• ***IMPORTANT*** SOME PASSWORDS NOT WORKING

    There has been some issues with user passwords. Some users may need to reset their passwords to login to the forum. Please use the password reset option when logging in. If you do experience issues and find our account is locked then please email admin@jackarmy.net Thanks

Mitch's Roundup

  • Thread starter Risc
  • Start date
  • Replies: Replies 29
  • Views: Views 2,800
Nocountryforoldjack said:
Cut them some slack, between the owners and the manager you've been their biggest cheerleader on here.

I can support the manager of our club but still criticise and acknowledge things he does wrong, but I don’t agree with the constant agendas made up against him, that’s what I’ll stick up for.

Get out of your arse and cheer up you miserable debbie downer, I’ve never seen you post anything positive.
 
My turn.

I am not surprised, I am not bothered and I am also not worried. However, I am a little bit tired (didn't sleep well), and more than a little hungry (skipped brekky).
 
Swansea93 said:
I can support the manager of our club but still criticise and acknowledge things he does wrong, but I don’t agree with the constant agendas made up against him, that’s what I’ll stick up for.

Get out of your arse and cheer up you miserable debbie downer, I’ve never seen you post anything positive.

Beep.....beep.....beep
 
JackSomething said:
The article on Walesonline seems pretty comprehensive and suggests the journo had a good source or two given the detail he goes into.

What the hell is up with the final paragraph though? It reads as if this information is coming directly from Martin or one of his team with the agreement this bit be included to make him look good:

"Martin has a pretty special bond with the Jack Army, and most would love nothing more than him being the man to guide them back into the Premier League. The very fact the Swansea faithful practically collectively agreed that they would not blame the 37-year-old one bit for taking up a new project if one arose in the near future is telling."

It's called client journalism.
 
jasper_T said:
It's called client journalism.

Thanks, I thought it was called 'Kuenssberg's Syndrome'.

In all seriousness though, I've rarely seen such a blatant example of it. It's as if Martin or his agent dictated that to the journo and he printed it wholesale.
 
JackSomething said:
Thanks, I thought it was called 'Kuenssberg's Syndrome'.

In all seriousness though, I've rarely seen such a blatant example of it. It's as if Martin or his agent dictated that to the journo and he printed it wholesale.

The original was...

The dashingly handsome Martin has a pretty special bond with the Jack Army, despite his lack of a preseason in 2021/22 and most would love nothing more than him being the man to guide them back into the Premier League playing his unique brand of inventive football. The very fact around 90% of the Swansea faithful (ironically the same number as the side's pass completion rate this season) agree that they would not blame the 37-year-old former international footballer and entrepreneur one bit for taking up a new project if one arose in the near future is telling
 
The thing that I find astonishing about his article is that he completely manages to avoid asking the only important questions. Why? Why did this happen?

Several possible answers. One is that the owners are waiting on these mysterious ‘new investors’. Is that likely? Not really. They’ve been trying to sell the club for ages and, due to lack of interest at the price they want, have resorted to bringing in others alongside them. To get them to fund any outside attempt at getting up and allowing them to recover their initial outlay on shares.
Second is that they don’t want to give Martin any funds and want to keep powder dry until the summer. This is more possible. Two reasons could be 1. That they have actually lost faith in him due to dismal recent results. 2. The negotiations they were supposed to be in about extending his contract have fallen apart because he is demanding too much. This may well be the case. If they think he’s off at the end of the season then why bother giving him money - better to save it to allow a new person to shape the squad.
Third possibility is that they genuinely thought someone would pay a lot for Obafemi, Patterson, Whittaker etc. Naive and the club went about it in completely the wrong way by making it so obvious they weren’t needed, but they’ve done that quite a bit before and seem to have no idea how to go about negotiating any football deals whatsoever. Either in or out.


What hasn’t changed though is their lack of interest. They haven’t given a toss for ages now. Written off their initial purchase price against tax, win some lose some, no gain in owning a club no one in America can ever watch on the Tv - no kudos there.

It’s a sorry state of affairs whichever way you look at it, but for the main journo to not explore this is beyond a joke.
 
Written from a Plymouth point of view, but doesn't show the club in a good light

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sport/football/morgan-whittaker-swansea-plymouth-argyle-8093278
 
JackSomething said:
Thanks, I thought it was called 'Kuenssberg's Syndrome'.

In all seriousness though, I've rarely seen such a blatant example of it. It's as if Martin or his agent dictated that to the journo and he printed it wholesale.

When i read that bit, the first thought i had was "aye aye, Mitch has been around Russell's for tea and biscuits". I then viewed the whole article as being written from a complete different perspective. Poor that.
 
3swan said:
Written from a Plymouth point of view, but doesn't show the club in a good light

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sport/football/morgan-whittaker-swansea-plymouth-argyle-8093278

What could they possibly have written that would show the club in a good light? Whittaker has been shafted and for no apparent reason.
 
3swan said:
Worrying - yes

"But the off-the-field impact is far more damaging. Clubs have become increasingly angered (stronger words apply in some cases) when it comes to dealing with the key decision makers at Swansea, and that certainly isn't healthy for long-term relationships and future business."

Thing is this is not a surprise.

Work back to the first Trust deal. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the rcommendation at the time the deal failed because 48 hours after we presented it to the members the goalposts were changed. And that is what split the Trust board because there were very different views on what that meant.
 
PSumbler said:
Thing is this is not a surprise.

Work back to the first Trust deal. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the reommendation at the time the deal failed because 48 hours after we presented it to the members the goalposts were changed. And that is what split the Trust board because there were very different views on what that meant.

Far from being a surprise, but let's say it had limited affect, as few really took much notice.

Slowly the fanbase has seen the drip by drip affect of their decisions, or lack of.

Also so many articles away from club sources are now pointing the finger.
 
3swan said:
Far from being a surprise, but let's say it had limited affect, as few really took much notice.

Slowly the fanbase has seen the drip by drip affect of their decisions, or lack of.

Also so many articles away from club sources are now pointing the finger.

Fair comment

The sad part is - and this isn't reflective of the journalist but the publication - they never have asked the tough questions of the club going right back to 2001 (and before)
 
karnataka said:
What could they possibly have written that would show the club in a good light? Whittaker has been shafted and for no apparent reason.

Why has he been 'shafted'? Is he bigger than the club?
 
ARQS said:
Why has he been 'shafted'? Is he bigger than the club?

The way people go on you'd think he was Pele. He's a bog standard lower league football player that has had a decent three months playing in the best performing team in league 1. If he's here, I'd think he deserves a chance, although Rooney, Cooper, Martin all don't see him as a great option, or there's something wrong with him.

He hasn't been shafted, he's been unlucky. We brought him back to sell him if we could. Rangers didn't meet our price. Whether you think it should have been accepted (I do if it was anywhere north of a million, with some sell on stuff just in case), the people that matter didn't. Apart from the actual decision not to close it out, it's all entirely logical.
 

Bristol City v Swansea City

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
624
Total visitors
710

Forum statistics

Threads
21,178
Messages
289,792
Members
4,729
Back
Top