Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ZicoSterland2

  1. 4 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:


    You really need to read more about who Di Canio is without being consumed with such bitterness. There is no question he was a borderline maniac who had regular differences with managers and chairmen; even those that liked him. All that is hardly a secret or genius deduction. The player said it was the club's idea for him to go back home and I've seen nothing since to refute that. But it is a fact that the chairman claimed he could not find him when a Sky reporter was chasing him around his home town on a moped.


    There has been plenty of inference and speculation about the damage Di Canio did - even the silly claim that his ghost was still ruining the squad a year or more after he left. Never mind the admiration some held him in for his ability, standards and work ethic. So let me indulge in a little guesswork of my own. Di Canio was possibly the highest maintenance player we have ever had and Richards simply could not come to terms with this volatility and outspokenness (this is after all a man who reportedly demanded everyone addressed him as 'Mr Chairman'). His preference was to get rid of him but knew the supporters would have been outraged. The Alcock pantomime gave him his opportunity. He realised that it would not take much to get the player to do the dirty work for him. So there followed some inflammatory comments in the press, the failure to represent him or even attend the disciplinary hearing, the lie about where he went afterwards and so forth. Di Canio with all his ego and instability, duly reacted as expected and the door was opened for his exit without anything like the criticism that there would have been just a few weeks earlier.


    As for Richards; the record on him is perfectly clear and does not paint a nice picture. Journalist David Conn in particular has published several pieces on him. His career is a litany of personal achievement despite incompetence and often at the expense of others. It doesn't require much interpretation on my part. But he is hardly the kind of character that should trusted implicitly.




    Would agree Richards was no great loss.His treatment of Ron Atkinson was shameful. Also thought he treated Francis poorly. Honestly dont think though that Di Canio ever had any intention of returning so manipulated the situation and got his move to the bright lights .

  2. 5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


    My point is I'm providing quotes, articles, interviews which have shown that Di Canio was sent to Italy by SWFC

    You're (in return) just saying what you think you remember, and from a biased viewpoint

    Not sure why you can't grasp this thing about facts vs your opinion

    You seem to think facts are the way you interpret them. (Your opinion ). Danny Wilson clearly stating the club did support Di Canio.  Not relevant in your opinion. Di Canio refusing to come back not relevant (in your opinion ). Di Canio being the root cause of the whole affair by his actions on the field.(maybe thats not relevant ) These are all facts vs your opinion. So drop the condesending approach you have to all who dont agree with your opinion. 

  3. 1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

    You keep repeating Di Canio legged it to Italy

    You do realise he was told to go to Italy by the club?

    You do realise that right?

    The club told him to go to Italy.

    It's all there in black and white in the factual articles written at the time, and confirmed since in interviews by those who were there.

    So let's start at this point.

    You keep saying Di Canio legged it to Italy

    You're WRONG

    The club told him to go there.


    Even DJ Mortimer who is obviously ante Dave Richards seems to recall Di Canio stated he would be back. Im sure the club didnt say go back to Italy then refuse to come back. So your point is ??.

  4. 1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

    Your memory is failing you

    Have a read (I have yesterday and the day before) and it might just trigger your memory a little more as to the facts (not opinions - facts)

    Your facts....best laugh ever. So are you disputing when he legged it to Italy he said he would be returning to Sheffield Wednesday. Also you claimed it would be unfair to hold back a player going to a bigger club . When challenged if you thought West Ham were a bigger club at the time you failed to respond. Sadly your facts dont quite add up. More smoke and mirrors and inuendo than facts and truths.

  5. My memory of interviews at the time or are you disputing the fact that he said he would return to the club ????  If you are look a little further. Think this site allows freedom of opinion and mine is obviously a world away from yours. I would always put the club before any player and no matter how you try to paint it the Di Canio affair had a far bigger negative effect on this club than it did on a self indulgent disloyal italian footballer.

  6. 20 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


    Even Graham Mackrell admitted he was unsure that the club had done enough to support Di Canio

    He was there at the time involved in it all, watching Dave Richards and Danny Wilson from close quarters and seeing it all unfold with his own eyes

    Unsure ....... Di Canio signed for his soul mate honest Harry.(Who had stated when VanHoojidonk went on strike at Forest the same season, all top flight clubs should agree not to offer contracts or way outs to players in dispute with their club.) Strange then he should sign Di Canio at a knock down fee from Sheffield Wednesday. Maybe his dog advised him. The whole affair stank.

  7. 16 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:


    The chairman claimed he had no idea where the player was and couldn't find him after the disciplinary hearing. A Sky reporter managed to find him easily enough... where he lived. 


    A lie. Ipso facto.



    Di Canio I will definitely comeback to Sheffield Wednesday.  A lie. Ipso facto. End of day you seem to have a beef with Dave Richards and it is his fault in your opinion. My opinion differs to yours .

  8. 6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


    It's amazing that this thread is choc full of evidence that proves this kind of thinking is total nonsense, yet people just wont' read it, absorb it or believe it

    It's like some people have gone "NOPE - Not listening. I'm RIGHT. My opinion is total fact. I'm not listening to that"


    Evidence dont make me laugh. You keep worshipping your fake idol.WTF:

  9. 5 minutes ago, DJMortimer said:


    The 'truth'? According to who? Di Canio certainly has a very different take on his departure. I'm struggling to understand why you would take the word of someone like Richards over anybody. 


