|
Post by senojbor on Feb 15, 2017 8:32:38 GMT
Wow ! 27 pages and counting. I wish we could generate a fraction of this emotional energy and manufactured anger about some of the other issues which affect fans in football ! The recent Palace case showed that Tony P. is capable of telling untruths both to his employers and in court, so I wouldn't shake hands on deal with him unless I'd also got his signature on a piece of paper. That said, it doesn't mean that anyone he is having an argument with is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this is not an industry characterised by honesty, integrity and consistency. And all kinds of people in it are quite capable of trying to use the media to wind up supporters for their own purposes. In this case, our manager's statement that he didn't know why WBA hadn't been playing Berahino was bound to irritate WBA, given that they knew that he knew about the drugs suspension. I don't know why he talked about the past at WBA at all, rather than just talking about what he sees the player giving Stoke City in the future. So someone at WBA ( I cannot believe it was anyone at the FA) retaliates by leaking the drugs story to the press. That was deplorable and unprofessional. Was it done by Pulis, or with his knowledge ? Might have been, but might not have been. Who knows ? No-one has any evidence on that point. If Stoke City felt strongly enough about that (which they are entitled to) in my view the right response would have been to complain about it through the proper channels - CEO to CEO, Chairman to chairman or through a formal complaint to the FA ( for which there is a process). Then we have players, Ryan and Charlie, deciding to use the media to comment to criticise WBA. My advice to players would be to leave the PR stuff to the PR people. So Pulis makes a private phone call to Ryan in response, leaves a voicemail and uses the word 'loser'. Mark Hughes decides to put this in the media, even though he admits he hadn't actually listened to it. As FSF Chair I would never make a public comment about a voicemail unless I had heard it for myself, to judge context. But why did Hughes feel it was helpful to put it in the public domain - presumably to wind up Stoke fans, in which, if this Board is anything to go by, he has succeeded. So then yesterday, Pulis states in the Guardian that he is disgusted by the 'spin' Hughes has given to this which he says is completely wrong and out of context, and that so far from saying Ryan is a loser, he was actually saying the reverse. None of us can make a judgement on this unless we hear the voicemail for ourselves. And so the spat goes on. I'm afraid it all feels a bit like the playground to me. The end result might be that Pulis will get the kind of reception Wenger has had next time he comes to the Brit., and Ryan will get the kind of reception he gets at Arsenal next time we go the Hawthorns. And what will actually have been achieved by these 'professionals' ? Just about sums it up, well put over. Like I said earlier in the this thread Malcomn it was common knowledge about Berhahino. The press and their supporters knew about the ban. I for one and like you, would like a transcript of that voicemail. They may as well publish it if there's nothing to hide.
|
|
|
Post by terryconroysmagic on Feb 15, 2017 8:47:59 GMT
Wow ! 27 pages and counting. I wish we could generate a fraction of this emotional energy and manufactured anger about some of the other issues which affect fans in football ! The recent Palace case showed that Tony P. is capable of telling untruths both to his employers and in court, so I wouldn't shake hands on deal with him unless I'd also got his signature on a piece of paper. That said, it doesn't mean that anyone he is having an argument with is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this is not an industry characterised by honesty, integrity and consistency. And all kinds of people in it are quite capable of trying to use the media to wind up supporters for their own purposes. In this case, our manager's statement that he didn't know why WBA hadn't been playing Berahino was bound to irritate WBA, given that they knew that he knew about the drugs suspension. I don't know why he talked about the past at WBA at all, rather than just talking about what he sees the player giving Stoke City in the future. So someone at WBA ( I cannot believe it was anyone at the FA) retaliates by leaking the drugs story to the press. That was deplorable and unprofessional. Was it done by Pulis, or with his knowledge ? Might have been, but might not have been. Who knows ? No-one has any evidence on that point. If Stoke City felt strongly enough about that (which they are entitled to) in my view the right response would have been to complain about it through the proper channels - CEO to CEO, Chairman to chairman or through a formal complaint to the FA ( for which there is a process). Then we have players, Ryan and Charlie, deciding to use the media to comment to criticise WBA. My advice to players would be to leave the PR stuff to the PR people. So Pulis makes a private phone call to Ryan in response, leaves a voicemail and uses the word 'loser'. Mark Hughes decides to put this in the media, even though he admits he hadn't actually listened to it. As FSF Chair I would never make a public comment about a voicemail unless I had heard it for myself, to judge context. But why did Hughes feel it was helpful to put it in the public domain - presumably to wind up Stoke fans, in which, if this Board is anything to go by, he has succeeded. So then yesterday, Pulis states in the Guardian that he is disgusted by the 'spin' Hughes has given to this which he says is completely wrong and out of context, and that so far from saying Ryan is a loser, he was actually saying the reverse. None of us can make a judgement on this unless we hear the voicemail for ourselves. And so the spat goes on. I'm afraid it all feels a bit like the playground to me. The end result might be that Pulis will get the kind of reception Wenger has had next time he comes to the Brit., and Ryan will get the kind of reception he gets at Arsenal next time we go the Hawthorns. And what will actually have been achieved by these 'professionals' ? Just about sums it up, well put over. Like I said earlier in the this thread Malcomn it was common knowledge about Berhahino. The press and their supporters knew about the ban. I for one and like you, would like a transcript of that voicemail. They may as well publish it if there's nothing to hide. If it was common knowledge among their supporters can you explain why it wasn't all over their message boards, or do you think they're collectively smart enough to keep it quiet until the transfer was completed. lol
