Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Comments

  • Memory may be failing me (and apologies to Airman in advance if i am mistaken) but didn’t VOTV question the very merit of Meire supporting the appointment of Bowyer in his capacity alongside Robinson when he first came back?

    Regardless he’s done exceptionally well and more than anything I like his seemingly level head approach and tone win, lose or draw.

    I recall Curbishley saying something along the lines of don’t get over excited with wins and too low with defeats and he seems to do just that and probably (for me) the very opppsite of what I expected - Steve Evans experience excluded!
  • Memory may be failing me (and apologies to Airman in advance if i am mistaken) but didn’t VOTV question the very merit of Meire supporting the appointment of Bowyer in his capacity alongside Robinson when he first came back?

    Regardless he’s done exceptionally well and more than anything I like his seemingly level head approach and tone win, lose or draw.

    I recall Curbishley saying something along the lines of don’t get over excited with wins and too low with defeats and he seems to do just that and probably (for me) the very opppsite of what I expected - Steve Evans experience excluded!

    Not sure about that or its relevance even if it was true?
  • You could remember where you sat at Bradford nearly 20 years ago but not what you published less than 20 months ago?

    @valleynick66 said "Memory may be failing me (and apologies to Airman in advance if i am mistaken) but didn’t VOTV question the very merit of Meire supporting the appointment of Bowyer in his capacity alongside Robinson when he first came back?"

    So would it hurt to say either" yes I said that and he has proved me wrong", "a contribution was made to that effect, doesn't mean I agree with it" or"that opinion was never carried in the voice"

    Not saying @valleynick66 was correct but shouldn't one of your readers deserve a better answer?

    No its not personal and I have apologised for what I said yesterday. You have to conform to the standards you set others or you open yourself up to criticism.
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    You could remember where you sat at Bradford nearly 20 years ago but not what you published less than 20 months ago?

    @valleynick66 said "Memory may be failing me (and apologies to Airman in advance if i am mistaken) but didn’t VOTV question the very merit of Meire supporting the appointment of Bowyer in his capacity alongside Robinson when he first came back?"

    So would it hurt to say either" yes I said that and he has proved me wrong", "a contribution was made to that effect, doesn't mean I agree with it" or"that opinion was never carried in the voice"

    Not saying @valleynick66 was correct but shouldn't one of your readers deserve a better answer?

    No its not personal and I have apologised for what I said yesterday. You have to conform to the standards you set others or you open yourself up to criticism.

    I had a brief look through and couldn’t find anything I’d written to that effect. I’m not going to spend hours on it, so to be on the safe side I qualified my reply. It’s not impossible, although I don’t recall it.

    No, I don’t remember every detail of everything I write. I don’t think the comparison with visiting an away ground is a realistic one.

    A subscriber wrote a letter about Bowyer, which I published. That doesn’t amount to “VOTV questioning” anything, any more than a letter in a newspaper becomes that paper’s editorial view by dint of publication. It didn’t mention Meire.

    I’ll leave others to consider whether your interest is “personal”.
    My recollection was it was your piece suggesting Meire might have challenged if Bowyer should be given the role he was at the time given his personal history. But as I say memory may fail me.

    The relevance to me is to highlight that in football decisions (on matters directly affecting the team) are only right or wrong at certain points. It’s all about results and we are all very fickle.

    For now we are all very happy he is here doing a good job and seemingly better equipped to be a manager than we probably expected.
  • You may be confusing Bowyer with my view of the reappointment under Meire of someone previously sacked for attacking a current member of staff with a beer bottle? Or something not in VOTV at all.

    Otherwise all you seem to be saying is that people didn’t anticipate Bowyer being the success he has been to date, which is really the underlying basis of the article. I plead guilty to that, but I am not sure what’s remarkable about it.

    I wouldn’t have predicted Lennie Lawrence’s success and like most people in 1991 I was bemused by the joint appointment of Gritt and Curbishley, which became a good thing - and then a bad one, to the extent the partnership was broken up. The article is about the present.
  • More importantly I think my title was better than yours @Airman Brown so nah nah na nahh : - )
  • Bowyer’s recruitment has been outstanding, despite it going against the old adage of "getting them in early". Although it is very telling he has only signed 2 players on a permanent basis.

    The 6 players, I think that's right, Robinson signed permanently are also good imo. Hats off to both. Shame 2 of them did their acls!

    Both their long term loans were/are good as well. Short term loans, especially in January, are always a risk.

    Predictions on managers is a tough business. Of all the managers RD has appointed Slade was probably the most "qualified".
  • edited September 17
    Slade signed Pearce, Holmes and Magennis, all of whom were successful - Meire/Head were key to Ajose, Novak and Holmes, Crofts was about the budget. I think realistically the improvement was probably about getting shot of Meire’s appointee Head, who neither Slade nor Robinson wanted, removing Meire and Driesen’s influence, and bringing in Steve Gallen.

    Some decent signings were made under Robinson - the point I was making was that his influence on very recent results through those signings is marginal.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Did Slade sign Holmes or was he bought before he was appointed, I can't remember.

    Gallen does appear, well, head and shoulders above Head. Working within a small budget seems to be able to sniff out a bargain (Page and JFC were minimal fees iirc).

    Out of interest, do you know who Driesen signed, or at least influenced?
  • You may be confusing Bowyer with my view of the reappointment under Meire of someone previously sacked for attacking a current member of staff with a beer bottle? Or something not in VOTV at all.

    Otherwise all you seem to be saying is that people didn’t anticipate Bowyer being the success he has been to date, which is really the underlying basis of the article. I plead guilty to that, but I am not sure what’s remarkable about it.

    I wouldn’t have predicted Lennie Lawrence’s success and like most people in 1991 I was bemused by the joint appointment of Gritt and Curbishley, which became a good thing - and then a bad one, to the extent the partnership was broken up. The article is about the present.

    No. As I say if my recollection is incorrect I am mistaken but certainly not the alternative you suggest.

    I saw some irony in your positive assessment (with which I agree) based on my recollection. That was all.
  • Cafc43v3r said:

    Did Slade sign Holmes or was he bought before he was appointed, I can't remember.

    Gallen does appear, well, head and shoulders above Head. Working within a small budget seems to be able to sniff out a bargain (Page and JFC were minimal fees iirc).

    Out of interest, do you know who Driesen signed, or at least influenced?

    According to both Peeters and Luzon, Driesen had the final say on transfer deals in 2014-2015. Sources inside the club said that he was involved in a dispute over at least one of Slade’s signings in 2016, although he seems to have lost the argument. I think Holmes was lined up before Slade arrived, as were Ajose and Novak. But Slade was reported to have put a stop to another deal that Meire/Head/Driesen were keen on.
  • WSS said:

    I don’t think it’s ironic to change opinion. One of the biggest issues with the world at the moment is that people are not willing to adjust their views despite the evidence in front of them.

    Agree. But at the moment the agenda is very much all things under RD must be bad with limited appetite to acknowledge anything positively.

    I just feel it’s worth highlighting a little more often that not everything is automatically bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!