| So, which is it? 23:05 - Feb 6 with 4494 views | JackFish |
In the statement from the board, HJ wrote:
"I had a meeting with Michael today in a final attempt to support him and establish a way to improve the work of the backroom team to secure the results we need over the final 14 Premier League games."
Today, Laudrup comes out with:
Laudrup said he is "deeply disappointed" to have been sacked by Swansea and the way he was told.
He claimed he had received "the briefest of letters which gave no reasons why such hasty and final action was deemed necessary".
Those statements are completely at odds with each other: if you believe the board then this sounds like it's been coming, something that's been discussed for a while. Laudrup's suggests that he was completely unaware that anything was wrong. I find it very hard to believe that that was the case.
|  | | |  |
| So, which is it? on 10:14 - Feb 7 with 937 views | perchrockjack |
How does my non attendance affect things.
People live in Australia ,NZ on this board and spiritually we WILL be one.
You ve a nasty tendency to provoke on here which is distasteful.
I posted in good spirit and you know that . |  |
| |
| So, which is it? on 10:16 - Feb 7 with 949 views | Darran |
| So, which is it? on 10:14 - Feb 7 by perchrockjack |
How does my non attendance affect things.
People live in Australia ,NZ on this board and spiritually we WILL be one.
You ve a nasty tendency to provoke on here which is distasteful.
I posted in good spirit and you know that . |
Who said it was a go at you?
Touchy f*cker you are. |  |
| |
| So, which is it? on 10:24 - Feb 7 with 928 views | tomdickharry |
| So, which is it? on 08:35 - Feb 7 by Odgaard |
Exactly! :) |
Quite right,but if we lose Saturday and eventually get relegated what will happen to"In Huw we Trust" ? | | | |
| So, which is it? on 10:26 - Feb 7 with 905 views | perchrockjack |
| So, which is it? on 10:16 - Feb 7 by Darran |
Who said it was a go at you?
Touchy f*cker you are. |
I aint that stooped laa, trust me. | |
| |
| So, which is it? on 11:10 - Feb 7 with 892 views | 3swan |
| So, which is it? on 10:24 - Feb 7 by tomdickharry |
Quite right,but if we lose Saturday and eventually get relegated what will happen to"In Huw we Trust" ? |
It depends on what performance we see on the pitch.
No guarantee either way of what would have or will happen but some sort of change needed to happen and it didn't look as if ML was going to change [Post edited 7 Feb 2014 11:10]
| | | |
| So, which is it? on 11:13 - Feb 7 with 888 views | Jackanapes |
The football world is scratching its head. Are we in Leon Knight territory? |  |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| So, which is it? on 11:22 - Feb 7 with 869 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| So, which is it? on 11:10 - Feb 7 by 3swan |
It depends on what performance we see on the pitch.
No guarantee either way of what would have or will happen but some sort of change needed to happen and it didn't look as if ML was going to change [Post edited 7 Feb 2014 11:10]
|
He didn't need to change from the point a game we already had. If we continued to get a point a game for the rest of the season with an easier fixture list and injured players returning that would have been enough.
Then we'd have got a payment from a club taking Laudrup off our hands rather than paying him £4.5 Million to go now.
We've written off a very large sum of money and taken a massive gamble by putting a rookie in charge which leads me to believe that the club was in a terrible state and Jenkins was absolutely convinced that by keeping Laudrup we were heading for the drop. |  |
| |
| So, which is it? on 11:24 - Feb 7 with 859 views | Jackanapes |
| So, which is it? on 11:22 - Feb 7 by Joe_bradshaw |
He didn't need to change from the point a game we already had. If we continued to get a point a game for the rest of the season with an easier fixture list and injured players returning that would have been enough.
Then we'd have got a payment from a club taking Laudrup off our hands rather than paying him £4.5 Million to go now.
