Official club statement about Stendel

Given the contradictory things said by the board, the statement issued by Heart of Midlothian which Daniel Stendel has shared, and the amount of time it has taken to put the statement out, I have to say I’m less than convinced.

There’s a lot on this thread who reckon anyone doubting the board have egg on their faces now.

I couldn’t agree less.

If the statement released is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I’d be absolutely amazed. But it would also contradict what they said previously.

Hearts think different, and the club are happy to name Hearts but not mention the other club pertinent in the story.

I have no trust or faith in the owners of this club. They may or may not be being mostly truthful here - but I don’t think they are being completely truthful at all and so there is doubt about everything said.

Did Stendel speak to Huddersfield (or A N Other club)? Yes, probably. And that was out of order.

Did they though then use it as an excuse to sack him weeks and weeks later, then refuse to allow him to work elsewhere without getting compo? I reckon that appears to be the case as well.

The rest of the interview worries me. It’s not the age or quality of the squad that’s the problem, it’s that there’s too many.

So if we’d only signed Diaby and Andersen, not Halme, and signed Wilkes and Thomas, but not Chaplin, Radlinger but not Collins, we’d have been much higher in the league.

Load of absolute cak

 

He's not embarrassing himself. Well, he isn't embarrassing himself in front of me. I too find the two statements in contradiction.

 

That they brought many more players into the club than at any time in our history and on longer term contracts to try and create a stability. Which was explained at the time. Not about the quality of players. Nobody could make such a bold statement if it was based on the latter. Genuinly mate why do you call em liars on this statement. If you pick the latter then we can't agree.

 

It just seemed like it was about the latter to me. I'd never seen it explained as being about the amount of players before.

On the amount of players brought in though didn't we bring in far more than that 2 years ago? 15 or 16 I think.

 

Really? OK, but it seems obvious that the board could have identified a target to replace Stendel whenever he would leave. Also that it would take time to get that target in if the circumstances presented themselves in short order. Can you explain why that is a contradiction?

 

You don't think they were looking at Tonge as a replacement given he was being schooled in the Stendel way which is what they said they wanted throughout the club?

 

Quite possibly.

 

Don't know about 2 yrs ago. but I also assume players that were brought in to the development squad on long term were in the figures. Also signing of players in the academy on professional contracts.

 

I think yours is a reasonable interpretation. I don't know if it's right and neither do I think someone was embarrassing themselves for not having thought along those lines. I don't mind admitting that I hadn't and I don't feel embarrassed that I didn't. Just that you've given me something else to think about.

 

Ok. Maybe I was a bit harsh!!

 

Something else to think about.

Didn't they say that they actually wanted Struber when they set Daniel on? As in he was first choice, Daniel was second. Would that explain him having been on the radar a long time?

 

Having doubts are different to having facts. They did not sack him solely on speaking to Huddersfield. Conway said there were other factors. Results being one I assume. Struber has said there are too many in the squad to his liking. They have acknowledged that.

Hearts think differently so are you saying they're in the right.

I personally don't think those that doubt anything have egg on their faces. It's a natural trait I'm sure we've all been there. Accusations without proof I have a difficulty with. You ended with load of absolute cak. Your perogative. Some of the stuff you struggle with doesn't match. Make your mind up.

 

It's getting very much like reading the posts about Jeremy Corbyn. The tone is exactly the same. If you even question the board, not disagree, just question, you're belittled as a Stendel lover. His character is being rubbished, one side of an issue is taken as fact without the other even presented, people are patronised, it's sanctimonious lecturing, not discussion. This really is ****.

I don't know what to believe yet, but I know without the other side even saying a word there are enough inconsistencies from Paul Conway for me to be sceptical.

 

It's sod all to do with hearts how big our squad is

 

Edited thanks.

 

So in order for the board to " protect" Daniel's good character what did he have to do? What were those 2 months of negotiations about?

 

Spoilsport

 

you have to say Paul Conway is the most unluckiest co-owner in the world. That’s two head coach’s that have wanted to leave, both come as total shocks, without any warning and both totally unexplainable to him

have to say he wouldn’t make a great psychic would he?

 

I’ve listened again, for a third time. Genuinely tried to be fair and balanced - because I haven’t been in my comments on the Board in general and Paul Conway in particular.

But, two things. I’ve rarely heard such a set of contradictions or such self justification. That’s fine. He has a job to do and is clearly under pressure. However, he’s also fallen into Trumpian mode of claiming his opinions as facts. I’m sorry Mr Conway, we can all have opinions, but you really can’t have your own facts. Distinctly unimpressive.
One last thing. Although a number on here would support your proposition “it’s only about winning” (which we’re not incidentally) it isn’t.
What it’s really about is, competing, respecting your fan base, being open and transparent and having some regard to the values of the town that you purport to represent.

I don’t think any of those even cross your mind.

 

So instead of emptying 50k new nurses, you're saying this also includes the retention of 19k existing ones?