Chairman of the Bored Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 It could be the Simon Jordan debate all over again. Picture the scene: a press conference somewhere in sarf landan. Dowie is being confirmed as the new boss of relegation certainties Charlton. In walks man bearing writ. Said writ eventually finds its way into the hands of Dowie. An "outraged" Jordan later gives interview claiming Dowie has broken a gentlemen's agreement and that "he'll see him court". The agreement was that Dowie had been released from his contract at Crystal Palace so that he could "go home to the north and spend more time with his family". As a result Jordan waived a £1m compensation claim against him for leaving his contract early. Great stuff! This one could run and run. Whose side are YOU on?
Manwell Pablo Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 It could be the Simon Jordan debate all over again. Picture the scene: a press conference somewhere in sarf landan. Dowie is being confirmed as the new boss of relegation certainties Charlton. In walks man bearing writ. Said writ eventually finds its way into the hands of Dowie. An "outraged" Jordan later gives interview claiming Dowie has broken a gentlemen's agreement and that "he'll see him court". The agreement was that Dowie had been released from his contract at Crystal Palace so that he could "go home to the north and spend more time with his family". As a result Jordan waived a £1m compensation claim against him for leaving his contract early. Great stuff! This one could run and run. Whose side are YOU on? Dowies as Jordan is a nob. Besides Charlton is techincally up north.
Louise Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 I think I'm more on Jordan's side, what with the supposed million waved, however I don't think he'll get anything for it, unless Dowie has signed something that says 'I will not manage in London'.
Durnerz Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 I think I'm more on Jordan's side, what with the supposed million waved, however I don't think he'll get anything for it, unless Dowie has signed something that says 'I will not manage in London'. Exactly my thinking. Jordans a bit of a mixed bag, I admire some of his points of view and the way he speaks his mind as a fan and not just a chairman. But some of his comments, particularly about MON in the England manager Job scenario before Mclaren was appointed I found to be quite childish and without thought. In this case I doubt he'll get anything as Louise says if nothings signed then you can't really progress with any legal action.
Strokes Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 Exactly my thinking. Jordans a bit of a mixed bag, I admire some of his points of view and the way he speaks his mind as a fan and not just a chairman. But some of his comments, particularly about MON in the England manager Job scenario before Mclaren was appointed I found to be quite childish and without thought. In this case I doubt he'll get anything as Louise says if nothings signed then you can't really progress with any legal action. That pretty much sums up how i feel about Jordan, on 1 hand he is silly and rash on the other he wears his heart on his sleave He won't get fook all out of this though, the laws in place protect the employee's not the employers.
Head Honcho Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 Jordan is nothing but a publicity seeking twat! He was just as happy to see the back of Dowie as Dowie was to leave, this is something just to please the fans who are pissed off that he let Dowie go in the first place. OK maybe Dowie did want to go north, but he's not going to turn a Premiership job down, is he? Get over it Jordan you moron!
Swedging Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 Jordan is nothing but a publicity seeking twat! Couldn't agree more. He signs with Max Clifford to keep his face in the papers all the time, and then whinges about the media intrusion (another chance to get his face in the paper, of course). He slags off other chairmen for doing exactly what he does. He loves to sack managers and players and then complains about a lack of loyalty. He reckons he'll let Palace go when someone better than him to take the club forward comes along but I can't see the egotistical twat letting go of the one thing that gets him in the papers.
Katy Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 SJ's phone interview on Sky Sports News earlier was hillarious!
Chairman of the Bored Posted 30 May 2006 Author Posted 30 May 2006 SJ's phone interview on Sky Sports News earlier was hillarious! Can't wait to read his Observer column. It will surely trump his attack on Gold and Co at Birmingham. "Gold should go and impale himself on one of his own dildos" or something like that. I'm surprised Jordan hasn't taken a pop at us!