We've written off a very large sum of money and taken a massive gamble by putting a rookie in charge which leads me to believe that the club was in a terrible state and Jenkins was absolutely convinced that by keeping Laudrup we were heading for the drop. |
Which makes you wonder why we turned down Tottenhams approach for him "3 months ago" ( I'm quoting Paul Merson there)
The club doesn't get into such a terrible mess overnight. [Post edited 7 Feb 2014 11:26]
| |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| So, which is it? on 11:27 - Feb 7 with 848 views | 3swan |
| So, which is it? on 11:22 - Feb 7 by Joe_bradshaw |
He didn't need to change from the point a game we already had. If we continued to get a point a game for the rest of the season with an easier fixture list and injured players returning that would have been enough.
Then we'd have got a payment from a club taking Laudrup off our hands rather than paying him £4.5 Million to go now.
We've written off a very large sum of money and taken a massive gamble by putting a rookie in charge which leads me to believe that the club was in a terrible state and Jenkins was absolutely convinced that by keeping Laudrup we were heading for the drop. |
As you say if we continued to get a point a game etc.
Thing is, and I know all about the hard run against better teams we've had lately, but the points per game were getting less.
As you also say " Jenkins was absolutely convinced that by keeping Laudrup we were heading for the drop"
If that's the case then a gamble now to get potentially £90m is a big call but in the boards eyes one that needed taking. | | | |
| So, which is it? on 11:30 - Feb 7 with 835 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| So, which is it? on 11:24 - Feb 7 by Jackanapes |
Which makes you wonder why we turned down Tottenhams approach for him "3 months ago" ( I'm quoting Paul Merson there)
The club doesn't get into such a terrible mess overnight. [Post edited 7 Feb 2014 11:26]
|
Well an alternative theory is that HJ lost his bottle and panicked despite the team winning two of our last three and three of our last six fixtures. I don't want to go there.
If Laudrup was trouble and poisoning the club why did we turn that approach down? | |
| |
| So, which is it? on 11:33 - Feb 7 with 825 views | Jackanapes |
| So, which is it? on 11:30 - Feb 7 by Joe_bradshaw |
Well an alternative theory is that HJ lost his bottle and panicked despite the team winning two of our last three and three of our last six fixtures. I don't want to go there.
If Laudrup was trouble and poisoning the club why did we turn that approach down? |
I like it when people reach these conclusions themselves. | |
|
“The stupidest thing she knew was for people to act like they knew all about the things they knew absolutely nothing about.†|
| |
| So, which is it? on 11:34 - Feb 7 with 821 views | 3swan |
| So, which is it? on 11:30 - Feb 7 by Joe_bradshaw |
Well an alternative theory is that HJ lost his bottle and panicked despite the team winning two of our last three and three of our last six fixtures. I don't want to go there.
If Laudrup was trouble and poisoning the club why did we turn that approach down? |
Like an MOT things are only as good as the day they happen.
Who knows if things went down hill very quickly, we're all in the dark, but It's a massive call, so hope it's not down to the board losing their bottle | | | |
| So, which is it? on 11:41 - Feb 7 with 807 views | jojaca |
It's no good guessing what happened between Mr Laudrup and Mr Jenkins. Something was not right on or off the pitch, I totally understand the decision and do feel sympathy for Mr Laudrup. The only thing I am interested in now is giving Gary Monk my full support Saturday and want to see the players giving 100%. |  |
| Even when you know, you never know? |
| |
| So, which is it? on 12:00 - Feb 7 with 780 views | PatchesOHoulihan |
| So, which is it? on 01:15 - Feb 7 by mikl0s |
Or the club mishandled it completely and the whole board should resign.
Occam's razor say ML is on the right here especially as LMA is the ones releasing the info not ML himself.
If it comes out that ML is not playing politics or slinging mud - will you demand the entire board including HJ to resign? If not you are hypocrite. |
Just because the LMA are handling the releasing of information hardly suggests anything one way or another.