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Feb 15, 2017 9:45:50 GMT
Wow ! 27 pages and counting. I wish we could generate a fraction of this emotional energy and manufactured anger about some of the other issues which affect fans in football ! The recent Palace case showed that Tony P. is capable of telling untruths both to his employers and in court, so I wouldn't shake hands on deal with him unless I'd also got his signature on a piece of paper. That said, it doesn't mean that anyone he is having an argument with is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this is not an industry characterised by honesty, integrity and consistency. And all kinds of people in it are quite capable of trying to use the media to wind up supporters for their own purposes. In this case, our manager's statement that he didn't know why WBA hadn't been playing Berahino was bound to irritate WBA, given that they knew that he knew about the drugs suspension. I don't know why he talked about the past at WBA at all, rather than just talking about what he sees the player giving Stoke City in the future. So someone at WBA ( I cannot believe it was anyone at the FA) retaliates by leaking the drugs story to the press. That was deplorable and unprofessional. Was it done by Pulis, or with his knowledge ? Might have been, but might not have been. Who knows ? No-one has any evidence on that point. If Stoke City felt strongly enough about that (which they are entitled to) in my view the right response would have been to complain about it through the proper channels - CEO to CEO, Chairman to chairman or through a formal complaint to the FA ( for which there is a process). Then we have players, Ryan and Charlie, deciding to use the media to comment to criticise WBA. My advice to players would be to leave the PR stuff to the PR people. So Pulis makes a private phone call to Ryan in response, leaves a voicemail and uses the word 'loser'. Mark Hughes decides to put this in the media, even though he admits he hadn't actually listened to it. As FSF Chair I would never make a public comment about a voicemail unless I had heard it for myself, to judge context. But why did Hughes feel it was helpful to put it in the public domain - presumably to wind up Stoke fans, in which, if this Board is anything to go by, he has succeeded. So then yesterday, Pulis states in the Guardian that he is disgusted by the 'spin' Hughes has given to this which he says is completely wrong and out of context, and that so far from saying Ryan is a loser, he was actually saying the reverse. None of us can make a judgement on this unless we hear the voicemail for ourselves. And so the spat goes on. I'm afraid it all feels a bit like the playground to me. The end result might be that Pulis will get the kind of reception Wenger has had next time he comes to the Brit., and Ryan will get the kind of reception he gets at Arsenal next time we go the Hawthorns. And what will actually have been achieved by these 'professionals' ? Just about sums it up, well put over. Like I said earlier in the this thread Malcomn it was common knowledge about Berhahino. The press and their supporters knew about the ban. I for one and like you, would like a transcript of that voicemail. They may as well publish it if there's nothing to hide. You're no Stoke fan. You can't wait to wade into the club. 20K Albion fans new about the ban but they all kept it quiet. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds. Berk.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 15, 2017 11:24:32 GMT
Wow ! 27 pages and counting. I wish we could generate a fraction of this emotional energy and manufactured anger about some of the other issues which affect fans in football ! The recent Palace case showed that Tony P. is capable of telling untruths both to his employers and in court, so I wouldn't shake hands on deal with him unless I'd also got his signature on a piece of paper. That said, it doesn't mean that anyone he is having an argument with is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this is not an industry characterised by honesty, integrity and consistency. And all kinds of people in it are quite capable of trying to use the media to wind up supporters for their own purposes. In this case, our manager's statement that he didn't know why WBA hadn't been playing Berahino was bound to irritate WBA, given that they knew that he knew about the drugs suspension. I don't know why he talked about the past at WBA at all, rather than just talking about what he sees the player giving Stoke City in the future. So someone at WBA ( I cannot believe it was anyone at the FA) retaliates by leaking the drugs story to the press. That was deplorable and unprofessional. Was it done by Pulis, or with his knowledge ? Might have been, but might not have been. Who knows ? No-one has any evidence on that point. If Stoke City felt strongly enough about that (which they are entitled to) in my view the right response would have been to complain about it through the proper channels - CEO to CEO, Chairman to chairman or through a formal complaint to the FA ( for