So Stendel tried to engineer a move away immediately after gaining promotion following one of our best seasons ever? Aye oreight.
Yeah we know he mentioned experience just before season started, we don’t and won’t ever know the lead upto it. I do not believe for a minute he did not know Lindsey & Pinnock we’re leaving and if the rumours about Moore are true him too. The problem is there are so much behind the scenes that we don’t and shouldn’t see we will never know the truth and has been shown by all of us posting opinions even if the board or Stendel released info people would still not believe. I’m a firm believer in we are where we are and as a club should concentrate on moving forward. We need to park what has happened and concentrate on the fight ahead. That’s not to say we shouldn’t hold the club to rights as we go, just not keep looking back.
It’s quite weird that people can get info on foreign investors like the Chinese business men (which as we know is shrouded with mystery) but can’t get similar info on British individuals.
I agree to an extent but I think we're all hoping that the board have learned from history finally that in the championship you need some older heads. Here's hoping Struber's boys get some confidence back with a solid win today.
MT - the reference to self-sustainable is Barnsley not Brentford. There is no way with £100m of outside money are Brentford currently self sustainable!!!
Mr Kaht,the club explained the "Stendel debacle" as you call it was on legal advice.The information on Diaby wasn't late it was announced as soon as the FA informed the club and to the clubs credit they banned him immediately .
I dont have any issue with how theyve handled the Diaby affair but it wouldn't have been the club that did any of the banning.
Just to clarify are you saying that it's just a coincidence that Diaby was missing from the squad for two games prior to being banned? That the media has falsely reported that the club held a meeting with players and that the club were only informed after newspapers had been informed? Also the club stated quite clearly that the reason for their silence was respect for Daniel. Nothing to do with legal advice remember
If you want to accept those explanations that's fine by me. It was perfectly possible for the club to have indicated there was a legal dispute with Stendel without having to disclose details of that dispute. Instead the club remained silent for weeks and we were left to speculate as to the reasons a popular manager, carrying out the Board's policies (so far as we knew) was fired. As regards Diaby, again speculation on social media disclosed the issue before any information came from the club. I've no agenda here, but that looks like poor communication to me.
The club explained the reason for the 21 word statement.In all all fairness I'm sure 2 words would have been enough.And yes I agree he WAS a popular manager.
That's just their interpretation of the words. Barnsley football club said he was "subject to a playing suspension". FA rules do dictate that immediate suspension is enforced for certain test failures and at the day's discretion suspension may be enforced for other failures so it does suggest that the FA are the ones handing out the ban
If you honestly believe that the club suspended him when they didnt need to then you are deluded im afraid. No club would do that as it doesnt make sense. I know you defend them to the hilt but that's laughable.