When Reality Sets In

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

When Reality Sets In

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Midlands Eagle 27 Sep 17 6.18am
Originally posted by Goldfiinger . You think it's stupid for sacking them and not backing them with all the clubs money? To say we should have backed him when you hear all the rumors of unrest and see how out of depth he had players playing.. Really? Seriously crucify Parish for giving him the job in the first place if you want, but to say he should then If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement compound the mistake by backing him and keeping him in the post, when he's clearly gone rogue. Na, he had to go.. I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt. Comments like "If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement" and "he's clearly gone rogue" are straight out of the clutching straws manual. Just as in the Pulis leaving fiasco no-one really knows the truth of what went on behind closed doors but peoples' beliefs seem to be more in line with what they want to believe rather than anything based in actual facts.
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

27 Sep 17 6.18am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Originally posted by Goldfiinger

. You think it's stupid for sacking them and not backing them with all the clubs money?

To say we should have backed him when you hear all the rumors of unrest and see how out of depth he had players playing.. Really?

Seriously crucify Parish for giving him the job in the first place if you want, but to say he should then If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement compound the mistake by backing him and keeping him in the post, when he's clearly gone rogue. Na, he had to go..

I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt.

Comments like "If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement" and "he's clearly gone rogue" are straight out of the clutching straws manual.

Just as in the Pulis leaving fiasco no-one really knows the truth of what went on behind closed doors but peoples' beliefs seem to be more in line with what they want to believe rather than anything based in actual facts.

Alert a moderator to this post

alaneagle1 Dunstable,Bedfordshire.England 27 Sep 17 8.29am
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt. Comments like "If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement" and "he's clearly gone rogue" are straight out of the clutching straws manual. Just as in the Pulis leaving fiasco no-one really knows the truth of what went on behind closed doors but peoples' beliefs seem to be more in line with what they want to believe rather than anything based in actual facts. Crystal Palace won the high court case is that not enough to believe? Palace 13th 2017/18.
Alert a moderator to this post

alaneagle1

Dunstable,Bedfordshire.England 27 Sep 17 8.29am

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt.

Crystal Palace won the high court case is that not enough to believe?

Palace 13th 2017/18.

Alert a moderator to this post

Dixie Eagle Chatham 27 Sep 17 12.38pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt. Comments like "If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement" and "he's clearly gone rogue" are straight out of the clutching straws manual. Just as in the Pulis leaving fiasco no-one really knows the truth of what went on behind closed doors but peoples' beliefs seem to be more in line with what they want to believe rather than anything based in actual facts. Agreed
Alert a moderator to this post

Dixie Eagle

Chatham 27 Sep 17 12.38pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt.

Agreed

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 27 Sep 17 12.45pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt. Comments like "If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement" and "he's clearly gone rogue" are straight out of the clutching straws manual. Just as in the Pulis leaving fiasco no-one really knows the truth of what went on behind closed doors but peoples' beliefs seem to be more in line with what they want to believe rather than anything based in actual facts. I agree with clubs leaking info. I spoke to someone recently who confirmed another club of equal size doing this. Confirmed more by the silence since Benteke's injury. The 3-4-3 declaration was anything but 'gradual.' That is fact. He said both, he contradicted himself and, after all, I find it hard to believe Parish agreed to something requiring 7 new players, which is what it would've taken. They're both to blame, and the players really for not getting on with it, although they're right in that it would inevitably fail. Still not for them to decide, although they do. Edited by Rudi Hedman (27 Sep 2017 3.51pm) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 27 Sep 17 12.45pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt.

I agree with clubs leaking info. I spoke to someone recently who confirmed another club of equal size doing this. Confirmed more by the silence since Benteke's injury.

The 3-4-3 declaration was anything but 'gradual.' That is fact. He said both, he contradicted himself and, after all, I find it hard to believe Parish agreed to something requiring 7 new players, which is what it would've taken.