which there is a process). Then we have players, Ryan and Charlie, deciding to use the media to comment to criticise WBA. My advice to players would be to leave the PR stuff to the PR people. So Pulis makes a private phone call to Ryan in response, leaves a voicemail and uses the word 'loser'. Mark Hughes decides to put this in the media, even though he admits he hadn't actually listened to it. As FSF Chair I would never make a public comment about a voicemail unless I had heard it for myself, to judge context. But why did Hughes feel it was helpful to put it in the public domain - presumably to wind up Stoke fans, in which, if this Board is anything to go by, he has succeeded. So then yesterday, Pulis states in the Guardian that he is disgusted by the 'spin' Hughes has given to this which he says is completely wrong and out of context, and that so far from saying Ryan is a loser, he was actually saying the reverse. None of us can make a judgement on this unless we hear the voicemail for ourselves. And so the spat goes on. I'm afraid it all feels a bit like the playground to me. The end result might be that Pulis will get the kind of reception Wenger has had next time he comes to the Brit., and Ryan will get the kind of reception he gets at Arsenal next time we go the Hawthorns. And what will actually have been achieved by these 'professionals' ?
Hmmm ... your whole analysis of the situation Malcolm is based on your assumption that:
But whoah, hold your horses there for a second. Tony Pulis has already said himself that ... "Saido served a ban while he was here but I won't comment why. He didn't play for me because he wasn't fit enough,"
Saido's ban began in September and lasted for eight weeks, so there was plenty of time for him to be picked after his ban had been completed but no he still didn't get a nod from the manager.
At the end of the day Hughes didn't question why Pulis hadn't been picking the lad at all (as Pulis claimed) but actually said ...
"He has trained every day and looks really sharp. We have been really encouraged by what we have seen. His movement is tremendous, his work is of a high level. He still has a bit of a way to go to get right up to speed but we don't envisage it being too long until he is able to come through 90 minutes. I am not sure why he was deemed not fit at West Brom because, for us, he looks in good shape. I was speaking to him after a session the other day because his quality of runs was excellent."
In a quote that is totally about Berahino's fitness and where Hughes hasn't said anything at all that Pulis himself hasn't confirmed, just why were 'West Brom bound to get so irritated by it'?
With respect Malcolm, I think you're looking for an angle to make your theory work that doesn't hold anymore water than those people who are suggesting that the story was leaked without provocation in order to try to destabilise Stoke City/Mark Hughes/Berahino immediately prior to the match.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 15, 2017 22:16:27 GMT
Wow ! 27 pages and counting. I wish we could generate a fraction of this emotional energy and manufactured anger about some of the other issues which affect fans in football ! The recent Palace case showed that Tony P. is capable of telling untruths both to his employers and in court, so I wouldn't shake hands on deal with him unless I'd also got his signature on a piece of paper. That said, it doesn't mean that anyone he is having an argument with is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this is not an industry characterised by honesty, integrity and consistency. And all kinds of people in it are quite capable of trying to use the media to wind up supporters for their own purposes. In this case, our manager's statement that he didn't know why WBA hadn't been playing Berahino was bound to irritate WBA, given that they knew that he knew about the drugs suspension. I don't know why he talked about the past at WBA at all, rather than just talking about what he sees the player giving Stoke City in the future. So someone at WBA ( I cannot believe it was anyone at the FA) retaliates by leaking the drugs story to the press. That was deplorable and unprofessional. Was it done by Pulis, or with his knowledge ? Might have been, but might not have been. Who knows ? No-one has any evidence on that point. If Stoke City felt strongly enough about that (which they are entitled to) in my view the right response would have been to complain about it through the proper channels - CEO to CEO, Chairman to chairman or through a formal complaint to the FA ( for which there is a process). Then we have players, Ryan and Charlie, deciding to use the media to comment to criticise WBA. My advice to players would be to leave the PR stuff to the PR people. So Pulis makes a private phone call to Ryan in response, leaves a voicemail and uses the word 'loser'. Mark Hughes decides to put this in the media, even though he admits he hadn't actually listened to it. As FSF Chair I would never make a public comment about a voicemail unless I had heard it for myself, to judge context. But why did Hughes feel it was helpful to put it in the public domain - presumably to wind up Stoke fans, in which, if this Board is anything to go by, he has succeeded. So then yesterday, Pulis states in the Guardian that he is disgusted by the 'spin' Hughes has given to this which he says is completely wrong and out of context, and that so far from saying Ryan is a loser, he was actually saying the reverse. None of us can make a judgement on this unless we hear the voicemail for ourselves. And so the spat goes on. I'm afraid it all feels a bit like the playground to me. The end result might be that Pulis will get the kind of reception Wenger has had next time he comes to the Brit., and Ryan will get the kind of reception he gets at Arsenal next time we go the Hawthorns. And what will actually have been achieved by these 'professionals' ?
