|
Post by miggoscfc on Jan 25, 2019 10:43:52 GMT
The biggest concern i have is Mark Cartwrong and his band of not so merry men go out and put this list together of players who are available.
If players are available then it only makes sense that we are buying them from bigger clubs than ourselves as why would we want available players from teams worse than us unless there is an exceptional circumstance like contract running low etc.
The point i am getting too is do we ever look at players who are not available ? You know decent players who clubs dont want to lose, when was the last time we bid for a player who was not already for sale. There is a good reason players are available and its usually because they are shite.
We seem to chase managers that are not available but dont do it with players ? Why. Surely if you want to improve you try and tempt the better players who are good players and are guaranteed starters from the weaker teams lower than us or try and attract squad players who may not be playing every week in stronger teams.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 25, 2019 11:36:00 GMT
Would it not be better to have a question and answer session with smudge and say trouserdog rather than a controlled phone in ? The idea we scout players on average 25 times is ludicrous from many angles. Seems that has to b looking at dvds etc and that’s no way to scout a player. It is seriously flawed and little wonder the mess created. And where does uncle peter sit in the process? Surely there are occasions where he should override the process? Namely Berahino and McClean would b examples. The guy is too soft I didn't listen last night so can't comment on the content, although it's clear there are a range of views on this thread on the CEO's performance. But I think it is optimistic to expect the local radio phone-in format to be an effective vehicle for exploring in any depth issues of concern to supporters, other than those which just require a simple factual answer. The elected Supporters Council should be the place where that happens, since that gives the opportunity for follow-ups, clarifications and if necessary extended discussion on a particular topic. That's what it's there for, although much of the last minutes were about straightforward customer service questions, which shouldn't really need to wait for a meeting ( e.g leaks in a roof; where the away coaches drop off when they return to the ground). One big item which should have had an in-depth discussion - the events at Vale Park - didn't, if the minutes are comprehensive ( if they are not, they should be). In my view, the topics on this thread should be discussed at the Council, with a full report given. Someone on another thread suggested that there should be a podcast of Council meetings, so that supporters can listen to the discussion. I think that's a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 25, 2019 11:49:42 GMT
The Council Extract from Onlookers Earlier Post There are many more questions that could and should have been asked, specifically one about the council. 'If you are so on board with the council and value it highly then why has it been confirmed in the past, by members of the council, that all minutes need to be reviewed by the club prior to publication CommentI assume by the above that the Council are responsible for minute taking prior to being vetted by the club. Surely the Club should be responsible for all aspects of administration for the meetings and they should take, type up and seek confirmation from the Council. That’s the norm in organisations that I’ve worked for when meetings are held with employee representatives I think you are basically right. I don't know what happens now, because I'm not on the Council, but when it started a Club employee drafted the minutes, which were then shown to the Club CEO and the Council Chair, to check for accuracy and completeness. When they are happy, the minutes could then be issued into the public domain, subject always to the following Council meeting approving them as a correct record ( if you wait until that has happened before publication, they just become well out of date). If there were any disagreement between the Club and the Chair on their content, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Council Chair to decide what goes out, because it is a supporters' Council independent of the club, and the Chair has been elected to that role. To the best of my recollection, I don't think that happened in the year I was Chair, but we are going back a few years now, and memory sometimes fades.
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Jan 25, 2019 11:58:37 GMT
Made me chuckle when Scholes said about the high earners we have out on loan, ' we don't want other teams benefitting from our players'. From what news we are getting none of them are making any impact at their loan clubs?
|
|
|
Post by mrred on Jan 25, 2019 12:02:39 GMT
The only things I can gather from that is that I still think he's a 21st century snake-oil salesman and that half of the people on there couldn't have crawled further up his arse if they tried or the questions were a waste of everyone's time. Fair play to him for fronting up to fans after 3 years, I guess. Bit of an exercise in frustration if you wanted to hear anything legitimately insightful in the end.
