An Epic Swindle by Brian Reade

[Craig_H]

Yeah so you think it made it harder for them knowing there was a body of support against him eh?

No of course i dont. Where have i suggested that 'it made it harder for them' ? You're putting words in my mouth. I dont think it made it either harder nor easier.

By that stage, i dont actually think it made even the most remote of differences.

To suggest that it made a significant difference, would be to suggest that H&G acted according to the wishes of the fans and that would be the most laughable suggestion i've heard in a long time.

[JHP]

By that stage, i dont think it made even the most remote of differences.

To suggest that it made a significant difference, would be to suggest that H&G acted according to the wishes of the fans and that would be the most laughable suggestion i've heard in a long time.

Hear what you say but I'm not sure in the dysfunctional nature of LFC at the time that H&G were making such decisions. I assume it was Purslow and I think it would certainly have made it easier for him.

But we'll never know and it's too late now anyway.

[Craig_H]

Hear what you say but I'm not sure in the dysfunctional nature of LFC at the time that H&G were making such decisions. I assume it was Purslow and I think it would certainly have made it easier for him.

But we'll never know and it's too late now anyway.

Do you sincerely and honestly think it was Purslow's decision? That he made it, rather than Hicks and Gillett?

Really?

[red g]

Why is Neil acting as though those who thought Rafa should go, were automatically wanting Hodgson to replace him?

Rather silly, that is.

The mistake was appointing the Bodge. And the mistake was made by the club, not the supporters.

pretty simple really

[red g]

Do you sincerely and honestly think it was Purslow's decision? That he made it, rather than Hicks and Gillett?

Really?

not read the book but I would be surprised if from everything I heard of him that it was Purslow want ing to go back all British and it was him pushing for it most and persuading H & G.

ultimately H & G must have made the decision though......just like we have to blame Moores for all those stupid Parry decisions.......

[JHP]

Do you sincerely and honestly think it was Purslow's decision? That he made it, rather than Hicks and Gillett?

Really?

I obviously don't know but I seem to recall Sir Martin involved. I'm not sure at that point H&G were doing anything other than making noises.

I think Purslow would have done the groundwork and had his decision rubber stamped probably by Broughton. LFC wasn't functioning properly and in such a vacuum I do believe Purslow wielded power.

[Craig_H]

I obviously don't know but I seem to recall Sir Martin involved. I'm not sure at that point H&G were doing anything other than making noises.

I think Purslow would have done the groundwork and had his decision rubber stamped probably by Broughton. LFC wasn't functioning properly and in such a vacuum I do believe Purslow wielded power.

Any kind of massive decision like sacking the manager, ultimately comes from the owners, even if it was the CEO who actually did the deed. There's no way Purslow could have sacked Rafa via his own decision. I'm actually staggered that anyone would entertain such an idea

[CJ]

the problem is that many wanting rafa gone talked of maureen and hiddink. many who wanted him to stay said he would very likely be replaced by someone not as good. This was mocked at the time.

the facts are all in the threads at the time.

[JHP]

Any kind of massive decision like sacking the manager, ultimately comes from the owners, even if it was the CEO who actually did the deed. There's no way Purslow could have sacked Rafa via his own decision. I'm actually staggered that anyone would entertain such an idea

Massive decisions like selling the club.

[Neil Young]

Craig, you "genuinely believed" Mourinho was going to come in.

When did the penny finally drop that Hicks and Gillett probably weren't thinking along the same lines?

It's nonsensical to imply that Hicks and Gillett were blind to the wishes of supporters.

It's really not a difficult idea - it's not about what people wanted, it's about what they did and didn't do. Supporters who failed to support Benitez enabled Hicks and Gillett and Purslow to appoint Captain Hapless in the same way as giving a drunk driver the keys to your car enables them to kill someone in a crash. You don't want it to happen but you've done the one and only thing they needed you to do.

[RedReet]

No of course i dont. Where have i suggested that 'it made it harder for them' ? You're putting words in my mouth. I dont think it made it either harder nor easier.

By that stage, i dont actually think it made even the most remote of differences.

To suggest that it made a significant difference, would be to suggest that H&G acted according to the wishes of the fans and that would be the most laughable suggestion i've heard in a long time.