Hmmm ... your whole analysis of the situation Malcolm is based on your assumption that:
But whoah, hold your horses there for a second. Tony Pulis has already said himself that ... "Saido served a ban while he was here but I won't comment why. He didn't play for me because he wasn't fit enough,"
Saido's ban began in September and lasted for eight weeks, so there was plenty of time for him to be picked after his ban had been completed but no he still didn't get a nod from the manager.
At the end of the day Hughes didn't question why Pulis hadn't been picking the lad at all (as Pulis claimed) but actually said ...
"He has trained every day and looks really sharp. We have been really encouraged by what we have seen. His movement is tremendous, his work is of a high level. He still has a bit of a way to go to get right up to speed but we don't envisage it being too long until he is able to come through 90 minutes. I am not sure why he was deemed not fit at West Brom because, for us, he looks in good shape. I was speaking to him after a session the other day because his quality of runs was excellent."
In a quote that is totally about Berahino's fitness and where Hughes hasn't said anything at all that Pulis himself hasn't confirmed, just why were 'West Brom bound to get so irritated by it'?
With respect Malcolm, I think you're looking for an angle to make your theory work that doesn't hold anymore water than those people who are suggesting that the story was leaked without provocation in order to try to destabilise Stoke City/Mark Hughes/Berahino immediately prior to the match.
Paul, I'm not looking for an angle to make a theory work. What possible motivation would I have for doing that ? I gave a view based on what I had read. You have provided some more detail which I hadnt picked up which is fine but even taking that into account I think it is still the case that a public criticism of west brom (which a questioning of the accuracy of their statement about his fitness is ) will irritate them. Why mention West Brom at all ? No need to add fuel to the fire by doing so. Why not just say positive things about the player?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 16, 2017 0:32:53 GMT
Hmmm ... your whole analysis of the situation Malcolm is based on your assumption that:
But whoah, hold your horses there for a second. Tony Pulis has already said himself that ... "Saido served a ban while he was here but I won't comment why. He didn't play for me because he wasn't fit enough,"
Saido's ban began in September and lasted for eight weeks, so there was plenty of time for him to be picked after his ban had been completed but no he still didn't get a nod from the manager.
At the end of the day Hughes didn't question why Pulis hadn't been picking the lad at all (as Pulis claimed) but actually said ...
"He has trained every day and looks really sharp. We have been really encouraged by what we have seen. His movement is tremendous, his work is of a high level. He still has a bit of a way to go to get right up to speed but we don't envisage it being too long until he is able to come through 90 minutes. I am not sure why he was deemed not fit at West Brom because, for us, he looks in good shape. I was speaking to him after a session the other day because his quality of runs was excellent."
In a quote that is totally about Berahino's fitness and where Hughes hasn't said anything at all that Pulis himself hasn't confirmed, just why were 'West Brom bound to get so irritated by it'?
With respect Malcolm, I think you're looking for an angle to make your theory work that doesn't hold anymore water than those people who are suggesting that the story was leaked without provocation in order to try to destabilise Stoke City/Mark Hughes/Berahino immediately prior to the match.
Paul, I'm not looking for an angle to make a theory work. What possible motivation would I have for doing that ? I gave a view based on what I had read. You have provided some more detail which I hadnt picked up which is fine but even taking that into account I think it is still the case that a public criticism of west brom (which a questioning of the accuracy of their statement about his fitness is ) will irritate them. Why mention West Brom at all ? No need to add fuel to the fire by doing so. Why not just say positive things about the player?