|
|
|
Post by stantheman on Jan 25, 2019 12:34:44 GMT
For definite? Is it 20% of the total sale value, or 20% of the difference between what they paid for the player and what they sold him for?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 25, 2019 12:53:35 GMT
Have I missed the announcement as to the official enquiry into apparently conflicting statements on the Nzonzi sell on , innocent until proven guilty is obviously paramount but we will surely want a full Investigation
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Jan 25, 2019 12:56:49 GMT
Have I missed the announcement as to the official enquiry into apparently conflicting statements on the Nzonzi sell on , innocent until proven guilty is obviously paramount but we will surely want a full Investigation Official inquiry? It's not Watergate.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 25, 2019 13:03:45 GMT
Would it not be better to have a question and answer session with smudge and say trouserdog rather than a controlled phone in ? The idea we scout players on average 25 times is ludicrous from many angles. Seems that has to b looking at dvds etc and that’s no way to scout a player. It is seriously flawed and little wonder the mess created. And where does uncle peter sit in the process? Surely there are occasions where he should override the process? Namely Berahino and McClean would b examples. The guy is too soft I didn't listen last night so can't comment on the content, although it's clear there are a range of views on this thread on the CEO's performance. But I think it is optimistic to expect the local radio phone-in format to be an effective vehicle for exploring in any depth issues of concern to supporters, other than those which just require a simple factual answer. The elected Supporters Council should be the place where that happens, since that gives the opportunity for follow-ups, clarifications and if necessary extended discussion on a particular topic. That's what it's there for, although much of the last minutes were about straightforward customer service questions, which shouldn't really need to wait for a meeting ( e.g leaks in a roof; where the away coaches drop off when they return to the ground). One big item which should have had an in-depth discussion - the events at Vale Park - didn't, if the minutes are comprehensive ( if they are not, they should be). In my view, the topics on this thread should be discussed at the Council, with a full report given. Someone on another thread suggested that there should be a podcast of Council meetings, so that supporters can listen to the discussion. I think that's a good idea. Malcom. Im am amongst those who love your balanced view in a sea me included of emotional responses becomes we care , but to expect the council to ask the difficult questions Suggested on here is simply unrealistic . The club do not see that as the forum for such discussion and havemade that very clear , hence the minutes saga etc , those who seek to broaden the agenda , tackle such issues are marginalised , it’s not a criticism of the council members who do a great job for nothing but it’s not the forum for confrontation on critical matters of dispute like the Nzonzi, sell on statements that. Appear to be misleading . The fact the executive answer only to the board and the family is a clear failure of proper governance in a business of our size and the supporters council is not the answer to that
|
|
|
Post by ceejays on Jan 25, 2019 13:08:06 GMT
What I’m saying is in certain instances uncle peter ought to intervene.the circumstances being where signings have known baggage likely to cause issues. Berahino was clearly one with enormous baggage as is McClean. Such signings disrupt the dressing room and the bond between the club and its fans. It’s all very well bing the home for waifs and strays but there is a limit and he should veto purchases that are clearly high risk. In any event going forward I believe Jones will act as this essential filter
|
|
|
Post by thebet365 on Jan 25, 2019 13:18:21 GMT
For definite? Is it 20% of the total sale value, or 20% of the difference between what they paid for the player and what they sold him for? 20% of the profit
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 25, 2019 13:26:47 GMT
What I’m saying is in certain instances uncle peter ought to intervene.the circumstances being where signings have known baggage likely to cause issues. Berahino was clearly one with enormous baggage as is McClean. Such signings disrupt the dressing room and the bond between the club and its fans. It’s all very well bing the home for waifs and strays but there is a limit and he should veto purchases that are clearly high risk. In any event going forward I believe Jones will act as this essential filter You'd have been happy for him to do that with Pennant, say, whose form, brief though it was, was key to us reaching a first ever FA cup final? Or joyriding malcontent Marko Arnautovic? Once a manager has been appointed he needs, at first at least, the full backing and support of his bosses.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 25, 2019 14:33:57 GMT
