Mayo to Lewes

[BigGully]

You must have a god job within the club to be so adamant about the facts on so many subjects!

However, as the club is doing so many things wrong and so badly, and the chairman is a lying ego-maniac who couldn't care less about the club, how can you carry on working for them?

Silly comment really, its just that in some ways the Chairman is an ego-maniac, I dont know him, but have been told that is the case, many successful men are, so not great shakes there then.

I never said he didnt careless about the club, he and others might think he is doing great job, the same could be said about many of the Chairman at football clubs that are undoubtedly ego-maniacs, they delude themselves with actions that pull their clubs into chaos, yet still beleive they are they saviours of them.

My thoughts is that any Chairman that interfers at so many levels on the clubs football issues and I said interfers and not 'involves and supports and holds a view' is always going to hold any club from progressing as much as it might otherwise.

Of course I do not work for the club, if I did I wouldnt hold such strong views, but I do care for the club.

It just frustrates me when we are fed soooo much drivel and lies about the people that were once their employees.

All clubs use spin to different degrees, however the Chairman shouldn't go public and tell lies about GO, DH & BS and in someway actively encourage a smear campaign on Wilkins.

Inevitabley any Chairman will 'hire and fire em' if he feels fit, but to then go public and slander people to justify his own damaging decisions is quite unacceptable.

 

[Knotty]

Silly comment really, its just that in some ways the Chairman is an ego-maniac, I dont know him, but have been told that is the case, many successful men are, so not great shakes there then.

I never said he didnt careless about the club, he and others might think he is doing great job, the same could be said about many of the Chairman at football clubs that are undoubtedly ego-maniacs, they delude themselves with actions that pull their clubs into chaos, yet still beleive they are they saviours of them.

My thoughts is that any Chairman that interfers at so many levels on the clubs football issues and I said interfers and not 'involves and supports and holds a view' is always going to hold any club from progressing as much as it might otherwise.

Of course I do not work for the club, if I did I wouldnt hold such strong views, but I do care for the club.

It just frustrates me when we are fed soooo much drivel and lies about the people that were once their employees.

All clubs use spin to different degrees, however the Chairman shouldn't go public and tell lies about GO, DH & BS and in someway actively encourage a smear campaign on Wilkins.

Inevitabley any Chairman will 'hire and fire em' if he feels fit, but to then go public and slander people to justify his own damaging decisions is quite unacceptable.

I agree it was a silly and flippant comment but one born of huge frustration at reading such damning criticism backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

However, the problem that I, and many others, have with what you say is that you hold such strong views - "drivel", "lies", "ego-maniac", "chaos" "smear-campaign", "slander", "damaging" "unacceptable" - that you must be in posession of a great deal of knowledge from inside the club that the rest of us do not have.

No-one could justifiably use those words which are so critical of the chairman without that knowledge. You can't seriously use those words based on pure guesswork, suspicions or assumptions - you would surely want to hear both sides of any story before making such accusations.

You are of course perfectly entitled to hold whatever views you wish but, like it or not, you state these things as facts.

If we had firm proof of what you say then many more of us might be on your side.

 

[The Large One]

Silly comment really, its just that in some ways the Chairman is an ego-maniac, I dont know him, but have been told that is the case, many successful men are, so not great shakes there then.

I never said he didnt careless about the club, he and others might think he is doing great job, the same could be said about many of the Chairman at football clubs that are undoubtedly ego-maniacs, they delude themselves with actions that pull their clubs into chaos, yet still beleive they are they saviours of them.

My thoughts is that any Chairman that interfers at so many levels on the clubs football issues and I said interfers and not 'involves and supports and holds a view' is always going to hold any club from progressing as much as it might otherwise.

Of course I do not work for the club, if I did I wouldnt hold such strong views, but I do care for the club.

It just frustrates me when we are fed soooo much drivel and lies about the people that were once their employees.

All clubs use spin to different degrees, however the Chairman shouldn't go public and tell lies about GO, DH & BS and in someway actively encourage a smear campaign on Wilkins.

Inevitabley any Chairman will 'hire and fire em' if he feels fit, but to then go public and slander people to justify his own damaging decisions is quite unacceptable.

I don't recall Dick slandering anyone. When did he publicly defame those people you mention? What has he said that is hurtfully and derogatorily untrue?

