflicting stories - yet choose (via your 'true belief') to believe one over the other. You want to hear the truth? Which one - the truth as you want it to justify your 'true belief' - or the actual truth? As I said before, it seems to matter not one jot what Dick Knight says - you have already made your mind. Therefore, his statements are - to you - redundant.

You want Dick to remain quiet on the subject, but you don't want to hear 'nothing' either?

What was the character assassination on Hammond? Can you remind me?

Your childish ramblings of 'true belief' etc is tiresome.

What part are you struggling to understand, I think I have made myself quite clear as my position in DK ranting off in the press and radio. Its unprofessional and unhelpful to berate current playing staff, he could choose to do that privately within the club.

If you listened to the radio interview and thought it was a fair balanced view of a player than I think you are a little less knowledgeable of the dynamics of a football club and its players than I had assumed.

 

[The Large One]

Your childish ramblings of 'true belief' etc is tiresome.

Then you shouldn't have mentioned it. You use it as the basis for your opinions. You said as much yourself.

What part are you struggling to understand, I think I have made myself quite clear as my position in DK ranting off in the press and radio. Its unprofessional and unhelpful to berate current playing staff, he could choose to do that privately within the club.

If you listened to the radio interview and thought it was a fair balanced view of a player than I think you are a little less knowledgeable of the dynamics of a football club and its players than I had assumed.

What sort of response is that?

Which radio interview? The one where he said about getting give players in? I don't recall him making a comment about Hammond. I asked a simple question and you turned it into a childish rant.

So, assuming I missed some other radio interview - what did he say about Hammond while he was still here?

 

[Titanic]

TLO - I admire your patience

 

[BensGrandad]

In the interview on SCR just after Hammond was sold, he made the point that DH was never going to sign a new contract and was treating the fans as idiots, and that he would not allow DH to make money at our expense and then went on to say how disappointed he was in DH as we had nurtured him for 13 years. This obviously did not show DH in a good light but probably told the truth rather than a staight character assination.

 

[The Large One]

In the interview on SCR just after Hammond was sold, he made the point that DH was never going to sign a new contract and was treating the fans as idiots, and that he would not allow DH to make money at our expense and then went on to say how disappointed he was in DH as we had nurtured him for 13 years. This obviously did not show DH in a good light but probably told the truth rather than a staight character assination.

That seems to be the pertinent phrase - AFTER he was sold.

Thanks, Brian. It seems like it was an interview that I missed.

 

[Storer68]

It was broadcast during the coverage of Crewe home match - possibly half time - certainly with Ian hart

 

[BensGrandad]

I heard it driving to the Crewe match and yes it was an interview with Ian Hart.

 

[BigGully]

Then you shouldn't have mentioned it. You use it as the basis for your opinions. You said as much yourself.



What sort of response is that?

Which radio interview? The one where he said about getting give players in? I don't recall him making a comment about Hammond. I asked a simple question and you turned it into a childish rant.

So, assuming I missed some other radio interview - what did he say about Hammond while he was still here?

Your fixation with me saying 'my true belief' once is slightly bizaare.

I am beginning to miss what you actually think of DK.

That is the debate yet you seem a little peeved that someone is putting an opinion that does not concur with yours.

You seem to accept anything that DK says or does without acknowledging that his recent comments and conduct were in my view detrimental to the team.

We are undoubtedly a weaker team today than we were before Christmas and with the recent signings it can no longer be reasoned that we showed sound financial constraint.

It should rankle many that we have been denied a real chance of some success this season.

 

[ROSM]

Hi there BigGully.

As I understand it in football terms there is usually approx 4 people in a room when contracts are negotiated. The player, their agent, the chairman or chief exec and one other representing the club (maybe the manager).

The key here is that the first people to comment publicly on what was said within that room in the case of Savage, GOC and Hammond were any of these except the chairman.

A few days ago I posted an analogy on here that in my role I sometimes have to present my company line to other employees even if I dont accept it. If one of the employees then bad mouths the company, I as their manager am expected to haul them back in line. I must be seen to back my company and I must not when talking to other employees express my displeasure at the decisions made by the company. Anything less is unprofessional as I knew the score when I took the job.