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino leak was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
|
|
|
Post by ferryside on Feb 16, 2017 9:03:12 GMT
Paul, I'm not looking for an angle to make a theory work. What possible motivation would I have for doing that ? I gave a view based on what I had read. You have provided some more detail which I hadnt picked up which is fine but even taking that into account I think it is still the case that a public criticism of west brom (which a questioning of the accuracy of their statement about his fitness is ) will irritate them. Why mention West Brom at all ? No need to add fuel to the fire by doing so. Why not just say positive things about the player?
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino link was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
To be honest prior to the January window coming up I recall looking up what had happened with Berahino given he might be in the frame again. The story went that he'd been away to France to improve his fitness and come back in November (when I imagine his ban ended) and Pulis claimed he was nearing fitness for the squad. However when he returned he'd had a talk with the management team and they'd all come to a different conclusion between them. He alluded to the fact he'd been a bit down and lost a bit of confidence and they all agreed he wasn't fully fit and his head wasn't right as a result - so he was to go back to the camp. Berahino was very gushing however about the support he'd been afforded, how he appreciated the club, it was what he'd grown up knowing and was raring to repay their faith in him. At the time I figured ah well maybe they've turned his head around again but I also found it odd that if he was mentally suffering then why send him off back into some kind of isolation. Reading ex-player comments about being either in or obviously out with TP - I figured maybe a bit of the old school tough love was going on and he was being taught a life lesson. During his extended isolation they again tried to get to sign again and in the press expressed he still wasn't fit enough to join the squad. Berahino later sending an angry faced tweet to basically dispute that - which was quickly deleted. This was about 7-8 weeks later. In the same article TP stated it was going to be hard work getting him back to where he was 18 months ago but was happy about the fact he only had another month of this to go as his contract would expire and they would now be putting a final one in front of him. The wording of the story was that he'd been frozen out too. This fits with when he joined claiming he couldn't understand why they wanted him to sign as he was no longer made to feel to be part of their plans or future. I imagine this is what Hughes is alluding to when his fitness itself had been questioned by the press and it continually bandied about in the papers being unfit before we signed him. Berahino had also stated he had no issues personally with TP on leaving and wanted to move on and prove himself. He just seems bemused about where he stood and the constant inference he was just not bothering to get himself fit. So I agree with the poster above you'd have to be looking for a reason to blow the doors off the whole affair after a comment like that or bitter about the outcome of him going to Stoke. There are many cases where players have mysterious extended "injuries" that never get exposed and he won't have been the last - I imagine it's an unspoken rule professionally to keep court with it (as they did until 2 days before the game). Why just not say we felt mentally he wasn't ready or needed a new start (as they'd more or less stated before). For me it's a complete overreaction to go and construct that scenario via the press which I don't believe has been denied. I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is always the best plan but I also think it depends if you know who and what you're dealing with. In life sometimes you have to play people at their own game to put them back in their place.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 16, 2017 9:10:39 GMT
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino link was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
To be honest prior to the January window coming up I recall looking up what had happened with Berahino given he might be in the frame again. The story went that he'd been away to France to improve his fitness and come back in November (when I imagine his ban ended) and Pulis claimed he was nearing fitness for the squad. However when he returned he'd had a talk with the management team and they'd all come to a different conclusion. He alluded to the fact he'd been a bit down and lost a bit of confidence and they all agreed he wasn't fully fit as a result - so he was to go back to the camp. He was very gushing however about the support he'd been afforded, how he appreciated the club, it was what hed grown up knowing and was raring to repay their faith. At the time I figured ah well maybe they've turned his head around again but also found it odd that if he was down then why send him off back into some kind of isolation. Reading ex-player comment about being either in or out with TP I figured maybe a bit of the old school tough love was going on and he was bein taught a life lesson. During his extended isolation they tried to get him to sign again and alluded to the fact he still wasn't fit enough to join the squad with Berahino later sending an angry faced tweet to basically dispute that - which was quickly deleted. In the same article TP stated it was going to be hard work getting him back to where he was 18 months ago and was happy about the fact he only had another month of this as his contract would expire and they would be putting a final one in front of him. The wording of the story was that he'd been frozen out too. When he joined he claimed he couldn't understand why they wanted him to sign as he was no longer made to feel to be part of their plans. I imagine this is what Hughes is alluding to when his fitness itself had been questioned and continually bandied about in the papers before we signed him. Berahino had also stated he had no issues personally with TP on leaving. He just seems bemused about where he stood and the constant inference he was just not bothering to get himself fit. So I agree with the poster above you'd have to be looking for a reason to blow the doors off the whole affair after a comment like that or bitter about the outcome of him going to Stoke. There are many cases where players have mysterious extended "injuries" that never get exposed and he won't have been the last - I imagine it's an unspoken rule professionally to keep court with it (as they did until 2 days before the game).Why just not say we felt mentally he wasn't ready (as they'd more or less stated before). For me it's a complete overreaction to go an instruct that scenario which I don't believe has been denied. We know about these well!
