Lord Snooty Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Carbone once told me he was ringing Di Canio to try and persuade him to come back. But that Di Canio wouldn't answer the phone to him. Yet he answered the call from Sky and told them where he was ...we all remember the scenes of them 'tracking him down' to restaurant where he told them the club hadn't tried to contact him etc etc. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, asteener1867 said: Why on earth shouldn't he pay his own Lawyers....Who in the name of f.ook could defend what in footballing terms was indefensible? On TV...seen by millions? Mitigating circumstances?..absolute zero.... How did the club abandon him?..You can't appeal that bloody action?....You would look ridiculous! No matter how folk try to drag Wilson, Richards into the argument with..."ooh but look how crap they were"...What difference does that make?..Its not the argument is it...? The matters simply black and white Why did he get the ban he got? Cos he did what he did..... absolutely bloody simplistic DJ For the vast majority of player's you build a good case, but he was on a different level and genius's in every field are treated differently. We did the 'Right thing" and we are still paying the price. Ferguson and Man Utd drew up the drawbridge when their flawed genius lost control and are still reaping the rewards. Edited April 15, 2018 by Watson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, DJMortimer said: Nobody, even Di Canio himself denies that. It's hardly a Sherlock Holmes kind of deduction is it? But the club (presumably at the direction of Richards and the board) saw an opportunity to teach Di Canio (and perhaps Carbone too) a lesson. Maybe this extended to getting rid of him entirely and handing him the rope to alienate himself from the fans? They lied about not knowing where he was and being unable to contact him as Sky Sports had reporters following him round... his home town no less. Obviously not hiding very cleverly was he? Richards sold us down the river and then looked after himself. Why would you trust his account of anything? Obviously Di Canio is not blameless. He has a rich history of confrontation and controversy. For better or worse, that's his nature. But Ron Atkinson and Harry Redknapp were able to manage it. Conjecture Edited April 15, 2018 by asteener1867 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Von shabba Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, DJMortimer said: Nobody, even Di Canio himself denies that. It's hardly a Sherlock Holmes kind of deduction is it? But the club (presumably at the direction of Richards and the board) saw an opportunity to teach Di Canio (and perhaps Carbone too) a lesson. Maybe this extended to getting rid of him entirely and handing him the rope to alienate himself from the fans? They lied about not knowing where he was and being unable to contact him as Sky Sports had reporters following him round... his home town no less. Obviously not hiding very cleverly was he? Richards sold us down the river and then looked after himself. Why would you trust his account of anything? Obviously Di Canio is not blameless. He has a rich history of confrontation and controversy. For better or worse, that's his nature. But Ron Atkinson and Harry Redknapp were able to manage it. Don't really understand this statement. Why would the board want to get rid of arguably our best 2 players at that time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, ElsecarOwl said: Don't really understand this statement. Why would the board want to get rid of arguably our best 2 players at that time ? Cause the argument goes that Dave Richard wanted a top FA job and used the occasion to show how tough he was with top players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Yorks Owl Posted April 15, 2018 Author Share Posted April 15, 2018 For me the Cantona Kung fu kick was a more serious offence, but Ferguson and Man Utd chose to support their prize asset. All about options but if we’d shown Di Canio more support he may well have stayed. Obviously if the club wanted rid of Di Canio they got their wishes, but alas I don’t think we could afford to lose him at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Watson said: Cause the argument goes that Dave Richard wanted a top FA job and used the occasion to show how tough he was with top players. Its conjecture though... DiCanios crime ws in black and white for everyone to see...His penalty was fair enough in regards to what it should have been...effectively an 8 match ban for laying hands on a ref... Why should wednesday appeal it...or do owt else.... He should have simply served his time and returned...all else in this argument is guesswork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMortimer Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, ElsecarOwl said: Don't really understand this statement. Why would the board want to get rid of arguably our best 2 players at that time ? Why did they get rid of Ron Atkinson just a few months earlier and replace him with Danny Wilson? There were several occasions even before this when the club's distaste for "the two Italians" had been made apparent. Do you actually believe that the board fulfilled their primary function of doing the best thing for the club by how they acted in the Di Canio / Carbone departures? If they wanted them to leave there were much less damaging ways of going about it. The last 18 years outside of the Premier League with much of it on the verge of administration tells it's own story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, asteener1867 said: