Thuram refuses to travel to Leeds

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

The SLP is a local paper, its journalists have to have some legal knowledge as part of their training but the paper is unlikely to have an in-house solicitor or to run a football story that would require legal advice.

All of which means that this story is very well sourced from within the club. So not only is the story interesting, but why it has been leaked / verified internally is too.

Let's be honest, it's not a big leak is it ?

When he wasn't on the bench tonight, questions would have ben asked straight away.

It's not a surprising leak, but it is surprising to have it stated categorically. Normally this would be dressed up as an injury doubt and therefore appear only as a rumour.

Yes and no. If he refused to travel to Leeds, there's a fair chance he won't appear again.

So, to cover it up, they would have to have said he was injured for the rest of the season & that wouldn't do his World Cup hopes a lot of good.

You're assuming, however, that the club is managing the story. It's possible, but unlikely, that the club gave it to the SLP off the record as a matter of policy.

It's more likely, in my view, that someone acting on their own initiative within the club did, in which case you have to look for that person's motive for doing so.

So a couple hundred fans travel few hundred miles and pay a lot of money to see our team play, Thuram is getting paid to sit on the bench and refuses to travel... There is always going to be holes in this sort of stuff and AA argument may have been one of them, this is a big one, Reza is (from what I'm hearing from my source) heading back at the end of the season. What an absolute mess, we are being run like a joke. The only network help we've had is AA and he's about 50% fully fit (if he ever can get 100%)

Sack this clown of a goalie, Steve Brown was better than him. Good riddance

Nice one AA, loving the idea of our next manager coming back for an interim shift as reserve keeper in the meantime

PragueAddick said:

PL54 said:

Kermorgant refused to play at one point

Source?

Me and confirmed by someone on here close to powelly coaching staff and by a player

PL54 said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

The SLP is a local paper, its journalists have to have some legal knowledge as part of their training but the paper is unlikely to have an in-house solicitor or to run a football story that would require legal advice.

All of which means that this story is very well sourced from within the club. So not only is the story interesting, but why it has been leaked / verified internally is too.

Let's be honest, it's not a big leak is it ?

When he wasn't on the bench tonight, questions would have ben asked straight away.

It's not a surprising leak, but it is surprising to have it stated categorically. Normally this would be dressed up as an injury doubt and therefore appear only as a rumour.

Yes and no. If he refused to travel to Leeds, there's a fair chance he won't appear again.

So, to cover it up, they would have to have said he was injured for the rest of the season & that wouldn't do his World Cup hopes a lot of good.

You're assuming, however, that the club is managing the story. It's possible, but unlikely, that the club gave it to the SLP off the record as a matter of policy.

It's more likely, in my view, that someone acting on their own initiative within the club did, in which case you have to look for that person's motive for doing so.

Becasue everyone who works for the club, or ever has done, hates their employer ?

I think there are people employed by the club who will have seen the opportunity to put the boot in and taken it for their own reasons, whether related to Thuram or Powell or something else.

Airman Brown said:

PL54 said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

The SLP is a local paper, its journalists have to have some legal knowledge as part of their training but the paper is unlikely to have an in-house solicitor or to run a football story that would require legal advice.

All of which means that this story is very well sourced from within the club. So not only is the story interesting, but why it has been leaked / verified internally is too.

Let's be honest, it's not a big leak is it ?

When he wasn't on the bench tonight, questions would have ben asked straight away.

It's not a surprising leak, but it is surprising to have it stated categorically. Normally this would be dressed up as an injury doubt and therefore appear only as a rumour.

Yes and no. If he refused to travel to Leeds, there's a fair chance he won't appear again.

So, to cover it up, they would have to have said he was injured for the rest of the season & that wouldn't do his World Cup hopes a lot of good.

You're assuming, however, that the club is managing the story. It's possible, but unlikely, that the club gave it to the SLP off the record as a matter of policy.

It's more likely, in my view, that someone acting on their own initiative within the club did, in which case you have to look for that person's motive for doing so.

Becasue everyone who works for the club, or ever has done, hates their employer ?

I think there are people employed by the club who will have seen the opportunity to put the boot in and taken it for their own reasons, whether related to Thuram or Powell or something else.

How SURE does the SLP have to be to run a story like this?

Oh yeah and I believe a good pal of yours Pa also was telling folk

Did anyone not see this kind of thing coming? Shifting players from club to club within a network - especially those in search of first team football - is inevitably going to lead to this sort of dispute.

Thuram needs to go back to Liege on the next Eurostar. Anything less than that sends the wrong signals.
I have no interest in who leaked the story nor why as my focus is 100% on supporting the club throughout the relegation fight.
There will be plenty of time in May, June July for the facts of this season to come out while at the same time Duchatelet and others hopefully learn the lessons on the transfer and loan windows and look to build the squad.

Airman Brown said:

PL54 said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

Covered End said:

Airman Brown said:

The SLP is a local paper, its journalists have to have some legal knowledge as part of their training but the paper is unlikely to have an in-house solicitor or to run a football story that would require legal advice.

All of which means that this story is very well sourced from within the club. So not only is the story interesting, but why it has been leaked / verified internally is too.

Let's be honest, it's not a big leak is it ?

When he wasn't on the bench tonight, questions would have ben asked straight away.

It's not a surprising leak, but it is surprising to have it stated categorically. Normally this would be dressed up as an injury doubt and therefore appear only as a rumour.

Yes and no. If he refused to travel to Leeds, there's a fair chance he won't appear again.

So, to cover it up, they would have to have said he was injured for the rest of the season & that wouldn't do his World Cup hopes a lot of good.

You're assuming, however, that the club is managing the story. It's possible, but unlikely, that the club gave it to the SLP off the record as a matter of policy.

It's more likely, in my view, that someone acting on their own initiative within the club did, in which case you have to look for that person's motive for doing so.

Becasue everyone who works for the club, or ever has done, hates their employer ?

I think there are people employed by the club who will have seen the opportunity to put the boot in and taken it for their own reasons, whether related to Thuram or Powell or something else.

If someone were to acquired a normal business in which senior employees were involved in internecine warfare with each other the new owner would usually be advised not to get involved and just get rid of the troublemakers on both sides of the argument until the rest got the message that such disunity was damaging. Trying to understand the history and who is right and wrong is just a big waste of time and effort. Hopefully Katrien understands this.

PL54 said:

Weegie Addick said:

Exactly, Henry. Leaves me feeling quite the opposite of what you are saying, Large - proves the "conspiracy theory" was simply that RD didn't trust CP and was looking for excuses to bin him. Makes me very angry.

On a scale of 1 to 14, how angry exactly ?

Did you say '1 to 14' just so the answer couldn't be a Spinal Tap 11?

charliewright1 said:

Bring back John Sullivan, not the best keeper in the world but a good number 2. Great attitude, great TEAM MAN, and a nice 'chap'
Unlike the 'French Chap'!?!?

John Sullivan would get in my Charlton "Good-Egg" XI...as would Chris Powell, Alex Dyer and Bob Bolder (he'd probably have to play up front...)

Goonerhater said:

"He might as well go home" --------------------sing along.
people wont forget this so all together "he might as well go home".

In the famous words of Brian Clough " he is a clown"--------------------although in the case of Tomashefski (sic) BC was wrong.

Brian Clough was right. We were unfortunate that on the night, Tomaszewski was an incredibly lucky clown. Quite often, he appeared to have no idea where the ball or the goal were but still managed to stop England closing the ball-net interface.