Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Neal Maupay *** SIGNED from Brentford - 4 year deal - undisclosed fee ***
- Thread starter Stat Brother
- Start date
BensGrandad
New member
The previous 4 posts were about GM and his attributes so obviously I was talking about him.
Barham's tash
Well-known member
Naylor didn’t criticise and hasn’t been frozen out. He’s a club lapdog which is even worse than your insinuation.
It means he only publishes club sanctioned articles. Sure he said he thought the timing was harsh but that’s it re CH.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
BG there’s nothing obvious when you post at times...ask the poster i tried to help ..perhaps you would have been better off replying to his post
Gritt23
New member
Hmm, not sure that's made me feel any better tbh. As you say, that situation is even more disconcerting.
So, if the club were to act against the interests of it's staff, or the fans of the club, is there anywhere it would come out? If the local press have reports/articles sanctioned first, and the likes of [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] have had it made very clear to them that we should not debate certain stories on here.
Look, I don't think anything untoward is going on, but Archer/Belloti is like having an ex-girlfriend who treated me like shite in the past, even when I meet someone superb afterwards, it's only natural to be a little paranoid about bad things happening again. Keeping hold of what gets reported or even discussed is just not a good sign for me. Why not allow freedom of the local press, allow debate, it might even come up with an idea or two that would help.
Sorry - I'm not really sure what this relates to, but I'm not shy in criticising the club where I feel it merited, and I think NSC/me are largely seen as a complete pain in the arse by some at the club, but that's not going to change my approach.
The only shame is those in the club who point out my criticisms to Barber, making him all angry with me, don't do the same with my praise. The club get so very much right and I'll always highlight it when I can.
Gritt23
New member
I deliberately mentioned you, so that you could see I wasn't actually going into territory that we are asked not to comment on around here. But by doing so, I've deliberately remained vague, as I don't want this to be a discussion on a matter we can't discuss hidden in a thread that you'd never guessed had gone in that direction. yeah, still being very vague, sorry.
Any "legal" matters we cannot discuss in any way shape or form on here, and I get that. But IF something awful was to happen, and TB did make a mistake selling the club to the next Archer, would the press be in a position to run stories, would we get a big sanction from the club and their lawyers telling us we cannot discuss anything about this that or the other?
I know I'm paranoid, I know I am. We are all a product of our past experiences, and my unfounded concerns about the running of the club do go back to the dark days under Archer.
macbeth
Dismembered
Thank you
It wasn't obvious at all as you were commenting on the Maupay thread without quoting anybody, indicating that your post was not in relation to anything previously said on the thread about a player other than Maupay, but was, in fact, about Neal Maupay. Sorry to have mistook your post for something else, but if you DID in future quote whatever post you are addressing (including your response to my initial reply) then it would totally prevent a misunderstanding happening. Anyway, thank you for clarifying your initial post.
In the past, it has been suggested it would be better if something wasn't discussed on here, or if an existing thread quietly disappeared. I genuinely can't think of a specific example now - I'd quote one if I could.
The request to not discuss the current story regarding the dismissed ground staff is entirely my own, because I know it would be a matter of minutes before talk went off into the area of who, what, when and why, and with this matter having the potential of heading to court, I want to both protect people from themselves and, frankly, also protect me from the potential risk that may come from stuff others may say.
Ninja Elephant
Doctor Elephant
- Feb 16, 2009
- 18,855
What level of discussion would have been allowed if the Archer/Bellotti years happened with the current NSC?
Gritt23
New member
Anything to do with information filed at Companies House would be fine because that is already "in the public domain" but I do fear that many discussions about what they were doing, and what their motives for doing it were would have been difficult for the reasons above. The discussions would have very quickly gone off into an area which raised concerns about it heading to court.
I know I'm paranoid, but the first sign of censorship, and of the press having to have their articles "sanctioned" just sends me into a mental spin. I always have the thought process, of thinking the worst first. I wish I didn't, I wish I could be more "glass half full" which generally in life I am. But Archer has left be with scars.
?
Barham's tash
Well-known member
I whole heartedly agree with everything you’ve said here.
Look even if AN isn’t as much in cahoots with the club as I think - I’m happy to be wrong - he definitely chooses not to be as critical as he could for fear of what little info they get drying up. A situation I really don’t think is healthy for anyone.
Part of being fanatical about something is about absorbing as much information, whether factual or here-say, as you can. By the same token I hugely respect the methodology TB employs in his business and the relative secrecy he sees as paramount to generating the culture for success.
Whilst I believe there to be nothing nefarious going on it is a bit frustrating to live off the scraps from Twitter, here and the like when you get little to no viable output from any club sanctioned source.
There is viable output from the club, it just tends to be delivered via the tweets of Andy Naylor. Everyone's a winner...
- The club get to set supporter expectation where they feel it advantageous to do so, whilst sticking to their "We never comment on transfer speculation" mantra.
- AN gets to be the man-in-the-know, with supporters hanging on his every word.
- Supporters get some news.
If a player or a deal is considered to be confidential or at risk, then AN will not be authorised to share anything at that particular time.
If I spent any time at all on twitter (most days I don't even open twitter), I'd be paying more attention to the questions AN is asked that he doesn't respond to than the ones he does.
- The club get to set supporter expectation where they feel it advantageous to do so, whilst sticking to their "We never comment on transfer speculation" mantra.
- AN gets to be the man-in-the-know, with supporters hanging on his every word.
- Supporters get some news.
If a player or a deal is considered to be confidential or at risk, then AN will not be authorised to share anything at that particular time.
If I spent any time at all on twitter (most days I don't even open twitter), I'd be paying more attention to the questions AN is asked that he doesn't respond to than the ones he does.
- Thread starter
- #55
And the year before that.
Has that not taught you something about writing him off?
- Thread starter
- #57
Nope, it's taught me I'm getting close to being right.
.#PlayingTheLongGame.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 7,902
BG type level
Sent home from pre-season training as “not in the right frame of mind” according to SSN. We were one of the clubs mentioned as interested.