I didn't listen last night so can't comment on the content, although it's clear there are a range of views on this thread on the CEO's performance. But I think it is optimistic to expect the local radio phone-in format to be an effective vehicle for exploring in any depth issues of concern to supporters, other than those which just require a simple factual answer. The elected Supporters Council should be the place where that happens, since that gives the opportunity for follow-ups, clarifications and if necessary extended discussion on a particular topic. That's what it's there for, although much of the last minutes were about straightforward customer service questions, which shouldn't really need to wait for a meeting ( e.g leaks in a roof; where the away coaches drop off when they return to the ground). One big item which should have had an in-depth discussion - the events at Vale Park - didn't, if the minutes are comprehensive ( if they are not, they should be). In my view, the topics on this thread should be discussed at the Council, with a full report given. Someone on another thread suggested that there should be a podcast of Council meetings, so that supporters can listen to the discussion. I think that's a good idea. Malcom. Im am amongst those who love your balanced view in a sea me included of emotional responses becomes we care , but to expect the council to ask the difficult questions Suggested on here is simply unrealistic . The club do not see that as the forum for such discussion and havemade that very clear , hence the minutes saga etc , those who seek to broaden the agenda , tackle such issues are marginalised , it’s not a criticism of the council members who do a great job for nothing but it’s not the forum for confrontation on critical matters of dispute like the Nzonzi, sell on statements that. Appear to be misleading . The fact the executive answer only to the board and the family is a clear failure of proper governance in a business of our size and the supporters council is not the answer to that I absolutely expect the Supporters Council to raise issues which are "significant issues relating to the club" (see EFL rule below) be they "difficult" or not. The Club is required by EFL rule to have a structured dialogue process and the Supporters Council is the mechanism by which Stoke City fulfills its obligations in that regard. You state that the Council isn't the forum for such issues, but don't state what is. The rule obligations certainly can't be fulfilled by radio phone-ins. The relevant section of the EFL handbook states We are at the heart of progressive debate and engaging with all our stakeholders is key to positively develop our competitions as a whole. We are also committed to enhancing the consultative reach of our members among their fanbases and local communities, though effective supporter dialogue and EFL Trust projects.
In June 2016, following the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership & Engagement (EWG), in which the EFL played an active role, clubs introduced new regulations requiring clubs to engage with their supporters in a structured and regular manner. Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. For its part, the EFL will meet with the supporter organisations at a national level and club groups on an ad hoc basis whenever needed.It's now a few years ago, but when I was on the Council, and its chair, there was no attempt by the Club CEO to refuse to discuss "controversial" issues, if anything rather the contrary. You state the club have made it clear that it is not the forum for such discussions and that those who want to do so are marginalised. I am not personally aware of if or when that happened but if that's true, then the Council members should strongly resist such a restriction on discussion. Of course, you may not get details of individual transfers, and shouldn't get them about the performance of individual members of the executive, but the overall processes and the responsibilities are quite legitimate areas for discussion. If, as is suggested, there is evidence of untrue public statements being made, be it about sell-ons or anything else, then that should be raised. I sit on the Supporters club committee and one reason why I may not be aware of the issues you raise is that following changes which the Council made to its own rules last year, the Supporters club no longer has a seat on the Council, so we no longer have report-backs. I think the Council was wrong to do that (just as I think it's wrong that after supporter council elections, the voting figures are not released to the electorate, the only election process I have ever known where that doesn't happen) but it was the Council itself, not the Club which did it. But that's another debate. The executive will inevitably "answer" only to the Board as would happen in any other business, but there should also be proper engagement with supporters as the EFL rules require and the Council is the only mechanism to do that. So I don't think it's "unrealistic" to expect it. Of course, if (and I'm not saying that's the case) the Council members don't want to do it, that's a matter for the electorate, and you can't blame the club CEO.
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 25, 2019 14:37:56 GMT
For definite? Is it 20% of the total sale value, or 20% of the difference between what they paid for the player and what they sold him for? Industry standard is the latter
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 25, 2019 14:44:07 GMT
Well done Tony Scholes. Hes tapped into the "tell them what they want to hear" mentality knowing full well a fair number of stokies will just lap it up.