|
|
|
Post by greyman on Feb 16, 2017 9:48:29 GMT
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino link was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
To be honest prior to the January window coming up I recall looking up what had happened with Berahino given he might be in the frame again. The story went that he'd been away to France to improve his fitness and come back in November (when I imagine his ban ended) and Pulis claimed he was nearing fitness for the squad. However when he returned he'd had a talk with the management team and they'd all come to a different conclusion between them. He alluded to the fact he'd been a bit down and lost a bit of confidence and they all agreed he wasn't fully fit and his head wasn't right as a result - so he was to go back to the camp. Berahino was very gushing however about the support he'd been afforded, how he appreciated the club, it was what he'd grown up knowing and was raring to repay their faith in him. At the time I figured ah well maybe they've turned his head around again but I also found it odd that if he was mentally suffering then why send him off back into some kind of isolation. Reading ex-player comments about being either in or obviously out with TP - I figured maybe a bit of the old school tough love was going on and he was being taught a life lesson. During his extended isolation they again tried to get to sign again and in the press expressed he still wasn't fit enough to join the squad. Berahino later sending an angry faced tweet to basically dispute that - which was quickly deleted. This was about 7-8 weeks later. In the same article TP stated it was going to be hard work getting him back to where he was 18 months ago but was happy about the fact he only had another month of this to go as his contract would expire and they would now be putting a final one in front of him. The wording of the story was that he'd been frozen out too. This fits with when he joined claiming he couldn't understand why they wanted him to sign as he was no longer made to feel to be part of their plans or future. I imagine this is what Hughes is alluding to when his fitness itself had been questioned by the press and it continually bandied about in the papers being unfit before we signed him. Berahino had also stated he had no issues personally with TP on leaving and wanted to move on and prove himself. He just seems bemused about where he stood and the constant inference he was just not bothering to get himself fit. So I agree with the poster above you'd have to be looking for a reason to blow the doors off the whole affair after a comment like that or bitter about the outcome of him going to Stoke. There are many cases where players have mysterious extended "injuries" that never get exposed and he won't have been the last - I imagine it's an unspoken rule professionally to keep court with it (as they did until 2 days before the game). Why just not say we felt mentally he wasn't ready or needed a new start (as they'd more or less stated before). For me it's a complete overreaction to go and construct that scenario via the press which I don't believe has been denied. I'm not sure fighting fire with fire is always the best plan but I also think it depends if you know who and what you're dealing with. In life sometimes you have to play people at their own game to put them back in their place. Exactly. Pulis has a big problem with Stoke. I think we've handled this whole thing poorly at times but we've also been put in a no win situation. The thing with Berahino was a low trick whoever pulled it but the call to Shawcross was puerile and beyond the pale. I'm glad we called Pulis out on it and glad he reacted like he did. Hopefully it will stop this nonsense next time we play them.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Feb 16, 2017 23:11:10 GMT
Paul, I'm not looking for an angle to make a theory work. What possible motivation would I have for doing that ? I gave a view based on what I had read. You have provided some more detail which I hadnt picked up which is fine but even taking that into account I think it is still the case that a public criticism of west brom (which a questioning of the accuracy of their statement about his fitness is ) will irritate them. Why mention West Brom at all ? No need to add fuel to the fire by doing so. Why not just say positive things about the player?