Chairman of the Bored Posted 30 May 2006 Author Posted 30 May 2006 Sorry, I just had to copy it in, it was a classic..... Sunday April 2, 2006 The Observer David Sullivan doesn't like his players. 'They're on £20-30,000 a week and they're not earning it; it makes you resentful,' he says, 'I've reached the stage where I don't like footballers.' Fair enough. Respect, likeability, decency - it all matters. Birmingham's players should look at David: £575m made out of open-leg porn mags, chatlines, sex dolls, an ISP offering 'furry ****ers' and 'anal frenzy', movies like Hellcats: Mud Wrestling, Boys and Girls Together and Star Sex, all run from an £18m mansion in Essex. What's not to like about that? It's been a defining couple of weeks for Sullivan. Yes, he has a point about players, and as Birmingham co-owner he has a right to say what he likes. But doing it like this? With nine games to play, this guy really thought it's a good idea to isolate and undermine his manager and humiliate his squad in public. What a contribution. Last week I was asked by the press about Sullivan and his club. The issues I've had with them in the past six years are well documented, so I gave them a few throw-away lines, a few jokes - which they spun up and turned into clever Sun headlines like 'I'd like to beat Sullivan up'. It detracted from the points about his style and Birmingham's ownership which I think are worth making. It's not about bitterness, or whatever else he'll throw back at me. The way they work gets to the heart of what running a club is about. Assessing an ownership style comes down to three key factors: motivation, mentality and the way you do business. On the simplest level, Birmingham's three owners - the Gold brothers and Sullivan - are caricatures. Operators, not fans. They used to own part of West Ham, and Sullivan looked at Cardiff, Watford, Bradford, Leeds and Spurs before Birmingham. His ambition is neatly split: half on his Birmingham Village casino plan, and half on leaving. He'd like to own a London club instead 'because of the travelling from Essex - I'm fed up with it'. Second, the mentality. If I see another David Gold interview on the poor East End Jewish boy done good I'll impale myself on one of his dildos. These guys are desperately pleased with themselves, they're in it for the profile and they don't do criticism. In 2001, when a handful of fans reacted to Sullivan sacking Trevor Francis by pasting his face on a poster of Osama Bin Laden with the tagline: 'Wanted Dead or Alive - Ivor Bin Sulking - Lives in a bunker somewhere in Essex. Sick of Blues fans, sick of criticism and sick of Trevor Francis', Sullivan reacted like this: 'I'm fed up with them slaughtering me... I can do without the grief.' He tried to sell, couldn't find a buyer and five years later he's still there. Third - their business ethic. I've had enough dealings with them to fill the paper, but here's the most recent. Before our game against Birmingham last season, Sullivan came over to me and said: 'Simon my boy, Simon - we know what you lot are like with bad decisions, we don't want any bad decisions' - referring to Andy Johnson's spurious 'diving' image. So 12 months later, imagine my surprise when Sullivan told the press I'd rejected his £6.5m bid for Johnson. There was no bid, no approach, no inquiry, nothing. Sullivan misled the press and his public in an attempt to unsettle my player, and to make himself and Birmingham look ambitious. All of this stuff casts some light on Sullivan's 'I don't like players' speech. Yes, I can empathise with his frustrations: they'd just been beaten 7-0. The fact that I was dancing round the room laughing doesn't mean I can't understand the exasperation. But what was he looking to achieve by letting it all out publicly? Speaking out to disassociate his image from the humiliation, to court popularity - whatever it was - it's putting your ego ahead of your club. And it's all so bizarrely self-defeating. I'm not saying I'm perfect, that I'm a self-effacing wallflower, but being a chairman or owner just isn't hard when it comes to situations like this. It's about thinking things through, showing some responsibility and doing what's right for the club. Fine, Sullivan may think Mario Melchiot is a waster, undermining his casino plans and making him look bad, but what good does it do to say so? When Palace lost 9-0 to Liverpool in 1989, Ron Noades didn't publicly undermine the manager or players: they regrouped, pulled together and went on to beat Liverpool 4-3 in the FA Cup semi-final. There's a lesson hidden in there somewhere. When we went down last season, I didn't publicly spit my dummy, because where does turning against your own side get you? Who does it help? What Bruce and Birmingham needed two weeks ago and still need now is a lift, a feeling of inclusion. Bruce hasn't become a bad manager in four years and lost his tactics, but his confidence is on the floor. What he didn't need was to see his employer humiliating his squad and dragging the mood down another level. But now that it's out there, it's probably too late to fix. Sullivan's