If anything, there's a greater possibility of you libelling him by saying he is 'interfering' and that he is an ego-manic, when you're not in a position, by your own admission, to know what's going on and how the club is run.

You have said many times you can't back up your own contentions (which you might have to do if ever someone really felt like taking it out on you through some legal process), yet it doesn't seem to stop you peddling your own 'true belief', and passing it off as fact. So where might one consider the ego issues really lie?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

As for Paul Reid, .., it wouldnt surprised me if he too was also offered revised terms, however deciding to opt for a return home to Oz.

I suppose if you throw enough stones, you hit a coconut eventually.

This IS actually true. Not commenting on what bearing anybody's personal freindships have on anything, but Reidy WAS offered a new deal, but only on terms equivalent to those he could get at home.

Without the argument of 'if we stay here I'll earn more', he went for his wife's preference of a return home.

 

[BigGully]

I agree it was a silly and flippant comment but one born of huge frustration at reading such damning criticism backed up by no evidence whatsoever.

However, the problem that I, and many others, have with what you say is that you hold such strong views - "drivel", "lies", "ego-maniac", "chaos" "smear-campaign", "slander", "damaging" "unacceptable" - that you must be in posession of a great deal of knowledge from inside the club that the rest of us do not have.

No-one could justifiably use those words which are so critical of the chairman without that knowledge. You can't seriously use those words based on pure guesswork, suspicions or assumptions - you would surely want to hear both sides of any story before making such accusations.

You are of course perfectly entitled to hold whatever views you wish but, like it or not, you state these things as facts.

If we had firm proof of what you say then many more of us might be on your side.

I cannot give you a source, but as I personally do not have an axe to grind with anyone within the club, no-one has ever been terrible to me personally, I have no reason than to offer a view based on details I have been told that are contrary to the ones offered by the club and so readily accepted by many on here.

I am certainly not on any 'crusade', but when information is discussed that at certain times can be quite defamatory to people either currently or previously associated with the club and in someway encouraged by individuals also within the club and sometimes from the Chairman, I then offer information that I am convinced is correct.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

When has Dick Knight encouraged people to offer defamatory prose?

 

[Knotty]

I cannot give you a source, but as I personally do not have an axe to grind with anyone within the club, no-one has ever been terrible to me personally, I have no reason than to offer a view based on details I have been told that are contrary to the ones offered by the club and so readily accepted by many on here.

I am certainly not on any 'crusade', but when information is discussed that at certain times can be quite defamatory to people either currently or previously associated with the club and in someway encouraged by individuals also within the club and sometimes from the Chairman, I then offer information that I am convinced is correct.

I didn't ask for a source and you have offered no information, only accusations.

I have neither heard nor read ANY comments by DK, or anyone else at the club, that I would consider to be remotely defamatory - please quote some. As indicated in my previous post, YOU are continually making defamatory comments about DK, with NOTHING to back them up.

 

[BigGully]

I didn't ask for a source and you have offered no information, only accusations.

I have neither heard nor read ANY comments by DK, or anyone else at the club, that I would consider to be remotely defamatory - please quote some. As indicated in my previous post, YOU are continually making defamatory comments about DK, with NOTHING to back them up.

There has been times with Hammond, O'Callaghan

Hammond: DK rant on radio, I found it quite uncomfortable listening.

George O'Callaghan: Misinformation given to Ipswich on his return which then had to be rectified by some of our coaching staff within the club that confirmed that actually his conduct here was very professional.

Certainly the club allowing Reid to start the campaign against Wilkins with the initial Argus piece.

It was a piece purely to protect DK from what was a general feeling of unease by most fans ( at the time ) at sacking a manager that has been successful last year.

Reid, by all accounts is close to the Chairman so he more or less sanctioned that interview, Reid was content in the knowledge that a new contract would be waiting when MA arrived.

I wouldnt suspect that MA first priority was to tie up Reid on a new contract when he arrived, so who did ?? DK, so you have a chairman giving out contracts to players HE feels should stay at the club, nothing to do with MA or DW. Oh and please dont fall for the , those players earnt their contracts whilst MA assessed them during pre-season !!

PS I can only presume the Reid offer as I havent bothered to find out, although was always likely, Hans Krays Fan Club confirmed that Reid was offered revised deal.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

If we hadn't got richards, he would've been a good signing.