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino leak was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
Paul, why on earth do you think the alternative that there was no provocation from anybody at Stoke City would be "quite unpalatable" to me ? I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, and I'm a Stoke City fan not a WBA fan. If I was engaging in the bizarre and ultimately pointless mental process of twisting information to make a theory work ( which I'm not) it certainly wouldn't be a theory which was hostile to my own club. But it is equally self-defeating to look at the actions of your own club and its employees through rose tinted specs. Personally, I don't think Hughes' statement about WBA's assessment of Berahino's fitness which you underlined was "most innocuous" at all, because it questioned either their competence or their honesty or both, and I suspect was intended to publicly discredit them. But in any case, as I said above, the leaking or his drugs ban was deplorable and unprofessional, regardless of whether it was provoked or not, so it doesn't really make any difference to my view of that even if you are right that it would have happened anyway. But hey, I'm now allowing myself to succomb to exactly what I expressed astonishment about in my first post, the expending of time and emotional energy on a matter which I see as basically one of unprofessional behaviour to differing degrees by a number of people on both 'sides' - which comes as no real surprise in the world of professional football. So I will bow out of the discussion at this point and concentrate on the things I should be doing. But thanks for your comments and challenges.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 16, 2017 23:17:12 GMT
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino leak was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
Paul, why on earth do you think the alternative that there was no provocation from anybody at Stoke City would be "quite unpalatable" to me ? I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, and I'm a Stoke City fan not a WBA fan. If I was engaging in the bizarre and ultimately pointless mental process of twisting information to make a theory work ( which I'm not) it certainly wouldn't be a theory which was hostile to my own club. But it is equally self-defeating to look at the actions of your own club and its employees through rose tinted specs. Personally, I don't think Hughes' statement about WBA's assessment of Berahino's fitness which you underlined was "most innocuous" at all, because it questioned either their competence or their honesty or both, and I suspect was intended to publicly discredit them. But in any case, as I said above, the leaking or his drugs ban was deplorable and unprofessional, regardless of whether it was provoked or not, so it doesn't really make any difference to my view of that even if you are right that it would have happened anyway. But hey, I'm now allowing myself to succomb to exactly what I expressed astonishment about in my first post, the expending of time and emotional energy on a matter which I see as basically one of unprofessional behaviour to differing degrees by a number of people on both 'sides' - which comes as no real surprise in the world of professional football. So I will bow out of the discussion at this point and concentrate on the things I should be doing. But thanks for your comments and challenges. Probably the most eloquent 'fuck off' I've ever read :D
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 16, 2017 23:22:57 GMT
Paul, why on earth do you think the alternative that there was no provocation from anybody at Stoke City would be "quite unpalatable" to me ? I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, and I'm a Stoke City fan not a WBA fan. If I was engaging in the bizarre and ultimately pointless mental process of twisting information to make a theory work ( which I'm not) it certainly wouldn't be a theory which was hostile to my own club. But it is equally self-defeating to look at the actions of your own club and its employees through rose tinted specs. Personally, I don't think Hughes' statement about WBA's assessment of Berahino's fitness which you underlined was "most innocuous" at all, because it questioned either their competence or their honesty or both, and I suspect was intended to publicly discredit them. But in any case, as I said above, the leaking or his drugs ban was deplorable and unprofessional, regardless of whether it was provoked or not, so it doesn't really make any difference to my view of that even if you are right that it would have happened anyway. But hey, I'm now allowing myself to succomb to exactly what I expressed astonishment about in my first post, the expending of time and emotional energy on a matter which I see as basically one of unprofessional behaviour to differing degrees by a number of people on both 'sides' - which comes as no real surprise in the world of professional football. So I will bow out of the discussion at this point and concentrate on the things I should be doing. But thanks for your comments and challenges. Probably the most eloquent 'fuck off' I've ever read I was thinking more 'cop out'.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Feb 16, 2017 23:25:30 GMT
Probably the most eloquent 'fuck off' I've ever read :D I was thinking more 'cop out'. :D It was eloquent, whatever it was :)
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Feb 16, 2017 23:29:19 GMT