They're both to blame, and the players really for not getting on with it, although they're right in that it would inevitably fail. Still not for them to decide, although they do.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (27 Sep 2017 3.51pm)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 27 Sep 17 1.17pm
Originally posted by alaneagle1 Crystal Palace won the high court case is that not enough to believe? Not really as the High Court case only dealt with points of law and whilst they ultimately agreed that Pulis had broken the terms of his contract and should forfeit his bonus we never really found out why a manager that performed near miracles and earned himself a massive bonus in the process was so desperate to get away. The conspiracy theorists amongst us (and there are many) have said that Parish wouldn't sanction the purchase of all the old boys that he wanted to sign and/or West Ham had promised him a job but this is all just guesswork even if many HOL posters present it as fact
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

27 Sep 17 1.17pm

Originally posted by alaneagle1

Crystal Palace won the high court case is that not enough to believe?

Not really as the High Court case only dealt with points of law and whilst they ultimately agreed that Pulis had broken the terms of his contract and should forfeit his bonus we never really found out why a manager that performed near miracles and earned himself a massive bonus in the process was so desperate to get away.

The conspiracy theorists amongst us (and there are many) have said that Parish wouldn't sanction the purchase of all the old boys that he wanted to sign and/or West Ham had promised him a job but this is all just guesswork even if many HOL posters present it as fact

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 27 Sep 17 1.26pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Not really as the High Court case only dealt with points of law and whilst they ultimately agreed that Pulis had broken the terms of his contract and should forfeit his bonus we never really found out why a manager that performed near miracles and earned himself a massive bonus in the process was so desperate to get away. The conspiracy theorists amongst us (and there are many) have said that Parish wouldn't sanction the purchase of all the old boys that he wanted to sign and/or West Ham had promised him a job but this is all just guesswork even if many HOL posters present it as fact Would someone so money driven would walk from a job probably paying over £20k per week net. If he wasn't hired till November, which is the usual first firing and hiring you're looking at 12 or 15 weeks, possibly more. The Zaha issue seems plausible. What's also quite likely is he saw this project beneath him. Rebuild a club's infrastructure when also the ground etc was decades behind the times. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 27 Sep 17 1.26pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

Would someone so money driven would walk from a job probably paying over £20k per week net. If he wasn't hired till November, which is the usual first firing and hiring you're looking at 12 or 15 weeks, possibly more.

The Zaha issue seems plausible. What's also quite likely is he saw this project beneath him. Rebuild a club's infrastructure when also the ground etc was decades behind the times.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

alaneagle1 Dunstable,Bedfordshire.England 27 Sep 17 1.47pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle Not really as the High Court case only dealt with points of law and whilst they ultimately agreed that Pulis had broken the terms of his contract and should forfeit his bonus we never really found out why a manager that performed near miracles and earned himself a massive bonus in the process was so desperate to get away. The conspiracy theorists amongst us (and there are many) have said that Parish wouldn't sanction the purchase of all the old boys that he wanted to sign and/or West Ham had promised him a job but this is all just guesswork even if many HOL posters present it as fact Fair enough I can see that one. Palace 13th 2017/18.
Alert a moderator to this post

alaneagle1

Dunstable,Bedfordshire.England 27 Sep 17 1.47pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

The conspiracy theorists amongst us (and there are many) have said that Parish wouldn't sanction the purchase of all the old boys that he wanted to sign and/or West Ham had promised him a job but this is all just guesswork even if many HOL posters present it as fact

Fair enough I can see that one.

Palace 13th 2017/18.

Alert a moderator to this post

Diagonal 27 Sep 17 3.28pm
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt. Comments like "If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement" and "he's clearly gone rogue" are straight out of the clutching straws manual. Just as in the Pulis leaving fiasco no-one really knows the truth of what went on behind closed doors but peoples' beliefs seem to be more in line with what they want to believe rather than anything based in actual facts. Here! here! We know nothing about how, if at all, De Boer contributed to his own downfall as a result of unacceptable behaviours. If only it were White, rather than Yellow!
Alert a moderator to this post

Diagonal

27 Sep 17 3.28pm

Originally posted by Midlands Eagle

I find it amusing that a few very carefully orchestrated leaks that may or may not have any basis in truth are now being taken as proof of guilt.

