What changed between Swindon dressing room and the meeting with the Board?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


Woodwardfan said:
He actually got three "likes"for it
Click to expand...

Although it is a good thread tbf it's attracted a fair amount of imaginary nonsense. I wonder if that's in part what the FFS and the likes were all about.

Also didn't the OP contain some of that imaginary nonsense ;) - ie they sacked him bc they agreed with me - which may also have contributed to the FFS and the likes.
 
Dkc said:
Whatever happened, I think Clough has got a raw deal as when he was appointed, it was stated unequivically that he would be in charge of all matters on the playing side. He's a man with strong views, and if they were trying to take away some of his promised autonomy I can understand him objecting strongly.
Click to expand...

Or maybe what Clough said at his interview failed to be backed up in reality. Like Brendan Rodgers at Liverpool, if somebody comes in with a mad offer, you've got to sell. The realism is utilising the cash generated on a decent replacement. You can't replace Suarez. Certainly not with Ricky Lambert. And if you get lucky with a replacement for Maguire (Butler) you don't fall out with him and ship him out.
 
Was always Maguires choice. He felt he was ready for the prem , big clanger picking Hull but hes a footballer ergo not very bright
he was badly advised , obviously by his agent who got a wedge out of it. Thats how football is, but as gafikhaus said, it left Clough with a big hole to fill , one that became a chasm at Swindon
 
Woodwardfan said:
I attracted a "stalker" who followed me on to here but got banned immediately. Not certain but he may have reappeared last week.

To some degree history is being repeated because it seems I have a writing style and views which stir-up certain types of people who seem to feel threatened by it or uncomfortable with it. That is obviously a problem for me, it is not intended in any way and I try to adapt it.

I love the Forum and enjoy debate, the banter and the crack; most of all I love discussing SUFC and learning new angles and views. What I don't like is that small group that rarely enter into a debate but resent somebody who does participate. I respect posters who challenge my views and I learn so much from them but that only happens in a debate which challenges each participant , not where somebody is not prepared to go to any depth, much preferring to get personal for whatever reason. Getting personal is a bit like juvenile behaviour really.

Three-letter posts and one-liners are part of the fun of the Forum but not when used crudely for personal vitriol. LSF has apologised above for his such post, end of. He actually got three "likes"for it though from posters who seemingly cannot tolerate my posts even though I'm just an old bloke who thinks he is making a worthy contribution to the SUFC debate. I do have my themes which are sometimes not the popular view and the trouble is I'm often right; if only I was wrong more often some folk would find me more tolerable!! There I go writing exactly what I think again ( there's no smiley for tongue in cheek). I'm not running for President or Biggest Blade, far from it, just writing what I think with no fear of contradiction, indeed welcoming opposite views.

Seriously though it's the debate where we learn so much; without testing our own views and listening to others nobody ever learns anything.

Hope this doesn't distract from the thread again but I needed to cover it.
Click to expand...
We as adults should be aware of the dangers of social media, all to often do we hear about trolling, stalking and type of bullying, the moderator's do a brilliant job on this site to get rid of any anti social behaviour,that's why I use this forum, yes let's have heated debates but let's keep it clean.
 
Woody's a good lad, often took dog's abuse in the BM Madhouse (haven't we all?). For whatever reason this forum seems to have a reputation for slightly more mature debate (can't think why!) so hopefully it'll stay that way (cue replies of "feck off lingsbord") - we need opinions from all sides for any thread to be interesting, but simple personal abuse is the easy, lazy way out. Off you go then, let me have it ...........
 
lingsbord said:
Woody's a good lad, often took dog's abuse in the BM Madhouse (haven't we all?). For whatever reason this forum seems to have a reputation for slightly more mature debate (can't think why!) so hopefully it'll stay that way (cue replies of "feck off lingsbord") - we need opinions from all sides for any thread to be interesting, but simple personal abuse is the easy, lazy way out. Off you go then, let me have it ...........
Click to expand...
welcome mate.. not seen you in a while:)
 
"Transition" got him laughed at, not abused. He concocted that when feeling sorry for himself. He claimed to know exactly what McCabes plans were financially and where the club was headed. Went on and on about it being written in stone. Then the Prince was announced.