Back he goes to his teflon coated ivory tower free from pressure until the latest manager fails to be a successful human shield for the inadequacies of many.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Jan 25, 2019 15:06:41 GMT
Have I missed the announcement as to the official enquiry into apparently conflicting statements on the Nzonzi sell on , innocent until proven guilty is obviously paramount but we will surely want a full Investigation There are only three explanations 1) He's a chancer who doesn't actually know what the fuck is going on. 2) He's a chancer who has willfully mislead supporters with regards to our tranfer dealings and you can't trust a word he says. 3) Both of the above.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Jan 25, 2019 15:08:30 GMT
Have I missed the announcement as to the official enquiry into apparently conflicting statements on the Nzonzi sell on , innocent until proven guilty is obviously paramount but we will surely want a full Investigation There are only three explanations 1) He's a chancer who doesn't actually know what the fuck is going on. 2) He's a chancer who has willfully mislead suppoorters with regards to our tranfer dealings and you can't trust a word he says. 3) Both of the above. To be a good liar you have to have a very good memory. Tony Scholes fails on both counts, clearly.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 25, 2019 21:48:05 GMT
Have I missed the announcement as to the official enquiry into apparently conflicting statements on the Nzonzi sell on , innocent until proven guilty is obviously paramount but we will surely want a full Investigation There are only three explanations 1) He's a chancer who doesn't actually know what the fuck is going on. 2) He's a chancer who has willfully mislead supporters with regards to our tranfer dealings and you can't trust a word he says. 3) Both of the above. We dont need a supporters council for this one just a full and fair investigation into were conflicting statements made , if so why . Very simple bit like the James McLean investigation , come on stoke get in with it before any wrong conclusions are drawn .
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Jan 25, 2019 21:53:26 GMT
There are only three explanations 1) He's a chancer who doesn't actually know what the fuck is going on. 2) He's a chancer who has willfully mislead supporters with regards to our tranfer dealings and you can't trust a word he says. 3) Both of the above. We dont need a supporters council for this one just a full and fair investigation into were conflicting statements made , if so why . Very simple bit like the James McLean investigation , come on stoke get in with it before any wrong conclusions  are drawn . Did you call the show?
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 25, 2019 21:58:18 GMT
Malcom. Im am amongst those who love your balanced view in a sea me included of emotional responses becomes we care , but to expect the council to ask the difficult questions Suggested on here is simply unrealistic . The club do not see that as the forum for such discussion and havemade that very clear , hence the minutes saga etc , those who seek to broaden the agenda , tackle such issues are marginalised , it’s not a criticism of the council members who do a great job for nothing but it’s not the forum for confrontation on critical matters of dispute like the Nzonzi, sell on statements that. Appear to be misleading . The fact the executive answer only to the board and the family is a clear failure of proper governance in a business of our size and the supporters council is not the answer to that I absolutely expect the Supporters Council to raise issues which are "significant issues relating to the club" (see EFL rule below) be they "difficult" or not. The Club is required by EFL rule to have a structured dialogue process and the Supporters Council is the mechanism by which Stoke City fulfills its obligations in that regard. You state that the Council isn't the forum for such issues, but don't state what is. The rule obligations certainly can't be fulfilled by radio phone-ins. The relevant section of the EFL handbook states We are at the heart of progressive debate and engaging with all our stakeholders is key to positively develop our competitions as a whole. We are also committed to enhancing the consultative reach of our members among their fanbases and local communities, though effective supporter dialogue and EFL Trust projects.
In June 2016, following the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership & Engagement (EWG), in which the EFL played an active role, clubs introduced new regulations requiring clubs to engage with their supporters in a structured and regular manner. Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. For its part, the EFL will meet with the supporter organisations at a national level and club groups on an ad hoc basis whenever needed.It's now a few years ago, but when I was on the Council, and its chair, there was no attempt by the Club CEO to refuse to discuss "controversial" issues, if anything rather the contrary. You state the club have made it clear that it is not the forum for such discussions and that those who want to do so are marginalised. I am not personally aware of if or when that happened but if that's true, then the Council members should strongly resist such a restriction on discussion. Of course, you may not get details of individual transfers, and shouldn't get them about the performance of individual members of the executive, but the overall processes and the responsibilities are quite legitimate areas for discussion. If, as is suggested, there is evidence of untrue public statements being made, be it about sell-ons or anything else, then that should be raised. I sit on the Supporters club committee and one reason why I may not be aware of the issues you raise is that following changes which the Council made to its own rules last year, the Supporters club no longer has a seat on the Council, so we no longer have report-backs. I think the Council was wrong to do that (just as I think it's wrong that after supporter council elections, the voting figures are not released to the electorate, the only election process I have ever known where that doesn't happen) but it was the Council itself, not the Club which did it. But that's another debate. The executive will inevitably "answer" only to the Board as would happen in any other business, but there should also be proper engagement with supporters as the EFL rules require and the Council is the only mechanism to do that. So I don't think it's "unrealistic" to expect it. Of course, if (and I'm not saying that's the case) the Council members don't want to do it, that's a matter for the electorate, and you can't blame the club CEO. Malcolm m who blamed the ceo in this case ? I simply said from engaging with some council members they didn’t feel this is the forum for example to deal with player discussions , transfers etc ,I have advocated elsewhere the best way to deal with the possibly misleading statements on Nzonzi transfer , an independent investigation as to were they indeed made , if so how and why , it’s no issue for kangaroo courts or sweeping under the carpet precedent was set with McLean . if you feel it’s the right forum fair enough we can beg to differ as to the constitutional debate around council membership I honestly bow to your superior insight and see no reason to dispute it .