Its conjecture though... DiCanios crime ws in black and white for everyone to see...His penalty was fair enough in regards to what it should have been...effectively an 8 match ban for laying hands on a ref... Why should wednesday appeal it...or do owt else.... He should have simply served his time and returned...all else in this argument is guesswork Cause for genius's you appeal, its that simple you keep them happy, massage their ego. We are still suffering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Von shabba Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, Watson said: Cause the argument goes that Dave Richard wanted a top FA job and used the occasion to show how tough he was with top players. So basically you're saying Dave Richards was quite happy to knowingly throw the club into decline ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, Watson said: Cause for genius's you appeal, its that simple you keep them happy, massage their ego. We are still suffering. An appeal would have been futile.....We were lucky he got what he got!! Whether a genius or a f.ookin' Kim Olsen..The ban would have been the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, ElsecarOwl said: So basically you're saying Dave Richards was quite happy to knowingly throw the club into decline ? DId I say that? I was merely replying to your question. Obviously, DR cannot see into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Von shabba Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, DJMortimer said: Why did they get rid of Ron Atkinson just a few months earlier and replace him with Danny Wilson? There were several occasions even before this when the club's distaste for "the two Italians" had been made apparent. Do you actually believe that the board fulfilled their primary function of doing the best thing for the club by how they acted in the Di Canio / Carbone departures? If they wanted them to leave there were much less damaging ways of going about it. The last 18 years outside of the Premier League with much of it on the verge of administration tells it's own story. So you're saying the board purposely put us into decline ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMortimer Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, asteener1867 said: Its conjecture though... DiCanios crime ws in black and white for everyone to see...His penalty was fair enough in regards to what it should have been...effectively an 8 match ban for laying hands on a ref... Why should wednesday appeal it...or do owt else.... He should have simply served his time and returned...all else in this argument is guesswork True, it is conjecture. But it's entirely supportable from the available evidence. But this goes beyond whether the club appealed the decision or not. As I've already said, it would have been a nonsensical waste of time. Had Ron Atkinson still been manager, would this have been handled the same way and would it have turned out differently? Yes... conjecture, I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, asteener1867 said: An appeal would have been futile.....We were lucky he got what he got!! Whether a genius or a f.ookin' Kim Olsen..The ban would have been the same It might well have been futile but if it was the difference between losing him or keeping him then you appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 2 minutes ago, DJMortimer said: Why did they get rid of Ron Atkinson just a few months earlier and replace him with Danny Wilson? There were several occasions even before this when the club's distaste for "the two Italians" had been made apparent. Do you actually believe that the board fulfilled their primary function of doing the best thing for the club by how they acted in the Di Canio / Carbone departures? If they wanted them to leave there were much less damaging ways of going about it. The last 18 years outside of the Premier League with much of it on the verge of administration tells it's own story. You are simply padding out the argument with conjecture and "What ifs".... The crux of the thing is.. Di Canio pushed a ref over when he shouldn't have and rightly got punished for it..All else in this moot.... Richards this and Wilson that? Makes no difference whatsoever... Show me where this "Distaste" from the club is...prior to DiCanios push.... I can remember Hirst grabbing Carbone by the neck on the pitch..but that hardly an institution doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, DJMortimer said: True, it is conjecture. But it's entirely supportable from the available evidence. But this goes beyond whether the club appealed the decision or not. As I've already said, it would have been a nonsensical waste of time. Had Ron Atkinson still been manager, would this have been handled the same way and would it have turned out differently? Yes... conjecture, I know. Show me the evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMortimer Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, ElsecarOwl said: So you're saying the board purposely put us into decline ? No. But seriously, how many decisions did the SWFC board take in the last 20 years that only served to further that decline? This would be just one more amongst dozens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMortimer Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 1 minute ago, asteener1867 said: Show me the evidence... ...for something that didn't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 Just now, DJMortimer said: ...for something that didn't happen? The "Supportable" evidence you mentioned earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now