And before his paranoia worsens I'm aware of who he refers to as his stalker and it's not me. Nor am I one of those he claimed bullied him on Blades Mad. My first ever post on here was a few days ago ( the mods can check my ISP if he wants) and related to the "Clough appointed Brannigan" claim. I'd have made the same comment if anyone else had made it.
 
lingsbord said:
Woody's a good lad, often took dog's abuse in the BM Madhouse (haven't we all?). For whatever reason this forum seems to have a reputation for slightly more mature debate (can't think why!) so hopefully it'll stay that way (cue replies of "feck off lingsbord") - we need opinions from all sides for any thread to be interesting, but simple personal abuse is the easy, lazy way out. Off you go then, let me have it ...........
Click to expand...

I think it's more to do with ratio lingsbord. I too was on BM, I encountered a technical problem that wouldn't allow me to re-enter the site so I transferred to s24.
I think a similar mix appears on both sites, but the most noticeable difference is that there are fractionally less of the abuse merchants here, and should this happen in ways that were/are commonplace on BM they get jumped on here and given the chance to hold their counsel. Should this be ignored you can bet your money that the offending poster will be silenced. Seems eminently fair to me.

The other main difference is that there are fewer constraints on language at s24. Again, this is adult, gives posters the opportunity to act as grownups, and although the verbals can become very flowery at times, they're mainly attempts at humour, rather than personal attacks. So in summary, as much as there are some really decent people on BM who write well and passionately about the Blades, on balance I feel that s24 suits me. There are probably one or two on here who'd disagree (I didn't say this forum doesn't have it's own cabal of lips disconnected from brain merchants) but the general levels are intelligent, welcoming, diverse, and often humourous. And you do get as many 'keep the faith' Blades on s24 as anywhere else, which, I guess, is why we all make the effort to write about SUFC?
 
plus .. the site is super professional and not that generic crap written by 13 year olds 20 years ago that they have on BM
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Although it is a good thread tbf it's attracted a fair amount of imaginary nonsense. I wonder if that's in part what the FFS and the likes were all about.

Also didn't the OP contain some of that imaginary nonsense ;) - ie they sacked him bc they agreed with me - which may also have contributed to the FFS and the likes.
Click to expand...


Good opportunity to say "no it didn't" , I wrote "pure conjecture and I guess"- my own comments were simply an example of the type of issue which could have brought things to a head and just to get the thread moving, that's all. Must say the written word often gets misunderstood on the way from the writer to the reader, but of course the reader's general impression of the writer comes into play!
 
Woodwardfan said:
I attracted a "stalker" who followed me on to here but got banned immediately. Not certain but he may have reappeared last week.

To some degree history is being repeated because it seems I have a writing style and views which stir-up certain types of people who seem to feel threatened by it or uncomfortable with it. That is obviously a problem for me, it is not intended in any way and I try to adapt it.

I love the Forum and enjoy debate, the banter and the crack; most of all I love discussing SUFC and learning new angles and views. What I don't like is that small group that rarely enter into a debate but resent somebody who does participate. I respect posters who challenge my views and I learn so much from them but that only happens in a debate which challenges each participant , not where somebody is not prepared to go to any depth, much preferring to get personal for whatever reason. Getting personal is a bit like juvenile behaviour really.

Three-letter posts and one-liners are part of the fun of the Forum but not when used crudely for personal vitriol. LSF has apologised above for his such post, end of. He actually got three "likes"for it though from posters who seemingly cannot tolerate my posts even though I'm just an old bloke who thinks he is making a worthy contribution to the SUFC debate. I do have my themes which are sometimes not the popular view and the trouble is I'm often right; if only I was wrong more often some folk would find me more tolerable!! There I go writing exactly what I think again ( there's no smiley for tongue in cheek). I'm not running for President or Biggest Blade, far from it, just writing what I think with no fear of contradiction, indeed welcoming opposite views.

