Leon still stropping out

[London Irish]

You will agree as what he says fits in with your opinion.

Yes, I fully admit that - but the way we try and convince each other of the superiority of our arguments is by marshalling evidence.

ROSM lists an impressive series of evidence that backs up his opinion of what happened in the Coppell case. Again, I'm wondering what your opinion of that detail is and why you think it is not convincing?

What is it you know that contradicts that series of events ROSM lists?

 

[itszamora]

If he wanted to "finish" the job here, why wasn't he prepared to sign a long-term contract with us in the summer then? Answer - he was always keeping his options open for the main chance and good luck to him. Well done to Dick Knight for at least squeezing some money out of Madjeski rather than us getting nothing, and also having the professionalism to stay on friendly terms with Coppell so that he didn't poach any of our players (although getting back to the subject of this thread, what a shame we couldn't have offloaded the Knight misfit to him for say £250,000!).

Because offloading Knight at the time we lost Coppell would have been a brilliant move, wouldn't it?

There's also something interesting here which says Coppell only ever signs one year contracts apparently.

 

[London Irish]

Because offloading Knight at the time we lost Coppell would have been a brilliant move, wouldn't it?

Yes, offloading him while his market value was high, rather than waiting for 7 goals in open play from 60+ games deflating his value to just £125k, would have been very wise, so you can keep your sarcasm.

There's also something interesting here which says Coppell only ever signs one year contracts apparently.

Ah, isn't that lovely for him, he doesn't like to sign long contracts? So how the hell would that have protected the Albion if he wanted to bugger off the end of the year, like so many of our managers before him? As it was, the chairman got £200,000 for him whereas we could have ended up with nothing if he'd have walked away later. Good business for us for a guy whose agent had been touting him around to other clubs even while under contract to us!

If Reading do well, I can see Mr Madjeski getting a bit nervous next season if Coppell's agent fancies another pay-day.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Good business for us for a guy whose agent had been touting him around to other clubs even while under contract to us!

What is the source for that?

 

[London Irish]

What is the source for that?

The detail in ROSM's post which for some reason you won't comment on.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The detail in ROSM's post which for some reason you won't comment on.

But like you he is expressing an opinion, is it fact?

 

[London Irish]

But like you he is expressing an opinion, is it fact?

Yes, he states it as a fact:

"We do well (very well in fact) and Reading enquire of his agent is he is available. he agrees to speak to them and his agent meets with reading twice before official approaches are made to the Albion."

Are you calling him a liar? Again, I ask you what you know about the ins-and-outs of Coppell leaving us that would lead you to that conclusion?

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

Yes, offloading him while his market value was high, rather than waiting for 7 goals in open play from 60+ games deflating his value to just £125k, would have been very wise

Apart from costing us our promotion. Just a minor point, that.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Yes, he states it as a fact:

"We do well (very well in fact) and Reading enquire of his agent is he is available. he agrees to speak to them and his agent meets with reading twice before official approaches are made to the Albion."

Are you calling him a liar?

I thought you hacks always asked for sources, so who are his sources. Otherwise it is just opinion.

 

[London Irish]

I thought you hacks always asked for sources, so who are his sources. Otherwise it is just opinion.

No - completely the other way round, Journalists protect their sources, not expose them.

Again I'll ask - what have you heard from any sources you have that contradicts ROSM's account? Genuinely, if you have heard something different, then this would be worth discussing.

 

[Uncle Buck]

No - completely the other way round, Journalists protect their sources, not expose them.

Again I'll ask - what have you heard from any sources you have that contradicts ROSM's account? Genuinely, if you have heard something different, then this would be worth discussing.

I suspect similar to others I hear things and with Coppell the same story came from a few different people.

Still we all like to pretend we are in the know.

 

[London Irish]

Apart from costing us our promotion. Just a minor point, that.

Again, an example of how the McGhee critics like to have it both ways.

I always though the big idea from you was that Knight underperformed under McGhee and stopped scoring loads of goals because of the style of play that McGhee adopted as soon as he arrived and his many and various ways he mishandled the little genius.

Now, from you, apparently Knight was the guy who was indispensible for our promotion under McGhee.

Which is it?

 

[Uncle Buck]

Again, an example of how the McGhee critics like to have it both ways.

I always though the big idea from you was that Knight underperformed under McGhee and stopped scoring loads of goals because of the style of play that McGhee adopted as soon as he arrived and his many and various ways he mishandled the little genius.

Now, from you, apparently Knight was the guy who was indispensible for our promotion under McGhee.

Which is it?

My view with Knight was the goals from open play dried up under McGhee as the style changed. Coppell build the team around Knights strength, McGhee did not.

 

[London Irish]

I suspect similar to others I hear things and with Coppell the same story came from a few different people.

Still we all like to pretend we are in the know.

But he might actually be in the know rather than just adopting the (admittedly widespread) fashion for pretending to be.

So, you did hear things - fine. What did you hear that contradicted ROSM's account? Not asking you who your sources are, just what they told you that leads you to doubt ROSM's account?

 

[Uncle Buck]

But he might actually be in the know rather than just adopting the (admittedly widespread) fashion for pretending to be.

So, you did hear things - fine. What did you hear that contradicted ROSM's account? Not asking you who your sources are, just what they told you that leads you to doubt ROSM's account?

The account that did the rounds was that Coppell spoke to Reading but turned them down as he wanted to complete what he started here. However he was encouraged to talk to them again.

 

[London Irish]

My view with Knight was the goals from open play dried up under McGhee as the style changed. Coppell build the team around Knights strength, McGhee did not.

Fair enough, that's what I understood your opinion to be, but can't square that with Toad's opinion that a player whose goals dried up was indispensible to our promotion.

 

[Schrödinger's Toad]

Again, an example of how the McGhee critics like to have it both ways.

I always though the big idea from you was that Knight underperformed under McGhee and stopped scoring loads of goals because of the style of play that McGhee adopted as soon as he arrived and his many and various ways he mishandled the little genius.

Now, from you, apparently Knight was the guy who was indispensible for our promotion under McGhee.

Which is it?

Both, as it happens. It's only the way you phrase it that makes them appear polar opposites.

But you're evading the most salient point here; do you really reckon we'd have been promoted without Knight? Presumably so, as I'd be suprised if even you would exchange all we've gained from going up just to have been rid of Leon a little earlier.

 

[itszamora]

Ah, isn't that lovely for him, he doesn't like to sign long contracts? So how the hell would that have protected the Albion if he wanted to bugger off the end of the year, like so many of our managers before him? As it was, the chairman got £200,000 for him whereas we could have ended up with nothing if he'd have walked away later. Good business for us for a guy whose agent had been touting him around to other clubs even while under contract to us!

If Reading do well, I can see Mr Madjeski getting a bit nervous next season if Coppell's agent fancies another pay-day.

Well, it does give a reason for why he didn't sign a long-term deal in order to 'finish the job' - one presumes he has a job he'd like to finish at Reading too and Madjeski doesn't seem to have too much of a problem with him only signing for a year at a time.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Fair enough, that's what I understood your opinion to be, but can't square that with Toad's opinion that a player whose goals dried up was indispensible to our promotion.

 

[London Irish]

Indeed, but we could have let Chris Iwelumo take the pen, seems to have done OK on spot kicks this season for Colchester? And his penalty against Swindon looked good? And, this could be the clincher, he did actually win the penalty in the play-off final, didn't he?