I am not saying that the chairman is always correct or that he has said THE WHOLE TRUTH but to put the morale impact blame solely on him is a bit disingenuous. At least two of the other three in that room must take some large portion of the blame. And then, when after all the sniping the chairman answers back (ill advised I know) then I would expect him to give as much a one sided view as that given by the others previously. It would hope he wouldn't but I would expect him too.

That is reality I'm afraid.

As for the earlier comments:

I fundamentally do NOT believe that a player who was offered to become our second highest paid player EVER was originally offered a worse deal that he was on previously.

I also fundamentally believe that Andy Naylor does not provide a balanced view of all he learns about the club. A case in point being that Knight said on SCR nearly two weeks ago that hammond was offered the second highest wage earner contract. I dont believe this has been in the argus at all since then. If it was wrong I would have expected naylor to have gone large on it...........the fact he has been silent means I suspect it is very very true. In the last 5 years when the chairman has not done everything wrong, I cannot recall ONE positive comment about the chairman by naylor in the argus. Naylor gets his quotes and stories from somewhere and I say that certain people employed by the club leak like a sieve when it suits them.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Naylor gets his quotes and stories from somewhere and I say that certain people employed by the club leak like a sieve when it suits them.

Undoubtedly.

In many ways, this makes the Argus a much more exciting read than it was in the days when it reported nothing but hard, stale news.

Likewise NSC has become much more than a fans' forum. Stuff gets 'leaked' here as well. We've become a player in the game of rumour and counter-rumour.

Exciting times. But who knows what the fallout might be?

 

[Storer68]

But DK needn't of mentioned those players contract offers, in any terms.

QUOTE]

After the window had closed and thge players had made their decisdions ( and these were decisions that THEY made, not DK, who offered ythem all terms) during the Crewe match, on BBC SCR, DK was on n and was asked questions that referred to the contract talks that involved GOC, Savage and Hammond.

He answered the qyestions straighforwardly and fully.

Now if you don't like the truth

 

[Storer68]

And clubs are not allowed to offer players who theyy wish to sign a new contract, worse terms than their present contract. The miniumum has to be the same as their present contract.

 

[fosters headband]

And clubs are not allowed to offer players who theyy wish to sign a new contract, worse terms than their present contract. The miniumum has to be the same as their present contract.

Are you sure about that?
I know it was only the Argus but I am sure that Kuipers had to take a reduction in his last contract.
And the first time we were relegated from the Championship, did the players not have it in their contracts that they were on lower money in Div 1?
I do realise that if they were still on the current contract this would be ok, but surely there were some players retained that year that had to have a contract renewal.

 

[BigGully]

And clubs are not allowed to offer players who theyy wish to sign a new contract, worse terms than their present contract. The miniumum has to be the same as their present contract.

That is incorrect, if the club offer them lesser terms then that player is free to leave, but the club is never bound to increase contractual terms.

That would be quite unworkable, even Ronaldo is unlikely to demand anyway near where his contract might be today when he is 30+.

I do not think for one moment that the club offered any of those players lesser terms anyway and I have never said such a thing.

Now if you dont like the truth

 

[ROSM]

I do not think for one moment that the club offered any of those players lesser terms anyway and I have never said such a thing.

QUOTE]

You're late logging on today. A busy morning was it?

anyway, it was BHA DEB who claimed that hammond had been offered less as part of her assertion that the Chairman is a liar

 

[Monsieur Leclerc]

Are you sure about that?
I know it was only the Argus but I am sure that Kuipers had to take a reduction in his last contract.
And the first time we were relegated from the Championship, did the players not have it in their contracts that they were on lower money in Div 1?
I do realise that if they were still on the current contract this would be ok, but surely there were some players retained that year that had to have a contract renewal.

I think the appearance related clause in a contract, automatically triggers a new contract, but at terms stipulated. i.e. Lesser terms in this particular case.