Seriously though it's the debate where we learn so much; without testing our own views and listening to others nobody ever learns anything.

Hope this doesn't distract from the thread again but I needed to cover it.
Click to expand...

OK. I've said it before and I'll go again just for good measure. You (like most on here) often post good, insightful and something that while I don't always agree with it, I normally nod to my internal self and say "I can buy that". Sometimes however you have a tendency to be self absorbed and more than a little smug (in my opinion at least). Yes, I jab you with a fork but you give as much back. I have also said it isn't personal its purely we have differing views and styles. You seem very intent on not straying from topic where I am happy to go all over the shop in the aim of enjoying myself. If its at the expense of others then I am one of over 2000 who do the same thing from time to time.

When I don't agree with something I'll go in all guns blazing and expect the same (see Metals comments to me yesterday evening about stalking him and something about a gay bar). Now you can go one of two ways with this, you can either shrug and get on with it knowing we are all big boys and girls and its just some words on the internet, or you can get all beat up about it and flounce off. I laugh, post something back and get on with it.

FWIW I liked LSF's comment because it was what I thought when I read your post, nothing more.
 

lingsbord said:
Woody's a good lad, often took dog's abuse in the BM Madhouse (haven't we all?). For whatever reason this forum seems to have a reputation for slightly more mature debate (can't think why!) so hopefully it'll stay that way (cue replies of "feck off lingsbord") - we need opinions from all sides for any thread to be interesting, but simple personal abuse is the easy, lazy way out. Off you go then, let me have it ...........
Click to expand...

Ok, sod off Lings. Piss off back to BM.
 
Bladesway said:
OK. I've said it before and I'll go again just for good measure. You (like most on here) often post good, insightful and something that while I don't always agree with it, I normally nod to my internal self and say "I can buy that". Sometimes however you have a tendency to be self absorbed and more than a little smug (in my opinion at least). Yes, I jab you with a fork but you give as much back. I have also said it isn't personal its purely we have differing views and styles. You seem very intent on not straying from topic where I am happy to go all over the shop in the aim of enjoying myself. If its at the expense of others then I am one of over 2000 who do the same thing from time to time.

When I don't agree with something I'll go in all guns blazing and expect the same (see Metals comments to me yesterday evening about stalking him and something about a gay bar). Now you can go one of two ways with this, you can either shrug and get on with it knowing we are all big boys and girls and its just some words on the internet, or you can get all beat up about it and flounce off. I laugh, post something back and get on with it.

FWIW I liked LSF's comment because it was what I thought when I read your post, nothing more.
Click to expand...



Prefer not to flounce, rather talk it through like above and look forward to adult debate
 
sitwell said:
I was at Woolley edge services car park letting the dog take a shit. Quite disappointed really as I found out the last 3 managers were sacked in the same place in the US.
Click to expand...

I was just pulling into Wetherby services which I think makes me much posher than you (if you ignore the face I was en route to Redcar races).
 
borbokis said:
Seems odd doesn't it? especially with that promo video coming out I wasn't expecting him to go, i thought he'd get one more season at least. I think you might have been right about changing the head scout, our recruitment has been a joke for the past few seasons, something which needs addressing. Remember when we used to turn up gems from all over the world and the lower leagues? Now if they're not from Scotland, Derby or Blackpool we're not interested, the only exception being Che adams off the top of my head the only signing who didn't meet that criteria.

Perhaps the board were worried with the work on the desso pitch already started and the home kit already released, we wouldn't have anything to talk about during the close season?
Click to expand...