And even if the club have got this wrong - I would think you'd definately be in the minority who would be asking for the whole board to resign
Whatever their current faults which have been fully discussed on here there has certainly been enough people unhappy with how things have gone to agree to a change
Whether it works or not who knows but we were kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with performances the way they were and the upcoming fixtures
Famous UK phrase sums it all up for me
"He who dares Rodney....he who dares!!!" |  |
| This is Patches O'Houlihan saying "Take care of your balls, and they'll take care of you." |
| |
| So, which is it? on 12:17 - Feb 7 with 758 views | JackFish |
| So, which is it? on 23:47 - Feb 6 by Darran |
Might have been both,spoke to him on Tuesday afternoon and then we put it in writing which he received on Wednesday.
It might have been in an email. |
Well yeah, I'm sure they spoke to him on Tuesday and then let him know in writing that his employment was being terminated. I don't see how that equates to him not knowing the reasons why he was sacked. | | | |
| So, which is it? on 12:44 - Feb 7 with 749 views | BLAZE |
I read somewhere - maybe one of the newspapers - that Jenkins held a meeting with Laudrup where Laudrup agreed to have Monk as his No.2. Then a few hours later, after re-thinking the situation, Jenkins decided that Laudrup had to go; presumably this is when Laudrup was informed via letter. It came as a 'shock' to him as he'd just a few hours earlier agreed to their demands.
Just speculation, but it's seems clear to me that the board were hoping Laudrup would resign when told Monk was to be No.2.... When that didn't happen, he was sacked. Basically we were looking to get rid of him without having to pay compensation.... Laudrup probably realised that and stood his ground [Post edited 7 Feb 2014 12:45]
|  | | |
| So, which is it? on 12:59 - Feb 7 with 719 views | Kennedy |
Monk has rubbished reports about him getting the number 2 job. Unless Jenkins offered Monk the role (to ML) without informing Monk of this? |  |
| |
| So, which is it? on 13:13 - Feb 7 with 703 views | WarwickHunt |
| So, which is it? on 12:44 - Feb 7 by BLAZE |
I read somewhere - maybe one of the newspapers - that Jenkins held a meeting with Laudrup where Laudrup agreed to have Monk as his No.2. Then a few hours later, after re-thinking the situation, Jenkins decided that Laudrup had to go; presumably this is when Laudrup was informed via letter. It came as a 'shock' to him as he'd just a few hours earlier agreed to their demands.
Just speculation, but it's seems clear to me that the board were hoping Laudrup would resign when told Monk was to be No.2.... When that didn't happen, he was sacked. Basically we were looking to get rid of him without having to pay compensation.... Laudrup probably realised that and stood his ground [Post edited 7 Feb 2014 12:45]
|
I've said that all along.
It's so f*cking obvious... |  | | |
| So, which is it? on 13:17 - Feb 7 with 694 views | WarwickHunt |
| So, which is it? on 12:59 - Feb 7 by Kennedy |
Monk has rubbished reports about him getting the number 2 job. Unless Jenkins offered Monk the role (to ML) without informing Monk of this? |
I saw Monk deny all knowledge of it on SSN.
There was never a chance of him being Laudrup's number two so there was need need to tell Monk.
A rather obvious ploy to get Laudrup to walk - he's got previous for this but I don't think there was anything like £4.5m at stake before... | | | |
| So, which is it? on 13:17 - Feb 7 with 693 views | JackFish |
It would also tally with Monk saying that he didn't know anything about him being promoted to no.2. The board were just using it as a plot to try to get Laudrup out. | | | |
| So, which is it? on 13:21 - Feb 7 with 681 views | gibs0n |
| So, which is it? on 13:13 - Feb 7 by WarwickHunt |
I've said that all along.
It's so f*cking obvious... |
"I've said that all along.
It's so f*cking obvious..."
Yep... agree with this!
Now the lawyers can silently figure out what the contract say. ML will find a new club and tomorrow Swansea will destroy Cardiff. Everyone is happy! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
