Flicker needs to stop chasing the criticism-very Hill-esque

Been told that on radio dee darr this morning Flicker found the comments of him 'only signing mates' very insulting and 'would like to meet the people' who say this. If this is correct, then Flicker needs to stop this now, this would be going down the same the slippery slope that Hill went down should results not improve. Make your team do the talking on the pitch Flicker, get that right and nothing else really matters.

 

To be honest if I was trying to do the job I love for the compamny I love working for to the best of my ability I'd be pretty pissed off about people slating me on the internet after a few weeks. Especially if not that long ago I kept the company going at a higher level and saved many people's jobs.

People need to chill art for **** sake.

A lot of posters on this forum have no balls at all.

 

He was answering a question that was put to him.

 

I'd be pissed off under the same circumstances so I don't really blame him. We're allowed an opinion but he's got a right to react to the things we say.

 

Not disgusting though, is it?
Mike Pollitt - Flickers best man. TK, another great mate of his. And Paddy McCourt.
Not to forget COG and Wisey.
I'm not judging him on that, by the way. But it's hardly disgusting for us to assume that Pollitt is here based on that friendship. Because let's be reight, there are better keepers available on loan.
It appears he's creating his own problems. But that's his prerogative. I stopped using this forum as a medium to attack him a long time ago now. I just want best for our club. I hope that he and the squad feel similarly.
Big game tomorrow. Big test for David.
I hope for OUR sake we are talking about a pleasing performance come 5pm.
You Reds etc.

 

I can see why people are saying it about Pollitt because it really is a baffling signing however I really do think Flicker is a very honest bloke and just signed a keeper that was his best mate rather than signing his best mate just to do him a favour. I imagine that a lot of friendships are formed in football and sometimes knowing a bloke well helps you to know how they will fit into the team. I'm not saying I agree with the signing but I trust Flicker and don't think he'd do something that he didn't think was in the best interests of the team. His judgement may be a little questionable in my opinion (Bobby and Steele) but that's not quite the same thing.

 

Adding to that I honestly don't believe that Watkins and Mansford would allow him to spend money on Pollett just because they are mates...having said that I still find it a strange signing but we don't what's going behind the scenes.

 

They will back the manager and when they don't his position becomes untenable

 

I would have thought that an employee working for a boss who happens to be his best mate would give 125% so as not to let his boss (mate) down.

I don't think Flicker signed Pollitt because he's his mate. He signed him because he thought he could do a job for us.

 

not be long before he's sending Mellon or Scott out to answer the questions instead just like Keith did with him

 

So Flitcroft inexplicably signs one of his best mates and people say "Flitcroft has signed one of his best mates - can anyone explain this?", and now he's got the monk on saying he wants to "meet these people". Reminds me of Peter Doyle. I wonder if Flicker has a man's nose on a man's face too?

 

Maybe he'll ask them about Butterfield after he scores against us tomorrow?

 

He's allowed an opinion just as we are and he was answering a question that was put to him.

But just to address a couple of things: Do I think Flitcroft only signs his mates? No, of course not, that's clearly not the case and I don't know anyone who has suggested that. If they have, they are clearly wrong.

However, he has signed one of his mates at least. Mike Pollitt is Flitcroft's friend, they went on holiday together this summer. We have signed him. Neither of those points are up for debate. They're facts and stating such is not 'disgusting'.

Do I think Flitcroft signing one of his mates makes him a bad person? No, not in the slightest. The opposite if anything.

Do I think Flitcroft signing one of his mates is unprofessional? No, definitely not. If employers in this country weren't allowed to employ their friends and family our country would have fallen apart years ago. Sometimes you need someone you can rely on at short notice and it's your friends and family who help you out.

Do I think Flitcroft signing one of his mates makes him a bad football manager? No, definitely not. If he only signed his mates then questions would need to be asked, but as I've already stated that is absolutely not the case.

Do I think human beings in general tend to overlook the flaws in our friends and family, see the very best in them and lose a bit of objectivity? Yes, that what makes us nice people. We see good in those we surround ourselves with. It's a fantastic character trait to have. Flicker seems like a very decent bloke to me, so I would imagine he has this aspect of his personality in spades. That's why it's tricky signing someone to play football for you who is also a friend. It's difficult to have that objectivity. It's not impossible, it can be done, but it's a hard balancing act to get right. It's also why such signings are questioned. We know that we tend to favour our friends and family, we know we're not objective when assessing them and we know that other people feel and act the same.

Do I think Mike Pollitt was the best option to keep goal for us on Tuesday night? At 41 years old, no I don't. But that's just my opinion, it doesn't make me right. Personally, I don't think we would have signed him if he wasn't Flicker's mate. That's not to say we signed him simply because he is Flicker's mate. Flicker signed him because he believes he is a good goalkeeper. But that takes me back to the above issue about objectivity. However, that doesn't mean Pollitt is a bad signing. Sometimes your best mate is the very best person for the job. Flicker thinks he is, I'm not so sure. Thankfully it's Flicker's opinion that counts and not mine or we really would be in trouble.

If Flicker still finds anything I have said above disgusting then I'm more than happy to meet with him, although why he'd waste his time talking to me I don't know. There's 10,000+ different opinion on what is happening at Oakwell at any given time. Mine is just one of the dafter ones.

 

Thank you Jay for summing up my thoughts on this exactly but as ever you explain it in a much better way than I ever could.

 

That's only because I'm much lazier than you and I'm spending time doing this because it prevents me doing the difficult stuff I should be getting on with.

 

Well said Jay.

 

flicker was happy to take all the praise that came his way last season no matter how over exaggerated it was, if he cant man up and take a bit of flak when it comes is way then maybe management is not for him

 

Pretty snidey comment

 

I think when the guy achieved what he did last season, keeping us up when we were just about dead and buried,he does not deserve certain posters to be putting up flak after 4 league games...such short term memories and a capacity to panic or in an odd case to be as destructive as possible at the earliest available opportunity reflects poorly on the mindset of some.