failure to back Bruce in January's transfer window - having supported him in every window before this season - pointed to a loss of faith in his manager; these comments confirm a loss of respect, too. And there's no way back from that. Six years ago I made a similar mistake: I went into our dressing room after a home defeat to Grimsby to bawl out the squad, mistakenly believing I was supporting the manager. It made me feel better, but was totally counterproductive: it undermined Alan Smith and created more bad feeling. I've never done it since. It comes down to the one golden rule in managing managers: if you feel you need to intervene - in the dressing room or in the papers - you've already let it go too far. So what will Birmingham's next seven games bring? I don't wish relegation on any team (apart from Charlton) and part of me hopes Bruce turns this round, throws it back in Sullivan's face. Yesterday's draw was a start. But if he fails, then at least he and everyone else will have half-decent excuses - Bruce the injuries and losing Robbie Savage, his players the lack of a settled side or system. But what can Sullivan honestly say for himself? That he did his best in the last few months to lead the club, to boost morale and to drive things forward? I can't tell Birmingham fans what to think, and nor should I. But surely it's time to forget that the current owners saved the club in 1993, stop being grateful and look at how they're running it now. That's how I want to be judged. We're the people who set the salaries, make appointments, control club policy, do club business: we're the ones who deserve the scrutiny. So why not ask more questions of Sullivan, why not think him through? Doesn't it hurt that the man who refused to back Bruce in the transfer window because 'to gamble and lose would mean bankruptcy for the club' is sitting on half a billion pounds of masturbation money? The fee for Simon Jordan's Observer articles will be given to the Christopher's Children's Hospice, Guildford, Surrey
Head Honcho Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 Couldn't agree more. He signs with Max Clifford to keep his face in the papers all the time, and then whinges about the media intrusion (another chance to get his face in the paper, of course). He slags off other chairmen for doing exactly what he does. He loves to sack managers and players and then complains about a lack of loyalty. He reckons he'll let Palace go when someone better than him to take the club forward comes along but I can't see the egotistical twat letting go of the one thing that gets him in the papers. Didn't realise Max Clifford was his publicist, nuff said!
Ultra Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 Jordan's like his bimbo namesake - famous for doing sweet FA. He's a poor man's Ken Bates who deserves no sympathy from us. But Dowie's not been too clever either. His behaviour reminds me of when Brian Little left us in 1994, saying that he was "stressed" and "needed a long break from football" - only to join the vile a mere THREE DAYS later. I'd be surprised if Charlton weren't forced to fork out out a fair deal of compo on this.
Head Honcho Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 Jordan's like his bimbo namesake - famous for doing sweet FA. He's a poor man's Ken Bates who deserves no sympathy from us. But Dowie's not been too clever either. His behaviour reminds me of when Brian Little left us in 1994, saying that he was "stressed" and "needed a long break from football" - only to join the vile a mere THREE DAYS later. I'd be surprised if Charlton weren't forced to fork out out a fair deal of compo on this. I don't think they will. Jordan has issued a writ because officially nothing untoward has happened, the FA would have been involved otherwise.
Ultra Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 "Officially" Dowie was out of contract. But the circumstances under which his contract with Palace ended may well be scrutinised in court. And on previous evidence (ask Steve Bruce), this could end up VERY dirty...
Anish Posted 30 May 2006 Posted 30 May 2006 I think Jordan is right on this one, even if there was no written evidence of Dowie stating his reasons for leaving. Dowie walked out on the club and so would have had to pay compensation to Palace under the terms of his contract. Jordan waived his right to compensation on the grounds that Dowie was leaving to spend more time at home. As long as Dowie acknowledges this fact, then Jordan will have a strong case regardless of the fact that it wasn't in writing. I hope Jordan does win this case, because for far too long managers have always come out on top whenever their contracts have been terminated. It's about time that clubs are compensated for managers walking out on them to join their rivals within a week.
Thracian Posted 31 May 2006 Posted 31 May 2006 I've no idea who is right or wrong having not heard all the evidence but the outcome is fairly predictable in modern Britain. After hearing all the evidence, whatever decision would be fair and right and sensible, the opposite will probably apply.
