Bang on article
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Nobbybm  Dartford 14 Sep 17 8.54am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by MKCPFC
Facts are a rubbish pre - season which continued into the Premier league where we have no points and no goals and we have played 3 teams that we would hope to get something from. The only 'fact' we actually can be sure of is that we, nor the press/media, have all the facts. Everything so far is conjecture & supposition
Will this be five? It's gonna be five! It IS five! |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| the.universal 14 Sep 17 9.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Frank is gone, Vive le Roy!
Vive le Roy! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mstrobez 14 Sep 17 9.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ARGILE OLD GEEZER
But that's exactly whatYOU have done. Re read the post again. It's exactly what I have done to highlight the value of basing an argument on rumours. I concluded it with stating facts of the case - a manager should not be sacked after 4 games as you cannot achieve anything sustainable in 4 games. The only argument I've heard against that is rumours, which is exactly my point.
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mstrobez 14 Sep 17 9.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by MKCPFC
Facts are a rubbish pre - season which continued into the Premier league where we have no points and no goals and we have played 3 teams that we would hope to get something from. Rubbish pre season? Huh? One loss which was against Liverpool, draw against Schalke, a win against a comparable premier league side. What are you talking about? Blinded with hate from day 1. The bad start is still impossible to determine as an ultimate failure. From watching football my entire life I deem that as close to a fact as you can get. You can base it on Big Sams first 4 games if you want an example closer to home. You're more than welcome to disagree but I think the majority of the footballing world would say that judging a manager on the basis of 4 games and then sacking him is a kick in the teeth and as I've said before, had it been any other club in the premier league to of acted in this way, especially with the chairman giving it billy big bollocks on twitter the night before - I would've reacted with the same discontent. Edited by Mstrobez (14 Sep 2017 9.23am)
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dg1937 14 Sep 17 9.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
Re read the post again. It's exactly what I have done to highlight the value of basing an argument on rumours. I concluded it with stating facts of the case - a manager should not be sacked after 4 games as you cannot achieve anything sustainable in 4 games. The only argument I've heard against that is rumours, which is exactly my point. I don't think saying saying 'Parish had no reason to get rid of FDB' is a 'fact' at all, it's your opinion - a perfectly valid opinion shared by many but that doesn't make it a fact. The only 'fact' I can discern in any of this mess is that none of us knows what actually went on and it's pretty unlikely that we ever will.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mstrobez 14 Sep 17 9.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by dg1937
I don't think saying saying 'Parish had no reason to get rid of FDB' is a 'fact' at all, it's your opinion - a perfectly valid opinion shared by many but that doesn't make it a fact. The only 'fact' I can discern in any of this mess is that none of us knows what actually went on and it's pretty unlikely that we ever will. I don't think I ever said that at all so no idea where you've got that idea from. What I've said is pretty much exactly what you concluded. The fact we know is he was sacked after 4 games, anything beyond that to do with both Frank or Parish is a rumour. My point is if you're gonna argue against the problem with hiring a manager and then sacking him after 4 games, using rumours to argue your side is pointless, because there are many rumours flying about for Parish as well.
We're the Arthur over ere! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davehuggins Online 14 Sep 17 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Whatever anybody says the facts are very clear SP has not come out of this smelling of roses!! FdB should never have been appointed in the first place and far too many things have happened in the months gone by for me to have confidence in his ability. Let's get back to the real business of supporting our lads and Roy COYP
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dg1937 14 Sep 17 9.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mstrobez
I don't think I ever said that at all so no idea where you've got that idea from. What I've said is pretty much exactly what you concluded. The fact we know is he was sacked after 4 games, anything beyond that to do with both Frank or Parish is a rumour. My point is if you're gonna argue against the problem with hiring a manager and then sacking him after 4 games, using rumours to argue your side is pointless, because there are many rumours flying about for Parish as well. Just quoting from the last sentence of your 6.30 post, the one that says 'and the fact is...'
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| bicycle repair man 14 Sep 17 9.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Frank wasn't sacked just because of results on the pitch.The man was a loose cannon,who once the season started realised he was out of his depth,and began to use training methods that isolated players,and bordered on bullying.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 14 Sep 17 9.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
The only fact is Frank lied in his interviews to the board and to fans via the training field in CPFC.co.uk interviews. He then couldn't implement his project he didn't have agreement for so relationships would've been very strained. If anyone says they would be happy with this they're lying themselves. I also didn't hear any comments about any transfers, neither frustrations or targets he wanted. Pretty much nothing. Just mumbling in his dour way.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tommyp151211 14 Sep 17 10.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
One thing that is impossible to explain is the fact that we played so well after going behind so early. If there was ever an opportunity to throw a manager under a bus with a poor performance than that was it but the performance completely contradicts the reported bad relationship between manager and players. The only reason that I can fathom for this is that everyone knew Frank was off after the game apart from Frank himself. Which begs the question of why he was still there in the first place. I think it's evident that the fans have been lied to in some capacity and that is the most disappointing thing. The whole situation just does not make sense.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| manwitheagletattoo Somewhere in England 14 Sep 17 10.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
As we all know the press love to build issues up and then glorify in their achievements. We and the press can all speculate what went on behind the scenes. The issues surrounding De Boer's sacking will only be revealed if Steve Parish opens up, and that is highly unlikely. I really think Parish was pressured into this sacking by the Yanks, they need returns like all investor's. If reports are true as in the press today that Hodgson has been given a £40 million transfer kitty then in my eyes this shows that money was held back. Like Moyes at Manchester United he came in and tried doing this his way, to fast to soon and upset players, is that the case De Boer. It is also strange the employment of Freedman, no one saw that on the cards, Who choice was it to bring in Oumar Niasse, at the last minute, Freedman's or De Boer. I hope that if this £40million war chest Hodgson has is spent wisely, as I have mentioned before, depth of squad is a priority
South London & Proud |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.