Wilkins - What really went on...

[deano seagulls]

Well Dean Hammond's comments about going months without hearing anything from the chairman despite asking for reassurances of his contract would suggest otherwise...



The finances of a chairman who had just cashed in 150k for Revell and let Savage et al go?

A chairman who has since CLEARLY released a higher budget got wages to Micky Adams?

Surely then the chairman must also appreciate a manager needs his big players and cannot constantly rebuild a team without it having a negative effect on the results.

A chairman who perhaps could have seen the long-term financial benefits of a likely play-off place and possible promotion?

I honestly think Knight never really wanted Wilkins as manager long-term and did not have the confidence in his judgement to release the funds we are now being seen given to Adams.

I have read several posts by you and you are spot on - Dick never wanted Hammond as he didn't rate him as player - Dean Wilkins wanted him to stay and tried to keep him - stood up to the chairman and like you said Dean was the loser - All Dean was doing was building a team as Dick had asked him to do but when you don't do as Dick wants you are out

I also feel that the club are moving more backwards than forwards - look at the facts - we have not spent any money they are either loans or frees - and how many faces from the past - I think Dick Knight needs to look at the meaning of forward because by letting Dean Wilkins go he has taken a very big step backwards

 

[Easy 10]

I have read several posts by you and you are spot on - Dick never wanted Hammond as he didn't rate him as player - Dean Wilkins wanted him to stay and tried to keep him - stood up to the chairman and like you said Dean was the loser - All Dean was doing was building a team as Dick had asked him to do but when you don't do as Dick wants you are out

I also feel that the club are moving more backwards than forwards - look at the facts - we have not spent any money they are either loans or frees - and how many faces from the past - I think Dick Knight needs to look at the meaning of forward because by letting Dean Wilkins go he has taken a very big step backwards

You ARE Dean Wilkins, and I hereby claim my £5.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Great shout

Have the club considered either Lord Bracknell or my ideas for Falmer?

Falmer? Why Falmer?

You could put my pitch in the middle of the Old Steine.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

All Dean was doing was building a team as Dick had asked him to do but when you don't do as Dick wants you are out

Run that past me again. I'm having problems making sense of it.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Maybe Wilkins had the chance to win the chairman's confidence and never took it?

What by coming seventh with a squad which was essentially a mixture of the youth team players WILKINS developed (including the Player of the Season) and loan players and transfers WILKINS signed?

By being a loyal and passionate servant to the club for YEARS?

Knight just used Wilkins to fill a gap until Falmer was approved and he could get a 'big name' manager in to bring back fickle fans who stayed away from Withdean but still managed to pass comment on the sort of football we were playing.

I have read several posts by you and you are spot on - Dick never wanted Hammond as he didn't rate him as player - Dean Wilkins wanted him to stay and tried to keep him - stood up to the chairman and like you said Dean was the loser - All Dean was doing was building a team as Dick had asked him to do but when you don't do as Dick wants you are out

Careful, questioning Knight tends to result in being called an idiot or being patronised...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Careful, questioning Knight tends to result in being called an idiot or being patronised...

Oh ... jolly good. Now, I know you aren't an idiot, Richie, but maybe some careful reading of some of the earlier posts on this thread might help you find the truth.

Is that OK?

 

[Brighton Breezy]

The truth? Or certain poster's VERSION of the truth.

It seems to me everyone on this thread is speculating on the basis of a few chats with players and coverage in the press - myself included.

I don't see anything wrong with healthy discussion but to suggest anyone's version of events is somehow true is misguided.

I think the only truth is we will never really know what went on. Everyone will have their suspicions based largely on whether you are pro Wilkins or pro Knight, or a bit of both.

I would suggest only Knight and Wilkins know what really went on and neither is likely to let it be known as I would expect both were at fault in different ways.

 

[deano seagulls]

Run that past me again. I'm having problems making sense of it.

Just read it slowly - Its quite simple - You won't beleive it anyway because you wouldn't have a word said against your precious Dick Knight - but unfortunately that is what happens when you are seen to be socialising with the chairman

 

[The Large One]

You're right, Ed, You are seen as a licker.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Just read it slowly - Its quite simple - You won't beleive it anyway because you wouldn't have a word said against your precious Dick Knight - but unfortunately that is what happens when you are seen to be socialising with the chairman

I've read it again. Slowly. I see what you're saying, now.

When the manager doesn't do what the chairman wants, the manager goes.

Yep. Can't disagree.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

You're right, Ed, You are seen as a licker.

I tried, Al.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This doesn't make any sense to me, LB.

You seem to be suggesting that Knight, having been crossed by Wilkins back in January, was upset enough to seal his fate, yet he then offers him a job as coach 4 months later??

It would have been difficult enough for Wilkins to work alongside the incoming manager, let alone a chairman who apparently thought he had worked against the clubs interests.

For the life of me I can't work out why Knight offered Wilkins the coaches job after sacking him as manager? Clearly, he'd lined up Adams and, surprise surprise, Adams rehired Booker. All very messy.

 

[deano seagulls]

He offers him a job because it was never a realistic job - ie he was working above Dean White - Knight demotes him to coach and he has too work under White - it was never going to work Dick knew that - it was just done to look to the fans as he was trying to be mr nicy guy when he wasn't - wouldn't surprise me if Dean was going to stay and Dick thought it best he left

 

[steward 433]

He offers him a job because it was never a realistic job - ie he was working above Dean White - Knight demotes him to coach and he has too work under White - it was never going to work Dick knew that - it was just done to look to the fans as he was trying to be mr nicy guy when he wasn't - wouldn't surprise me if Dean was going to stay and Dick thought it best he left

Verging on libel here

 

[deano seagulls]

Verging on libel here

How - all i have said is what happened isn't it?

 

[steward 433]

How - all i have said is what happened isn't it?

No you have assumed

 

[deano seagulls]

I thought that was Dick had offered Dean as a job - nothing libel about it - just facts

 

[Pavilionaire]

If the job offered was so bad why did Wilkins take so long before he refused it?

Wilkins has a much better CV than Dean White, it's not as if he'd find it hard to get a better job than the one Knight offered. Even then, Wilkins would only have been around until October when the first cull of managers starts to take place, so what's the point of risking backroom staff disruption after the season start?