Brucie Bonus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 5,215
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Going down hard aren't you? You've got more shift points than an F1 Ferrari.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MUTINY by players.Konspiracy??.... We will see
- Thread starter CooperMcfcF/W
- Start date
Going down hard aren't you? You've got more shift points than an F1 Ferrari.
JohnMaddocksAxe said:projectriver said:Possibly the modern equivalent. Like others say "old dogs".
But that wasnt the point I was making. I doubt that Dunne or Vassell (I think they would do the work and keep their mouths shut save for a special meeting) are on the hit list due to attitude (ability and performances maybe) and Ball has been selected over Garrido recently so I doubt that he is top of the hit list either. But I think the analogy does apply to the Jo's (I think Blue2112 suggested he has a problem getting to training), Elanos (the most obvious trouble maker despite his talents) and the Johnsons.
Anyway Im not as well connected as in the past so its all speculation from me.
I am quite willing to uy into the rumours about Jo's and Elano's attitude. It somewhat tallies with the evidence I have seen with my own eyes on the pitch.
That is not what we are being asked to buy into here though. And it is not what Hughes, his leaks, the press supporting him and his apologists ask uis to believe either.
They do ask us to believe that 80% of the squad, men of previous good character, are all of a sudden bastards and this is why Hughes has prodcued woeful results.
I dont think the two are mutually exclusive. I think you have various factions in any dressing room. In this one, we have, say, Jo, Elano, Hamman, Johnson (the Egos lets say), the goodie two shoes (the Irelands, SWPs and Kompanys) and then quiet dissenters ie those that go along with things they arent 100% happy with (the Dunnes, Vassells etc). Sometimes the quiet dissenters can be moved to complain. The quiet dissenters are on the second phase of the evacuation from the club to be dealt with after the Egos have been dealt with.
As I say just speculation. In the interim, we just better hope we dont end up going down - I dont think its that far fetched.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
moomba said:Not going to defend the 8-1, or players deliberately undermining the manager.
But surely a good leader can cope with players questioning his methods? Possibly even embrace feedback, and encourage his staff to have some sort of involvement in the way things are run.
A bad leader will just ignore criticism, and scapegoat those that question him.
What if your boss tells you that he's listened to your argument, but still feels he's going to do things his way. Do you then go to his boss and complain? And once you've been to his bosses office and he says the same as your boss did, what do you do. Go on strike. Stop putting in a proper shift. Start fucking around rather than doing your job. Or be professional, accept that he's the boss for a reason, and get on with things?
(That by the way, is EXACTLY what has happened with at least one player at City)
andypandy said:I'm guessing that there is something in this & that certain players are seeing their arse as they are being told to train in a different way to what they have been accustomed to.
IMHO Sven comes across as so laid back he is horizontal and Hughes a bit of a ball breaker, so perhaps the training methods are chalk and cheese.
If we look at Blackburn under Hughes, they came on stronger second half of the season = improved fitness
The players last season were quoted in saying that the training was more 'just football' with Sven.
*singingtheblues*
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,276
I can infact inform you lot that I was wrong *slaps head*.
The whole SWP malarkey has been cleared up.
5knuckleshuffle is not a wum and nor is he NBC (or so I now believe after having a good chat!)
I believe he has posted his info in good faith, and although I'm sceptical about it being entirely true I thank him for sharing it, just like Ajay.
I apologise for jumping to conclusions before, just don't let that deter you from keeping the info coming!
Cheers mate.
The whole SWP malarkey has been cleared up.
5knuckleshuffle is not a wum and nor is he NBC (or so I now believe after having a good chat!)
I believe he has posted his info in good faith, and although I'm sceptical about it being entirely true I thank him for sharing it, just like Ajay.
I apologise for jumping to conclusions before, just don't let that deter you from keeping the info coming!
Cheers mate.
BillyShears said:moomba said:Not going to defend the 8-1, or players deliberately undermining the manager.
But surely a good leader can cope with players questioning his methods? Possibly even embrace feedback, and encourage his staff to have some sort of involvement in the way things are run.
A bad leader will just ignore criticism, and scapegoat those that question him.
What if your boss tells you that he's listened to your argument, but still feels he's going to do things his way. Do you then go to his boss and complain? And once you've been to his bosses office and he says the same as your boss did, what do you do. Go on strike. Stop putting in a proper shift. Start fucking around rather than doing your job. Or be professional, accept that he's the boss for a reason, and get on with things?