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 25, 2019 22:07:23 GMT
We dont need a supporters council for this one just a full and fair investigation into were conflicting statements made , if so why . Very simple bit like the James McLean investigation , come on stoke get in with it before any wrong conclusions are drawn . Did you call the show? No in transit so not able
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 25, 2019 22:12:50 GMT
Sorry I can't be arsed to trawl through this thread and I didn't hear the show but am I right in thinking that what's getting everyone all so upset is that Scholes originally said there was no sell on clause for N'Zonzi and now on this show he said there is?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jan 25, 2019 22:49:11 GMT
I absolutely expect the Supporters Council to raise issues which are "significant issues relating to the club" (see EFL rule below) be they "difficult" or not. The Club is required by EFL rule to have a structured dialogue process and the Supporters Council is the mechanism by which Stoke City fulfills its obligations in that regard. You state that the Council isn't the forum for such issues, but don't state what is. The rule obligations certainly can't be fulfilled by radio phone-ins. The relevant section of the EFL handbook states We are at the heart of progressive debate and engaging with all our stakeholders is key to positively develop our competitions as a whole. We are also committed to enhancing the consultative reach of our members among their fanbases and local communities, though effective supporter dialogue and EFL Trust projects.
In June 2016, following the Government’s Expert Working Group on Supporter Ownership & Engagement (EWG), in which the EFL played an active role, clubs introduced new regulations requiring clubs to engage with their supporters in a structured and regular manner. Clubs are required to meet with a representative group of supporters at least twice a season to discuss significant issues relating to the club. The framework for each club’s specific consultation strategy is to be documented within its customer charter. For its part, the EFL will meet with the supporter organisations at a national level and club groups on an ad hoc basis whenever needed.It's now a few years ago, but when I was on the Council, and its chair, there was no attempt by the Club CEO to refuse to discuss "controversial" issues, if anything rather the contrary. You state the club have made it clear that it is not the forum for such discussions and that those who want to do so are marginalised. I am not personally aware of if or when that happened but if that's true, then the Council members should strongly resist such a restriction on discussion. Of course, you may not get details of individual transfers, and shouldn't get them about the performance of individual members of the executive, but the overall processes and the responsibilities are quite legitimate areas for discussion. If, as is suggested, there is evidence of untrue public statements being made, be it about sell-ons or anything else, then that should be raised. I sit on the Supporters club committee and one reason why I may not be aware of the issues you raise is that following changes which the Council made to its own rules last year, the Supporters club no longer has a seat on the Council, so we no longer have report-backs. I think the Council was wrong to do that (just as I think it's wrong that after supporter council elections, the voting figures are not released to the electorate, the only election process I have ever known where that doesn't happen) but it was the Council itself, not the Club which did it. But that's another debate. The executive will inevitably "answer" only to the Board as would happen in any other business, but there should also be proper engagement with supporters as the EFL rules require and the Council is the only mechanism to do that. So I don't think it's "unrealistic" to expect it. Of course, if (and I'm not saying that's the case) the Council members don't want to do it, that's a matter for the electorate, and you can't blame the club CEO. Malcolm m who blamed the ceo in this case ? I simply said from engaging with some council members they didn’t feel this is the forum for example to deal with player discussions , transfers etc ,I have advocated elsewhere the best way to deal with the possibly misleading statements on Nzonzi transfer , an independent investigation as to were they indeed made , if so how and why , it’s no issue for kangaroo courts or sweeping under the carpet precedent was set with McLean . if you feel it’s the right forum fair enough we can beg to differ as to the constitutional debate around council membership I honestly bow to your superior insight and see no reason to dispute it . It is certainly within the role of the The Council to discuss "significant issues relating to the club" as per the EFL rule quoted above. I suppose there is always scope for debate about what constitutes a significant issue but if you are right in what you say that there are Council members who don't agree that is the right forum to discuss such issues then perhaps we have the wrong horses in that stable. I think it is highly unlikely, to put it mildly, that the Club would ever agree to a request ( from whom exactly ?) for your suggestion of "an independent investigation" into their actions on the matter you mention as an alternative to discussing it at the Supporters Council. If you don't think the Council is the right forum, what forum do you think is the right one ? It can't just be anonymous fans getting angry on a message Board or a local radio phone-in.