Wow ! 27 pages and counting. I wish we could generate a fraction of this emotional energy and manufactured anger about some of the other issues which affect fans in football ! The recent Palace case showed that Tony P. is capable of telling untruths both to his employers and in court, so I wouldn't shake hands on deal with him unless I'd also got his signature on a piece of paper. That said, it doesn't mean that anyone he is having an argument with is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Unfortunately, this is not an industry characterised by honesty, integrity and consistency. And all kinds of people in it are quite capable of trying to use the media to wind up supporters for their own purposes. In this case, our manager's statement that he didn't know why WBA hadn't been playing Berahino was bound to irritate WBA, given that they knew that he knew about the drugs suspension. I don't know why he talked about the past at WBA at all, rather than just talking about what he sees the player giving Stoke City in the future. So someone at WBA ( I cannot believe it was anyone at the FA) retaliates by leaking the drugs story to the press. That was deplorable and unprofessional. Was it done by Pulis, or with his knowledge ? Might have been, but might not have been. Who knows ? No-one has any evidence on that point. If Stoke City felt strongly enough about that (which they are entitled to) in my view the right response would have been to complain about it through the proper channels - CEO to CEO, Chairman to chairman or through a formal complaint to the FA ( for which there is a process). Then we have players, Ryan and Charlie, deciding to use the media to comment to criticise WBA. My advice to players would be to leave the PR stuff to the PR people. So Pulis makes a private phone call to Ryan in response, leaves a voicemail and uses the word 'loser'. Mark Hughes decides to put this in the media, even though he admits he hadn't actually listened to it. As FSF Chair I would never make a public comment about a voicemail unless I had heard it for myself, to judge context. But why did Hughes feel it was helpful to put it in the public domain - presumably to wind up Stoke fans, in which, if this Board is anything to go by, he has succeeded. So then yesterday, Pulis states in the Guardian that he is disgusted by the 'spin' Hughes has given to this which he says is completely wrong and out of context, and that so far from saying Ryan is a loser, he was actually saying the reverse. None of us can make a judgement on this unless we hear the voicemail for ourselves. And so the spat goes on. I'm afraid it all feels a bit like the playground to me. The end result might be that Pulis will get the kind of reception Wenger has had next time he comes to the Brit., and Ryan will get the kind of reception he gets at Arsenal next time we go the Hawthorns. And what will actually have been achieved by these 'professionals' ? I strongly suspect you are as close to the truth with that assessment as it is humanly possible to be looking in from the outside Malcolm and your conclusions are the right ones
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 17, 2017 0:13:13 GMT
I guess your motivation for wanting to make your theory work, is that the alternative would be quite unpalatable to you, as it would ultimately mean that the Berahino leak was made completely without provocation from anybody at Stoke City.
Really, taking into account the context (and that's the important part) of what Mark Hughes said, then I don't think that anybody would have batted an eyelid when he mentioned West Brom.
And how was he 'adding fuel to the fire'? There wasn't actually any fire burning at the point he said what he said.
It would take the most sensitive of souls to take offence to a most innocuous comment, indeed there wasn't anything to take offence to.
I think it's takes a massive leap to link the two incidents actually.
Paul, why on earth do you think the alternative that there was no provocation from anybody at Stoke City would be "quite unpalatable" to me ? I have no vested interest in this whatsoever, and I'm a Stoke City fan not a WBA fan. If I was engaging in the bizarre and ultimately pointless mental process of twisting information to make a theory work ( which I'm not) it certainly wouldn't be a theory which was hostile to my own club. But it is equally self-defeating to look at the actions of your own club and its employees through rose tinted specs. Personally, I don't think Hughes' statement about WBA's assessment of Berahino's fitness which you underlined was "most innocuous" at all, because it questioned either their competence or their honesty or both, and I suspect was intended to publicly discredit them.
But in any case, as I said above, the leaking or his drugs ban was deplorable and unprofessional, regardless of whether it was provoked or not, so it doesn't really make any difference to my view of that even if you are right that it would have happened anyway. But hey, I'm now allowing myself to succomb to exactly what I expressed astonishment about in my first post, the expending of time and emotional energy on a matter which I see as basically one of unprofessional behaviour to differing degrees by a number of people on both 'sides' - which comes as no real surprise in the world of professional football. So I will bow out of the discussion at this point and concentrate on the things I should be doing. But thanks for your comments and challenges.
Yeah, you're suggesting that Mark Hughes is the chief protagonist in all of this, erm ... clearly.
Hughes made a simple remark about the kid's fitness and the only reason you're linking the two incidents is because you can't square the circle any other way.
How about ... Mark Hughes made a comment that was aimed squarely at building up the confidence of his new signing, which in fact, was totally in keeping with what Tony Pulis had said himself about the lad and it had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the decision to leak the story about Berahino's drugs ban, indeed the leak had actually nothing at all to do with retaliation but was nothing more, than, simply, a premeditated, mischievous and malicious unilateral act, made with the sole intent of destabilising Stoke City FC/Mark Hughes/Saido Berahino.
Really Malcolm, this is just as a plausible (and actually probably a lot more plausible from where I'm sitting) scenario, as the one that you're suggesting.
|
|