(That by the way, is EXACTLY what has happened with at least one player at City)
Who??!!!! ;-)
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
projectriver said:I dont think the two are mutually exclusive. I think you have various factions in any dressing room. In this one, we have, say, Jo, Elano, Hamman, Johnson (the Egos lets say), the goodie two shoes (the Irelands, SWPs and Kompanys) and then quiet dissenters ie those that go along with things they arent 100% happy with (the Dunnes, Vassells etc). Sometimes the quiet dissenters can be moved to complain. The quiet dissenters are on the second phase of the evacuation from the club to be dealt with after the Egos have been dealt with.
As I say just speculation. In the interim, we just better hope we dont end up going down - I dont think its that far fetched.
Pretty accurate speculation there...for someone who professes to not be in the know anyway...;- )
JohnMaddocksAxe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,854
Quick, before I go.
Yes Billy, I do believe that the truth will be somewhere in the middle.
I can accept that a squad can contain two or three bad apples, maybe four or five at a push. However, that number is managable and they can be sidelined, shunned, or moved out like many managers have done in the past and continue to do.
I can buy into the Elano story, I thinkk it fits his character.
The leaks we get at present though and what this thread asks us to believe is that Hughes has produced woeful results because the majority of the squad are shithouses. Men of previous good character. Model Pros. All of a sudden we are expected to accept that the whole squad, except for two of three exceptions, including previous model pros, have adopted an attitude to playing, the club and their careers that is unheard of (on mass) in any professional club in this country.
I refuse to believe it but this is the only defense that a) Hughes and b) his blind faith supprters are now holding out for his shocking performance.
It's like Pravda and the KGB.
Again though, I return to the atmosphere in camp being the responsibility of the manager. I don't expect a new manager to take it to depths never seen before at a major club, with more than 50% of the squad assumed to be very, very unhappy.
Consider this, if Alladyce walked into Blackburn's chariman in a couple of weeks and said, "right, I've decided that all these players here are bastards apart from a few. I refuse to work with them. I can't work with them. I cannot be held responsible for any results until you have given me £150m to bring in 15 new players". What do you think the response would be?
Hughes is hanging on to this ludicrous defence that no other manager in the history of football would have even contemplated using.
What would we be saying now if the Arabs hadn't turned up and he was still under the orginal constraints that were present when he accepted the job?
"I can't work with these but wait 5 years until the small transfer budget has allowed me to replace 3/4s of them and we might do better than a relegation battle?"
Yes Billy, I do believe that the truth will be somewhere in the middle.
I can accept that a squad can contain two or three bad apples, maybe four or five at a push. However, that number is managable and they can be sidelined, shunned, or moved out like many managers have done in the past and continue to do.
I can buy into the Elano story, I thinkk it fits his character.
The leaks we get at present though and what this thread asks us to believe is that Hughes has produced woeful results because the majority of the squad are shithouses. Men of previous good character. Model Pros. All of a sudden we are expected to accept that the whole squad, except for two of three exceptions, including previous model pros, have adopted an attitude to playing, the club and their careers that is unheard of (on mass) in any professional club in this country.
I refuse to believe it but this is the only defense that a) Hughes and b) his blind faith supprters are now holding out for his shocking performance.
It's like Pravda and the KGB.
Again though, I return to the atmosphere in camp being the responsibility of the manager. I don't expect a new manager to take it to depths never seen before at a major club, with more than 50% of the squad assumed to be very, very unhappy.
Consider this, if Alladyce walked into Blackburn's chariman in a couple of weeks and said, "right, I've decided that all these players here are bastards apart from a few. I refuse to work with them. I can't work with them. I cannot be held responsible for any results until you have given me £150m to bring in 15 new players". What do you think the response would be?
Hughes is hanging on to this ludicrous defence that no other manager in the history of football would have even contemplated using.
What would we be saying now if the Arabs hadn't turned up and he was still under the orginal constraints that were present when he accepted the job?
"I can't work with these but wait 5 years until the small transfer budget has allowed me to replace 3/4s of them and we might do better than a relegation battle?"
BillyShears said:moomba said:Not going to defend the 8-1, or players deliberately undermining the manager.
But surely a good leader can cope with players questioning his methods? Possibly even embrace feedback, and encourage his staff to have some sort of involvement in the way things are run.
A bad leader will just ignore criticism, and scapegoat those that question him.
What if your boss tells you that he's listened to your argument, but still feels he's going to do things his way. Do you then go to his boss and complain? And once you've been to his bosses office and he says the same as your boss did, what do you do. Go on strike. Stop putting in a proper shift. Start fucking around rather than doing your job. Or be professional, accept that he's the boss for a reason, and get on with things?
(That by the way, is EXACTLY what has happened with at least one player at City)
Not really sure what your point is.
Hughes has every right to move on players as he sees fit.
If someone is causing trouble they will be the first ones moved on.