 

[Silent Bob]

If we hadn't got richards, he would've been a good signing.

No, if we hadn't got Richards he'd have been a bad signing we might have had to use.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

No, if we hadn't got Richards he'd have been a bad signing we might have had to use.

Actually, you're right.

 

[The Large One]

There has been times with Hammond, O'Callaghan

Hammond: DK rant on radio, I found it quite uncomfortable listening.

He has never said anything defamatory against O'Callaghan or Hammond. Negative, maybe, or even uncomfortable, but not defamatory.

Unless, of course, you can enlighten us as to the specific defamatory remarks, or even allude to what they were?

George O'Callaghan: Misinformation given to Ipswich on his return which then had to be rectified by some of our coaching staff within the club that confirmed that actually his conduct here was very professional.

Which members of th coaching staff 'confirmed' that his behaviour was very professional? Confirmed it to whom? And was this is the same Ipswich Town whose chairman apologised to the Albion for their player's behaviour?

Certainly the club allowing Reid to start the campaign against Wilkins with the initial Argus piece.

The club 'allowing' Paul Reid...

Was this the same Paul Reid who had just been turfed out by said club and therefore no longer had any ties to it?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I said 2 or 3 years ago that Mayo should leave and join Bournemouth while he and we still have our dignity left. Now look what's happened!

Adams f***ed up resigning Hart and Mayo. Not major f***-ups, but f*** ups all the same. Mayo has been a good servant to the club and always been available though, so he deserves respect, not abuse.

 

[BigGully]

He has never said anything defamatory against O'Callaghan or Hammond. Negative, maybe, or even uncomfortable, but not defamatory.

Unless, of course, you can enlighten us as to the specific defamatory remarks, or even allude to what they were?



Which members of th coaching staff 'confirmed' that his behaviour was very professional? Confirmed it to whom? And was this is the same Ipswich Town whose chairman apologised to the Albion for their player's behaviour?




The club 'allowing' Paul Reid...

Was this the same Paul Reid who had just been turfed out by said club and therefore no longer had any ties to it?

1 ) If you happen to be Dean Hammond the interview was defamatory, you might not find the tirade of abuse the Chairman said about him both professionally and personally offensive but Hammond himself undoubtedly did.

2) O'Callaghans conduct was considered by all the coaching staff to be professional, of course his outburst, which at the time held some resonance within the playing squad was never going to be tolerated by DK himself.

Ipswich’s Chairman's comment might serve to confirm that a view was passed from DK to Ipswich which later had to be refuted by our own coaching staff to their then manager Magilton, the information was again inaccurate and wholly unacceptable.

3) Reid, Hart & Mayo were never actually turfed out of the club were they ? Shortly after their release Wilkins was sacked and those player’s bizaarely reinstated.

Reid is supposedly very close to DK's family, it is likely that he would have shared his views with DK ( or vice versa ) before going to the papers, in effect a personal sanction to go ahead with his interview which he might hope would deflect from is unlikely decision to sack Wilkins.

Why would friends not discuss an issue which is so explicitly important to them both.

That encouraged the whispering campaign on 'man management' issues to justify the decision to sack Wilkins, whilst opening the door for the re-instatement of Hart and Mayo whilst a revised contract offered to Reid himself was later turned down, business accomplished !!!.

Luvley jubbly .............. !!!

 

[Knotty]

1 ) If you happen to be Dean Hammond the interview was defamatory, you might not find the tirade of abuse the Chairman said about him both professionally and personally offensive but Hammond himself undoubtedly did.

2) O'Callaghans conduct was considered by all the coaching staff to be professional, of course his outburst, which at the time held some resonance within the playing squad was never going to be tolerated by DK himself.

Ipswich’s Chairman's comment might serve to confirm that a view was passed from DK to Ipswich which later had to be refuted by our own coaching staff to their then manager Magilton, the information was again inaccurate and wholly unacceptable.

3) Reid, Hart & Mayo were never actually turfed out of the club were they ? Shortly after their release Wilkins was sacked and those player’s bizaarely reinstated.

Reid is supposedly very close to DK's family, it is likely that he would have shared his views with DK ( or vice versa ) before going to the papers, in effect a personal sanction to go ahead with his interview which he might hope would deflect from is unlikely decision to sack Wilkins.

Why would friends not discuss an issue which is so explicitly important to them both.