It might not have made significant difference, but why the smear campaign against Rafa then if it wasn't to get fans to turn on him? Was it just personal?

To keep things simple I am just classing Purslow and G&H as one entity.

[Neil Young]

It might not have made significant difference, but why the smear campaign against Rafa then if it wasn't to get fans to turn on him? Was it just personal?

Exactly.

It's a nonsense argument from someone who got it badly wrong and doesn't like to admit it.

I don't blame him (or anyone else) for that - no one likes being wrong.

[Craig_H]

Craig, you "genuinely believed" Mourinho was going to come in.

When did the penny finally drop that Hicks and Gillett probably weren't thinking along the same lines?

It's nonsensical to imply that Hicks and Gillett were blind to the wishes of supporters.

It's really not a difficult idea - it's not about what people wanted, it's about what they did and didn't do. Supporters who failed to support Benitez enabled Hicks and Gillett and Purslow to appoint Captain Hapless in the same way as giving a drunk driver the keys to your car enables them to kill someone in a crash. You don't want it to happen but you've done the one and only thing they needed you to do.

I'd like to say that cringeworthy childish attempting 'belittling' tactics werent your usual style, but i'm not sure if such a claim would really hold up. I feel a bit silly for assuming you were a bit more mature than to go down that route purely because someone disagrees with you.

Your comments on the topic matter are no less off the mark.

Whether or not it's a 'difficult idea' as you patronisingly dismiss, the notion that Hicks or Gillett needed ANYTHING from the fans, in order to sack Benitez, is wildly inaccurate. These are two who never once cared about the fans, beyond whether or not tickets were being bought and i find it utterly beyond comprehension that two men who conducted their entire ownership acting contrary to what the fans wanted, suddenly felt empowered by the same people who they'd shown such contempt throughout their tenure, to the extent that they suddenly 'could' sack the manager.

I think your fondness for Benitez is clouding your judgement quite emphatically because the notion that those two clowns felt like they needed something from the fans before acting, is entirely inconsistent with every single other thing they did during their ownership. There's no evidence to support that point whatsoever, indeed, all evidence available points to the contrary.

I'm genuinely surprised that you think Hicks and Gillett needed to be 'enabled' to do anything, by the fans.

Exactly.

It's a nonsense argument from someone who got it badly wrong and doesn't like to admit it.

I don't blame him (or anyone else) for that - no one likes being wrong.

The arrogance belies someone who portrays an 'intelligent' and personable character on here. Unless you were in board meetings or communicated with Hicks or Gillett, you cant possibly know whether or not i'm right or wrong, and you cant possibly know whether fans' opinions of Benitez has any significant impact on their decision to sack him. You can express an opinion of course, but you're in no better position than i am, to 'know' anything for sure.

[Craig_H]

It might not have made significant difference, but why the smear campaign against Rafa then if it wasn't to get fans to turn on him? Was it just personal?

To keep things simple I am just classing Purslow and G&H as one entity.

They wanted Benitez out, in no small part because he wouldnt just sit there like a nodding dog and allow their bull**** to go unargued.

They didnt need the fans 'permission' to sack him and, with or without supporter blessing, if they had reached the point where they felt enough was enough, Rafa was on his way out - regardless.

That the on-field performances turned sour and led to some fans feeling that Rafa needed to go, certainly didnt harm Hicks or Gillett's desire to sack - i wouldnt suggest it did, nor that it made the sacking more difficult, because of course it didnt.

But it's still clear enough to me that, once they had reached the point where a decision on Benitez had been made, it was of little consequence that some fans were also of the opinion that a change in manager was necessary.

[Neil Young]

F*cking hell, I'm being analysed remotely by old Craigy. It's uncanny, such insight, such wisdom...

OK, you're right, I think Mourinho was going to join us too. And yup, of course, I was completely deluded to believe we were going to get a **** manager in as Benitez's replacement. How can I have been so wrong?

I expect I'm also wrong to think it's strange that Hicks and Gillett launched a PR campaign against the manager. I expect they only did it because they weren't remotely concerned about what the fans might think if they sacked him.