J.Wallace, Campbell-Rice, Butler, Alcock, Higdon, Turner, McCeveley, Done, K.Wallace, O'Grady and McCarthy being the other exceptions ;)
 
Woodwardfan said:
Good opportunity to say "no it didn't" , I wrote "pure conjecture and I guess"- my own comments were simply an example of the type of issue which could have brought things to a head and just to get the thread moving, that's all. Must say the written word often gets misunderstood on the way from the writer to the reader, but of course the reader's general impression of the writer comes into play!
Click to expand...

OP has Number 1 as change the head scout(!). Later tempered, perhaps, by including that it's conjecture. In a small print kind of a way.

Postulating that the prime (or a significant) driver behind the sacking of the manager is the performance (and bloodline?) of the Head Scout when that coincides exactly with the often expressed view of the poster seems to be a clearly, er, agenda driven, no matter how well expressed.

I can't see that FFS is an overreaction.

Fwiw imo it was worth starting the thread and there's been some balance between credulousness, attention-seeking, and more reasonable, even informed, guesses.
 
Here's a version from someone within the club. Note they do not have access to the boardroom, so make of it what you will. It seems to have a positive slant towards McCabe, so whether it's a true story, a deliberate leak from 'the Establishment', or simply another load of conjecture, I am not aware.

There was no plan to get rid of NC. Clough and McCabe had a meeting during which McCabe suggested the appointment of a Director of Football to help reduce NC's workload. it was a genuine offer of help from McCabe who thought that NC was suffering higher than necessary levels of stress personally because of the amount of work he was doing. NC said it was not necessary to have a DoF and said (paraphrasing) "I am in charge". McCabe responded by reminding NC that actually he (McCabe) was the one in charge.

From there, somehow, things deteriorated, things were said, and even though they had a 48 hour cooling down period, whatever breakdown had occurred could not be patched up.
 
Peter Dornan said:
Here's a version from someone within the club. Note they do not have access to the boardroom, so make of it what you will. It seems to have a positive slant towards McCabe, so whether it's a true story, a deliberate leak from 'the Establishment', or simply another load of conjecture, I am not aware.

There was no plan to get rid of NC. Clough and McCabe had a meeting during which McCabe suggested the appointment of a Director of Football to help reduce NC's workload. it was a genuine offer of help from McCabe who thought that NC was suffering higher than necessary levels of stress personally because of the amount of work he was doing. NC said it was not necessary to have a DoF and said (paraphrasing) "I am in charge". McCabe responded by reminding NC that actually he (McCabe) was the one in charge.

From there, somehow, things deteriorated, things were said, and even though they had a 48 hour cooling down period, whatever breakdown had occurred could not be patched up.
Click to expand...

If that's the case I hope Nigel put mcabe in his place and politely reminded him that yes you are the man who has been in charge and brought the club down to its knees and who were in a relegation fight heading to lg2 before bringing me in.
 
Peter Dornan said:
Here's a version from someone within the club. Note they do not have access to the boardroom, so make of it what you will. It seems to have a positive slant towards McCabe, so whether it's a true story, a deliberate leak from 'the Establishment', or simply another load of conjecture, I am not aware.

There was no plan to get rid of NC. Clough and McCabe had a meeting during which McCabe suggested the appointment of a Director of Football to help reduce NC's workload. it was a genuine offer of help from McCabe who thought that NC was suffering higher than necessary levels of stress personally because of the amount of work he was doing. NC said it was not necessary to have a DoF and said (paraphrasing) "I am in charge". McCabe responded by reminding NC that actually he (McCabe) was the one in charge.

From there, somehow, things deteriorated, things were said, and even though they had a 48 hour cooling down period, whatever breakdown had occurred could not be patched up.
Click to expand...

This fits the picture - doesn't mean it's true, but it has more credibility than being invaded by dinosaurs from Venus.

Clough's pitchside manner often indicated stress.

The "I'm in charge," business *if true* perhaps exposed underlying irreconcilable differences.

Or a million other explanations...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom