Sam Hutchinson

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Costello 77 said:

It took me nearly 3 years to weed the bad seeds out of my business.. but after a lot a pain and £££ the business took off like a hot air balloon..

Unless you've done it you can't know what a few (3 in my case) can do to infect and impact what you're trying to achieve in a negative way...they f*ck you up man and it's not cool..

 

 

Exactly

[McRightSide]

Just now, KivoOwl said:

Clare was offered a new contract, there was a delay in him signing it and he was told he couldn't go back to Gillingham or play here unless he signed.

 

Two days before his debut there was a big U-Turn because Abdi got injured, so Clare came in.

You messed up.

 

It’s fine. It happens.

[roaminowl]

1 minute ago, KivoOwl said:

Clare was offered a new contract, there was a delay in him signing it and he was told he couldn't go back to Gillingham or play here unless he signed.

 

Two days before his debut there was a big U-Turn because Abdi got injured, so Clare came in.

 

I'm shocked.

[cowl]

5 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Have you ever thought that this was the final straw after a number of indiscretions? 

 

Sure, we can all speculate a set of circumstances to excuse Monk's decision to exclude him. Start with the reaction and work your way back to an action or set of actions that would warrant it.

 

Ultimately though Monk's actions and choices are all played out in front of the rest of the squad - they're the ones that essentially decide whether excluding players was the best course of action. And what do you reckon they think? Ah right, they're all rotten then - let's get rid of all of them. Good management, Garry.

[Costello 77]

2 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Sure, we can all speculate a set of circumstances to excuse Monk's decision to exclude him. Start with the reaction and work your way back to an action or set of actions that would warrant it.

 

Ultimately though Monk's actions and choices are all played out in front of the rest of the squad - they're the ones that essentially decide whether excluding players was the best course of action. And what do you reckon they think? Ah right, they're all rotten then - let's get rid of all of them. Good management, Garry.

Are you saying that the squad are deciding the outcome of our season based on what they think of their boss?

[McRightSide]

6 minutes ago, KivoOwl said:

Clare was offered a new contract, there was a delay in him signing it and he was told he couldn't go back to Gillingham or play here unless he signed.

 

Two days before his debut there was a big U-Turn because Abdi got injured, so Clare came in.

Sorry just to clarify again.

 

We didn’t actually have any games in between him returning and him making his debut.

 

So not only was he frozen out on loan for the first part of the season, but then when he returned and got frozen out it lasted for a grand total of zero games.

 

Quite the deep freeze.

[mattitheowl]

2 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Sure, we can all speculate a set of circumstances to excuse Monk's decision to exclude him. Start with the reaction and work your way back to an action or set of actions that would warrant it.

 

Ultimately though Monk's actions and choices are all played out in front of the rest of the squad - they're the ones that essentially decide whether excluding players was the best course of action. And what do you reckon they think? Ah right, they're all rotten then - let's get rid of all of them. Good management, Garry.

 

So if you've got a player or two who are undermining, bullying or simply excluding other players (not saying that's happened because I don't know), you're fine with it because they are the "best" players.  Every workplace have a set of rules and standards.  Clearly Monk's rules have been breached and these players have suffered the consequences.  

 

It's easy to say that we're speculating about what's happened for Monk to banish them, but you're happy to speculate that nothing they could have done warrants being banished.

 

I've worked places that are toxic and management have been undermined by whispering campaigns.  I've also worked places where people have been managed out.  It's not nice, but it's sometimes the right thing to do.

[Animis]

Still find it odd the club gave Westwood a contract in the Summer.

 

Not sure if the Hutch and Westwood issues are related but they are better than the players playing in their position at the moment. 

 

Hopefully our drift towards the bottom of the table isn't terminal and we are able to more on in the Summer.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

26 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

So if you've got a player or two who are undermining, bullying or simply excluding other players (not saying that's happened because I don't know), you're fine with it because they are the "best" players.  Every workplace have a set of rules and standards.  Clearly Monk's rules have been breached and these players have suffered the consequences.  

 

It's easy to say that we're speculating about what's happened for Monk to banish them, but you're happy to speculate that nothing they could have done warrants being banished.

 

I've worked places that are toxic and management have been undermined by whispering campaigns.  I've also worked places where people have been managed out.  It's not nice, but it's sometimes the right thing to do.

In short yes.. I work in the city. Some of my bosses are total c*nts and p*ss everyone off but they bring in revenue so what they say goes. You’re basically saying we should bin off the revenue earners because we don’t like them and just go with the people who want to be here, who can’t actually make the business function

 

its all about 3 points on a Saturday afternoon.. don’t care less if Westwood and Hutchinson have a 3 way

with Monk’s missus after the game every week as long as we win

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

So if you've got a player or two who are undermining, bullying or simply excluding other players (not saying that's happened because I don't know), you're fine with it because they are the "best" players.  Every workplace have a set of rules and standards.  Clearly Monk's rules have been breached and these players have suffered the consequences.  

 

It's easy to say that we're speculating about what's happened for Monk to banish them, but you're happy to speculate that nothing they could have done warrants being banished.

 

I've worked places that are toxic and management have been undermined by whispering campaigns.  I've also worked places where people have been managed out.  It's not nice, but it's sometimes the right thing to do.

 

No, I'm unhappy to speculate. It's a shame we need to at all.

 

We know the job of management is a tough one - but that's precisely the job that Monk has. We can all offer him all the sympathy in the world, and console him when he tells us just how difficult it is, but ultimately, it's Monk's competence as a manager that's at issue here - not whether the job is a difficult one.

 

Monk's decision to exclude Hutchinson is something that might have been a reasonable course of action. It also may not have been. I could generate a scenario of circumstances to support either view if I wanted, and I'm sure we all could. But whatever the true set of circumstances here, it's what happens subsequently that is perhaps the most valid way to judge Monk's ‘solution’. If subsequent to the exclusion of all these players, results and performances would've all of a sudden picked up, then hardly anyone would be querying the absence of any of the excluded players.

 

For Monk to have done all this for the greater benefit of the squad, that has to have been demonstrable in some way. It just hasn't been at all. In fact, it's got worse.

[TheEnchanter]

There's a select set of fans that think chucking Westwood, Hutchinson and probably Megson into the club would have us working reyt hard and in the play offs all thriving in a die hard team that sprints through Grenoside woods before the start of each game and goes to bed in their kit. 

 

I say those people are mental. 

[sonofbert2]

I’m just got in bother again for swearing and I’m sorry but it is very difficult not to swear at this difficult time.

 

FIZZ OFF WEDNESDAY!!

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said:

There's a select set of fans that think chucking Westwood, Hutchinson and probably Megson into the club would have us working reyt hard and in the play offs all thriving in a die hard team that sprints through Grenoside woods before the start of each game and goes to bed in their kit. 

 

I say those people are mental. 

 

I'd agree those people are mental. We'd be in the Premier League already if the mere presence of Westwood and Hutchinson alone were enough to have guaranteed success.

[Ever the pessimist]

Those comparing football to other businesses/ enterprises need to realise it’s unlike pretty much anything else. Especially in terms of employee (player) power.

[mattitheowl]

17 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

In short yes.. I work in the city. Some of my bosses are total c*nts and p*ss everyone off but they bring in revenue so what they say goes. You’re basically saying we should bin off the revenue earners because we don’t like them and just go with the people who want to be here, who can’t actually make the business function

 

its all about 3 points on a Saturday afternoon.. don’t care less if Westwood and Hutchinson have a 3 way

with Monk’s missus after the game every week as long as we win

 

I seem to have missed the part of this scenario where Westwood and Hutchinson guarantee us victories.  I seem to remember people falling over themselves to crucify Westwood after a game (Swansea at home?) where he'd made ANOTHER costly error. The call was that Dawson should be given a chance as he couldn't be any worse.

 

Hutch is a different prospect.  He's a crowd pleaser because he does the showy stuff.  The fractional leg breaking tackles, the agro with opposition.  But it inevitably ends in a booking and/or injury.  He was also in and out of the team before his apparent indiscretion.

 

I just don't understand the obsession our fans have with these two in particular who've now twice fallen foul of managers.  Players who can't follow rules will always fall foul of managers who want to instil a level of discipline.  

 

There MUST be a reason that Westwood hasn't been able to get in the Ireland team when he's consistently been the best 'keeper available.  That's under 2/3 different managers too.  I'm not saying there's no smoke without fire, but something smells hot!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, KivoOwl said:

Thorniley was frozen out like Hirst and Clare, because he didn't sign a contract put in front of him.

 

He relented and got back in, Hirst and Clare didn't. 

 

McGugan had a fall out with the chairman and didn't play again.

 

All of the above I'm fairly sure of. By that I mean I trust the person who told me.

 

Westwood and Hutch, I don't know. But there's a pattern.

McGugan did not only fall out with the chairman , he fell out with every single person that ever crossed paths with him during his career 
 

Using McGugan against the chairman is absolutely ridiculous

[mattitheowl]

1 minute ago, Ever the pessimist said:

Those comparing football to other businesses/ enterprises need to realise it’s unlike pretty much anything else. Especially in terms of employee (player) power.

 

Indeed, but people who think it's completely different also need to realise they are just people too.  They have emotions and feelings which get in the way of their jobs (probably more than most).

[Ever the pessimist]

1 minute ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Indeed, but people who think it's completely different also need to realise they are just people too.  They have emotions and feelings which get in the way of their jobs (probably more than most).

True.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 minute ago, mattitheowl said:

 

I seem to have missed the part of this scenario where Westwood and Hutchinson guarantee us victories.  I seem to remember people falling over themselves to crucify Westwood after a game (Swansea at home?) where he'd made ANOTHER costly error. The call was that Dawson should be given a chance as he couldn't be any worse.

 

Hutch is a different prospect.  He's a crowd pleaser because he does the showy stuff.  The fractional leg breaking tackles, the agro with opposition.  But it inevitably ends in a booking and/or injury.  He was also in and out of the team before his apparent indiscretion.

 

I just don't understand the obsession our fans have with these two in particular who've now twice fallen foul of managers.  Players who can't follow rules will always fall foul of managers who want to instil a level of discipline.  

 

There MUST be a reason that Westwood hasn't been able to get in the Ireland team when he's consistently been the best 'keeper available.  That's under 2/3 different managers too.  I'm not saying there's no smoke without fire, but something smells hot!

There’s no guarantee of anything but the current selections are almost guaranteeing defeats before we even kick off. Last season when they came back in it made an immediate difference and we went from conceding loads to barely conceding.. it was night and day difference

 

would rather we gave it a go than watch us just lose another 9 games and get relegated

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

McGugan did not only fall out with the chairman , he fell out with every single person that ever crossed paths with him during his career 
 

Using McGugan against the chairman is absolutely ridiculous

 

He's literally one out of a list of players Kivo mentioned