That encouraged the whispering campaign on 'man management' issues to justify the decision to sack Wilkins, whilst opening the door for the re-instatement of Hart and Mayo whilst a revised contract offered to Reid himself was later turned down, business accomplished !!!.

Luvley jubbly .............. !!!

Assumption, speculation, guesswork. Again and again and again.

 

[sten_super]

2) O'Callaghans conduct was considered by all the coaching staff to be professional, of course his outburst, which at the time held some resonance within the playing squad was never going to be tolerated by DK himself.

Ipswich’s Chairman's comment might serve to confirm that a view was passed from DK to Ipswich which later had to be refuted by our own coaching staff to their then manager Magilton, the information was again inaccurate and wholly unacceptable.

Can you remind me what the Ipswich Chairman's comments were, and point out exactly how they serve to confirm anything? Can you then explain why, if he was such a fantastic professional, Magilton let him go to Cork City at the end of January, despite the apparent wonderful testimony from the Brighton staff?

Reid is supposedly very close to DK's family, it is likely that he would have shared his views with DK ( or vice versa ) before going to the papers, in effect a personal sanction to go ahead with his interview which he might hope would deflect from is unlikely decision to sack Wilkins.

Why would friends not discuss an issue which is so explicitly important to them both.

That encouraged the whispering campaign on 'man management' issues to justify the decision to sack Wilkins, whilst opening the door for the re-instatement of Hart and Mayo whilst a revised contract offered to Reid himself was later turned down, business accomplished !!!.

Luvley jubbly .............. !!!

This is such SUCH a leap of faith that I can't believe that you've actually repeated it more than once and can still take yourself seriously. So Reid is friends with DK, therefore before he goes to the paper he seeks DK's express permission to do so? And DK grants him a 'personal sanction'? Alternatively, Reid, in a fit of pique after what he feels is poor treatment, goes to the paper and vents. Sounds somewhat more likely to me.

I'll ask you again, although I know what the answer will be, where is any evidence for any of this? Where is your evidence that the BHA staff passed on a much better and different version of GOC to Ipswich? Where is your evidence that DK gave Reid a 'personal sanction' to give his interview with the Argus?

 

[BigGully]

Assumption, speculation, guesswork. Again and again and again.

AND FACT

 

[Titanic]

"But don't get me wrong - my situation is totally different to last season. I have had a really great pre-season with the new gaffer, which has reinvigorated me.

Last year the boss, who I have known since he was youth manager - seemed to have a set opinion of me and that is hard to change and, to be honest, something needed to give as I don't think I would still have been at the club if he was still here.

I am not saying I was happy for him to leave, but a new boss was what I needed and Micky Adams has come in and breathed a new lease of life into the club and you can see from the results the impact he has made and I really did not want to think about leaving Brighton - so I am delighted to still be here and enjoying my football again."

Jake Robinson

http://www.skysports.com/blogs/blog_story/0,19793,13299_4095966,00.html

 

[Knotty]

AND FACT

So you were present when all the discussions, comments, statements etc that you mention were made!

That's the only way you could possibly say everything is fact.

If you weren't, you are simply forming an opinion from what you've heard. If you have only heard one side of the story then it's a very biased opinion. If you have actually heard BOTH sides of a story, then you have formed an opinion based on your assessment of what you've heard - fair enough...

But that still only makes it an opinion - NOT FACT.

 

[BigGully]

"But don't get me wrong - my situation is totally different to last season. I have had a really great pre-season with the new gaffer, which has reinvigorated me.

Last year the boss, who I have known since he was youth manager - seemed to have a set opinion of me and that is hard to change and, to be honest, something needed to give as I don't think I would still have been at the club if he was still here.

I am not saying I was happy for him to leave, but a new boss was what I needed and Micky Adams has come in and breathed a new lease of life into the club and you can see from the results the impact he has made and I really did not want to think about leaving Brighton - so I am delighted to still be here and enjoying my football again."

Jake Robinson

http://www.skysports.com/blogs/blog_story/0,19793,13299_4095966,00.html

I like Jake, but I wonder what his view might be at Christmas if his appearance's in the starting 11 are limited.

A new manager will always invigorate the players that were not playing under a previous regime, its an opportunity for Jake and I wish him well, but his statement only shows a player hoping for a change of fortune....no more.