Here! here! We know nothing about how, if at all, De Boer contributed to his own downfall as a result of unacceptable behaviours.

If only it were White, rather than Yellow!

Alert a moderator to this post

est1905 27 Sep 17 5.08pm
Originally posted by Goldfiinger If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement. You think it's stupid for sacking them and not backing them with all the clubs money? Mistake made, and corrected. To say we should have backed him when you hear all the rumors of unrest and see how out of depth he had players playing.. Really? Seriously crucify Parish for giving him the job in the first place if you want, but to say he should then compound the mistake by backing him and keeping him in the post, when he's clearly gone rogue. Na, he had to go.. And i very much did want him to be a success, but he absolutely had to go. Based on what? Gossip? Because apart from that there was no reason not to give it a reasonable amount of time. Players themselves had no problem with FdB and a few even said they were enjoying working with him.
Alert a moderator to this post

est1905

27 Sep 17 5.08pm

Originally posted by Goldfiinger

If you employ someone to SLOWLY bring about a change in style and they immediately go against this agreement. You think it's stupid for sacking them and not backing them with all the clubs money?

Mistake made, and corrected.

To say we should have backed him when you hear all the rumors of unrest and see how out of depth he had players playing.. Really?

Seriously crucify Parish for giving him the job in the first place if you want, but to say he should then compound the mistake by backing him and keeping him in the post, when he's clearly gone rogue. Na, he had to go..

And i very much did want him to be a success, but he absolutely had to go.

Based on what? Gossip? Because apart from that there was no reason not to give it a reasonable amount of time. Players themselves had no problem with FdB and a few even said they were enjoying working with him.

Alert a moderator to this post

kev64 Cambs 27 Sep 17 5.38pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Would someone so money driven would walk from a job probably paying over £20k per week net. If he wasn't hired till November, which is the usual first firing and hiring you're looking at 12 or 15 weeks, possibly more. The Zaha issue seems plausible. What's also quite likely is he saw this project beneath him. Rebuild a club's infrastructure when also the ground etc was decades behind the times. He was happy to walk away from maybe 20k a week, well knowing that he had blagged his 2mill bonus and was nailed on to another job in the Prem with another big sign on bonus and undoubtedly more per week after performing miracles at Palace. He was never going to stay longer than that season, always his game plan to cash in and bugged off, regardless of what SPs supposed actions.
Alert a moderator to this post

kev64

Cambs 27 Sep 17 5.38pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

The Zaha issue seems plausible. What's also quite likely is he saw this project beneath him. Rebuild a club's infrastructure when also the ground etc was decades behind the times.

He was happy to walk away from maybe 20k a week, well knowing that he had blagged his 2mill bonus and was nailed on to another job in the Prem with another big sign on bonus and undoubtedly more per week after performing miracles at Palace.

He was never going to stay longer than that season, always his game plan to cash in and bugged off, regardless of what SPs supposed actions.

Alert a moderator to this post

Croydonlad sydenham 01 Oct 17 5.00am
Originally posted by cryrst Midlands That wasn't an insult I posted firstly trying to have a giggle at someone insulting and swearing at croydonlad for having an opinion FYI You then called me a dick That was an insult Glazed allover you're out of my league mate I'm a plumber not a thespian!!! And for what it's worth croydonlad is correct Fdb had to go That's an opinion Well , there is this . And thank you . And yes btw you cant have an opinion on here unless its wrong or extremely positive even though all the signs are extremely negative
Alert a moderator to this post

Croydonlad

sydenham 01 Oct 17 5.00am

Originally posted by cryrst

Midlands
That wasn't an insult
I posted firstly trying to have a giggle at someone insulting and swearing at croydonlad for having an opinion
FYI
You then called me a dick
That was an insult
Glazed allover you're out of my league mate
I'm a plumber not a thespian!!!
And for what it's worth croydonlad is correct
Fdb had to go
That's an opinion

Well , there is this . And thank you . And yes btw you cant have an opinion on here unless its wrong or extremely positive even though all the signs are extremely negative

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

When Reality Sets In

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors