Rudkin

[hackneyfox]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

They certainly place " faith " and " loyalty " ahead of performance with Rudkin and the other executives.

Both of which are completely different to what Bert was claiming.

[Ric Flair]

1 minute ago, hackneyfox said:

Both of which are completely different to what Bert was claiming.

I quoted those words as both could easily be bought.

[hackneyfox]

You don't get faith via blackmail which is what is being alluded to.

[Guest Col city fan]

Just now, hackneyfox said:

You don't get faith via blackmail which is what is being alluded to.

Again..exactly this. Where does this story come from that Rudkin is withholding 'dishing the dirt' on the owners?

Conjecture.. the whole lot of it.

It's boring reading it over and over again unless someone actually does have a story to tell and info to give.

[hackneyfox]

Surely it must mean that Bert also knows that there is dirt, how much are they paying him to keep quiet?

I'm sure that during their time of becoming business billionaires they must have learnt how to deal with such a scenario, and it doesn't involve keeping on the person that has a hold over you.

[Guest Col city fan]

I do wonder also, whether stuff written like this as though it is 'fact' as in, I know such and such, is libellous?

If Rudkin came onto this forum and saw some of the stuff being written about him, would he have reason for redress?

I don't know the answer to this question and would be interested to be enlightened. 

[foxinsocks]

1 hour ago, norwichfox said:

Source?

Its an opinion i have. ...

... no manager worth his salt will come to us with rudkin in post. .... would you?

[Guest Cujek]

21 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Again..exactly this. Where does this story come from that Rudkin is withholding 'dishing the dirt' on the owners?

Conjecture.. the whole lot of it.

It's boring reading it over and over again unless someone actually does have a story to tell and info to give.

Here here.

[lifted*fox]

1 hour ago, possiblygeorge said:

I'm drunk and f**k Rudc**t

Sent from my CPH1715 using Tapatalk
 

 

13:40 - good work! 

 

edit: you posted that an hour ago - 12:40, even better work. 

 

 

Edited 19 October 2017 by lifted*fox

[Dan]

6 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Or the owners sell up and he'll be off to Leuven or Paul Nichols yard ?

 

Scabdalous this is and just shows shows we shouldn't sniff our owners arris all the while.

This all over. I'm sorry but some of this filters to them too. People calling them ruthless are kidding themselves when Rudkin's still in a job.

[1972 Fox]

15 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

13:40 - good work! 

 

edit: you posted that an hour ago - 12:40, even better work. 

 

 

I think @possiblygeorge is an Australian based fox.

 

[Guest Bob Hazels shorts]

When you look at the hierarchy of the club there is very little football expertise.

 

The owners pay our highest ranking football brain very handsomely to do what they can't do. He's the head of all footballing matters.

 

He has very little experience himself. Academy parents in his time shown him little respect, bit of a joke figure.

 

Nice guy but even his biggest fan would admit that he's punching. Only really knows LCFC from a kid player to youth coach 20 years ago, I think we deserve / need better.

 

Thought he'd won me over slightly with the Silva deal...then

[NotTheMarketLeader]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

I would have thought the evidence is in who he actually appoints as manager, i'm assuming that's his job. If shakey, pearson and raneiri  all ended up getting the boot because of their failings as a manager, surely its down to whoever employed them in the first place, they're the ones who are basically recommending them as a manager.

The problem with that angle is two  out of the three were top class; Pearson built the club up and Ranieri won us the league and with it came CL football.

 

That hardly fits with the anti Rudkin narrative though. ?

 

He might be alright and picking managers and shit at everything else?

[Fox92]

On 18/10/2017 at 08:43, Bob Hazels shorts said:

Les Reed at Southampton-

 

I spoke to Reed about the club’s ‘Black Box’ – a darkened room he compares to the “Bridge of the Starship Enterprise” – and why preparing in advance for the loss of a manager is just as important as planning which players to buy.

 

So I’m always tracking managers and coaches. What’s their style of play, how successful are they, what’s their personality like – so you can be ahead of the game. So I’m always looking at five or six potential managers who have already impressed me. It’s made it quicker. We’re not having off the wall discussions.

Superb that

[harpendenfox]

The only ‘dirt’ I can imagine being of relevance relates to the Sheffield based marketing company set up to help us circumvent FFP regulations. 

[HankMarvin]

2 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Surely it must mean that Bert also knows that there is dirt, how much are they paying him to keep quiet?

I'm sure that during their time of becoming business billionaires they must have learnt how to deal with such a scenario, and it doesn't involve keeping on the person that has a hold over you.

[MarkDeVirus]

As a budding journo, I've posted my views on the situation. Would appreciate anyone who gives it a little read.

 

https://dispatchesfromdante.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/craig-shakespeare-had-to-depart-but-the-cracks-lie-deeper-were-incompetent-off-the-pitch-as-well-as-on-it/

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, CyprusFox said:

Who the fook would he take to court, Ric Flair, Col city fan, Cyprus fox, lifted fox, Foxy lady etc. etc. The list goes on, who are these people? I don't know , so I'm guessing Rudders wouldn't either

 

Thats not strictly true, I know exactly who CyprusFox is

They key to sue-ing anyone in libel is that you, as the person bringing the case before the Court, would have to prove the written statement is untrue.  I think that this may answer the original question?    

[foxinsocks]

2 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

They key to sue-ing anyone in libel is that you, as the person bringing the case before the Court, would have to prove the written statement is untrue.  I think that this may answer the original question?    

Nit sure... but usnt there a defence to say something is fair comment ?

[foxinsocks]

Just now, foxinsocks said:

Not sure... but isn't there a defence to say something is fair comment ?

 

Edited 19 October 2017 by foxinsocks

[mozartfox]

6 minutes ago, MarkDeVirus said:

As a budding journo, I've posted my views on the situation. Would appreciate anyone who gives it a little read.

 

https://dispatchesfromdante.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/craig-shakespeare-had-to-depart-but-the-cracks-lie-deeper-were-incompetent-off-the-pitch-as-well-as-on-it/

Excellent and well written!

[HankMarvin]

5 minutes ago, MarkDeVirus said:

As a budding journo, I've posted my views on the situation. Would appreciate anyone who gives it a little read.

 

https://dispatchesfromdante.wordpress.com/2017/10/19/craig-shakespeare-had-to-depart-but-the-cracks-lie-deeper-were-incompetent-off-the-pitch-as-well-as-on-it/

His failure to ratify a signing, missing the deadline by 14 seconds means we’re playing without a capable central midfielder until January.

 

Harsh on Ndidi and Iborra.

Even with Silva the team wouldve lacked ideas.

[mozartfox]

1 minute ago, foxinsocks said:

 

IMO I cannot see any need for defending anything here with comments such as 'fair comment'.  These are peoples' opinions based upon the shambolic mess we find ourselves in.  If someone, that is head of Football Operations, is going to come out and say 'none of this is my fault' - then WTF are we paying him for???? 

[MarkDeVirus]

7 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

His failure to ratify a signing, missing the deadline by 14 seconds means we’re playing without a capable central midfielder until January.

 

Harsh on Ndidi and Iborra.

Even with Silva the team wouldve lacked ideas.

True, but only bringing in Iborra (lacking in match-fitness and acclimatising to players who can't play football) was a gamble that hasn't paid off.

[Number 6]

First game of the season Shakey was on the pitch talking to Gary Neville and emphasized how important recruitment was. Not saying he shouldn't have gone necessarily but others should definitely have followed him.