    Di Canio always the victim according too Di Canio. Why would I believe him ??. Why would you believe the word of him over anyone ?? Matter of opinion seems yours differs to mine. Not like Di Canio hasn't had a history of trouble throughout his career .

  10. Just now, DJMortimer said:


    Rather assuming that Richards was telling the truth about that. Given his record both before and after (David Conn really doesn't like him) I'd say that was questionable at best.


    Still, it's telling that the bloke could write off THREE MILLION that he was legally entitled to (footballer's salaries are 100% protected, even if a club goes into administration) and still be described by you as a mercenary.



    1 minute ago, DJMortimer said:


    Rather assuming that Richards was telling the truth about that. Given his record both before and after (David Conn really doesn't like him) I'd say that was questionable at best.


    Still, it's telling that the bloke could write off THREE MILLION that he was legally entitled to (footballer's salaries are 100% protected, even if a club goes into administration) and still be described by you as a mercenary.


    Wrote of his transfer value with us as did Di Canio. Players who should have generated millions for this club walked away for next to nothing. Im no great fan of Richards but the truth is both forced their ways out and cost this club money it could not afford to lose.

  11. 9 hours ago, DJMortimer said:


    Di Canio gives a very different account of how that happened. Having had to arrange and finance his own representation at the disciplinary hearing it was suggested he should go back to Italy to escape the furore here. The club then claimed it had no idea where he was and couldn't get in touch with him, even though a Sky reporter found him... at home no less. I agree with earlier posters that the chairman disliked him and that a weak manager did not feel he could go against that, whatever his own feelings might have been. The collective relationship was clearly strained even before the Alcock incident (and obviously the player cannot be excused for that self-indulgent idiocy). Whether you like Di Canio or not, those running the club failed in their primary responsibilities of giving the club the best circumstances on and off the pitch, whether that meant restoring him to the team after his suspension or maximising his value for selling him on.


    You accuse him of looking after himself and betraying the club and then choose to disbelieve his motivations and impressions for the paragon of loyalty that is Dave Richards who took advantage of the impending Charterhouse share investment for his own gain (David Conn described this as ethically questionable if not technically illegal and at least one other director publicly registered his disgust), quickly turned a £16m injection of funds into a £16m debt and all whilst drastically reducing the clubs standing as it plummeted towards relegation. And then, clearly thoroughly unconsumed by guilt and remorse, he bailed out and left us to it for his new £177,000 job at the FA !? :huh:


    As for 'GLB'...




    Already filled his pockets . More interested in what he did at Wednesday. Demands were way out of our league and forced a move. Bradford were desperate and agreed to meet them, their choice.

  12. 5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

    I've read this statement over and over since you posted it

    You're gonna have to explain to me how players personalities get them called up for their country..

    Not a team player . Not part of his ego. Waddle always played for the team that was part of personality. Di Canio played for himself not really what is required at national level. What about West Ham and bettering himself ????

  13. 15 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:




    I never ever believe anything when a player kisses any badge or holds a shirt up in a photo to show they've signed etc


    I loved Di Canio. He was worth the ticket price alone and could turn a result and win a match singlehandedly.

    How many other players at our club could do that?

    Waddle Warhurst Hirst all did it with more success. Di Canio never played once for Italy that should tell you much about his personality. I agree the talent was there but not the attitude. You didnt answer the moving on to a bigger club West Ham ?? Really? ? At that time. Some over your argument rings true but other parts are laughable.

  14. 6 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:




    Why would any player be loyal in the world of football and money?

    I can't get my head around anyone who thinks it's bad to have players at the club who want to better themselves, and have ambitions for playing for a bigger, better club.

    Imagine a changing room full of players before a big match....


    You have a look around them and see a group of players that have no ambition to play for bigger clubs....

    The phrase Loyalty is best awarded to players like Kevin Pressman and we all saw how that ended up...

    West Ham were hardly a bigger club at the time. You probably believed it when Di Canio kissed the club badge . Sadly not a man who I would put high on my men of truth and scruples as he zieg heils to his audience. More self indulgent and ignorant.

  15. 1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:


    He was sold mate 


    After the club abandoned him during his time after the push


    Dave Richards and others at the club totally abandoned him.


    What loyalty could he have shown other than attending his own meeting (without any real representation from Wednesday), apologising, accepting his outcome was a fair one, and getting ready to crack on.


    Dave Richards sold him to West Ham, at a massive loss, then quit the club soon after for a plush job at the F.A


    Tell me what you would have preferred Di Canio to do during that time to demonstrate ‘loyalty’ to the club after being totally sold down the river by the man who cleared off to the FA to feather his own nest


    What could Di Canio have done differently?



    Refused to come back from Italy from what I recall. Should have sat out his ban and then got on with what he did best (apart from looking after his own interests ) playing football. Wilson was out of his depth but Di Canio wanted the bright lights of London. Would have walked just as he did at Celtic. I see you don't mention Carbone or GLB as he was nicknamed by the fans. Would have opened a set of toilets for £££. So talented yes , skillfull yes, loyal No.

  • Create New...