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Jan 25, 2019 22:59:46 GMT
No in transit so not able Must be a real shit job Benj, it’s stopped you commenting after most good results we’ve had in the last few years as well as having your say against your arch-nemesis when you finally get the chance. Terrible quirk of fate to never take you away after a bad result either.
|
|
|
Post by callas12 on Jan 25, 2019 23:12:16 GMT
Sorry I can't be arsed to trawl through this thread and I didn't hear the show but am I right in thinking that what's getting everyone all so upset is that Scholes originally said there was no sell on clause for N'Zonzi and now on this show he said there is? I'm not quite sure what he's said in the past about it but last night he definitely said that there had been one but it was very much an after comment & Sandoz reiterated it with him before they swiftly moved on. It was a piece on the subject of 'Sell on clauses' particularly concerning Arnie where he confirmed that deal did have a sell on clause. He went to great lengths of saying it's a given that they always try to sell players on with clauses attached. Was at this point Sandoz mentioned something like that's good then coz fans weren't happy Nzonzi got sold without one to which Scholes replied "He did have one".
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Jan 26, 2019 10:31:43 GMT
Sorry I can't be arsed to trawl through this thread and I didn't hear the show but am I right in thinking that what's getting everyone all so upset is that Scholes originally said there was no sell on clause for N'Zonzi and now on this show he said there is? I'm not quite sure what he's said in the past about it but last night he definitely said that there had been one but it was very much an after comment & Sandoz reiterated it with him before they swiftly moved on. It was a piece on the subject of 'Sell on clauses' particularly concerning Arnie where he confirmed that deal did have a sell on clause. He went to great lengths of saying it's a given that they always try to sell players on with clauses attached. Was at this point Sandoz mentioned something like that's good then coz fans weren't happy Nzonzi got sold without one to which Scholes replied "He did have one". Cheers mate.
|
|
|
Post by benjaminbiscuit on Jan 26, 2019 20:09:58 GMT
Well Tony I’m not sure what’s worse but either way 1 if your wrong and the people under your management didn’t scout the players 25 times ,who played today for considerable fees , your failing in your duty to manage them . 2 if your right how could anyone with any degree of competence watch afobe , tymon , clucas , McLean and believe they are ever good enough for A team allegedly interested in promotion , they are guilty of utter incompetence on your watch and your management of them Is fundamentally flawed . 3 if they also watched woods , ince , Martina , berahino 25 times how could sign players not good enough to get in the team 15th in the championship for over £30m .
Regardless of the presumablyng inevitable enquiry into allegedly conflicting Nzonzi communications , the anomalies above suggest you are clearly not in anyway managing this critical area of your responsibility in a way which could be described in any way as competent indeed can only be described as sustained incompetence , this along with the loss of ÂŁ100m revenue , the failure of two key managerial appointments in 12 months and the self confessed failure to act on their predecessor swiftly enough To prevent financial catastrophe , suggest their is only one honourable course of action .
|
|
|
Post by jarvinski on Jan 26, 2019 20:13:14 GMT
Scholes is a serial liar, if he said goodnight to me, i’d have to go outside to make sure it was dark
|
|
|
Post by jarvinski on Jan 26, 2019 20:14:58 GMT
And don’t forget the three wankers who are out on loan abroad that cost 50 fucking million
|
|