Dr The Singh Posted 31 May 2006 Posted 31 May 2006 I think Jordan is right on this one, even if there was no written evidence of Dowie stating his reasons for leaving. Dowie walked out on the club and so would have had to pay compensation to Palace under the terms of his contract. Jordan waived his right to compensation on the grounds that Dowie was leaving to spend more time at home. As long as Dowie acknowledges this fact, then Jordan will have a strong case regardless of the fact that it wasn't in writing. I hope Jordan does win this case, because for far too long managers have always come out on top whenever their contracts have been terminated. It's about time that clubs are compensated for managers walking out on them to join their rivals within a week. Agreed!! Also, I remember in the press conference, Jordan stating quite clearly the reasons why Dowie wanted to leave, Dowie then hastily changed the subject to him wanting to get into management asap!! It's such a shame, in todays society a man's word is worth nothing!!!
Daggers Posted 31 May 2006 Posted 31 May 2006 Do I like celery or curry farts? I don't like either of the protagonists ~ Dowie, obviously, twisted the truth...so he deserves to be stung for his 1 million. Jordan is a turd ... so it would be nice if he doesn't get awarded costs
Thracian Posted 31 May 2006 Posted 31 May 2006 Agreed!! Also, I remember in the press conference, Jordan stating quite clearly the reasons why Dowie wanted to leave, Dowie then hastily changed the subject to him wanting to get into management asap!! It's such a shame, in todays society a man's word is worth nothing!!! It's a sad commentary that and a fact that has far-reaching consequences at every level.
Stevosevic Posted 31 May 2006 Posted 31 May 2006 As much as i hate Jordan, Dowie was in the wrong, not because he wanted to leave but the deceiving of Jordan in order to join Charlton. Jordan to win in court!
Chairman of the Bored Posted 31 May 2006 Author Posted 31 May 2006 Do I like celery or curry farts? I quite like celery actually. It will be settled out of court with Jordan insisting that Dowie does gardening leave for 3 months thus screwing up his chances of managing relegation certainties Charl'un. In their desperation Charl'un will be forced to return to City Hull to poach Taylor. Jordan will complain about this claiming that Taylor said to him in 2002 that he would never manage again (a comment made after his fiasco with us and very likely at the time). The High Court will rule in Jordan's favour here too. Hull will then recruit Dowie thus fulfilling his desire to move north. Resulting from his legal entanglement Jordan will not notice that he has failed to recruit a new manager for Crystal Palace. In his desperation he is forced to bring in Steve Bruce, who by now has been sacked by Bummingham Titty. Jordan agrees to bury the hatchet with Bruce and this time he ends up in the High Court where he is given life for aggravated GBH. In the meantime Crystal Palace go into liquidation. The world crires 'hooray' and The Observer bring in Peter Taylor to ghost write a new column for the highly successful Ian Dowie who by this time has advanced to become England manager.
Jay Posted 1 June 2006 Posted 1 June 2006 I think it's obvious that Jordan wanted to sack Dowie and is usual is behaving like an arse!! once again releasing all his comments through the media!! So he says he signed away a £1million pound clause for Dowie but I wonder how much it would have cost him to sack him in the first place!!! as he clearly wanted to do
Chairman of the Bored Posted 1 June 2006 Author Posted 1 June 2006 In the mad, crazy world of Simon Jordan, nothing is obvious....apart from his bleeding sun glasses and fake tan.
Nationwider Posted 6 June 2006 Posted 6 June 2006 Jordan berates Sullivan for airing dirty laundry in public. Jordan then proceeds to air own dirty laundry in public. Sometimes it's not what you do but the way that you do it. Jordan just lacks class, and it shows everytime he opens his mouth. Dowie's been rumbled this time. He's another fine one for talking sh*t from dawn til dusk as well.
Chairman of the Bored Posted 7 June 2006 Author Posted 7 June 2006 Simon Jordan + Graham Souness. Now that would be a marriage of fake tans if ever there was one. Perhaps 'Souey' will accompany Simon to court for a bit of the old protection?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.