Not sure how you’ve reached that conclusion. Especially when I’ve used words like ‘stupid’, ‘awful’ and ‘silly’ in reference to why it was even said. Understanding where the statement might be coming from and saying that personally, of all the things that have come out of the club recently, this doesn’t grate with me as much as it has others. Isn’t that just having an open discussion? I certainly don’t see it as defending it. Am I wrong to suggest that I don’t think the club have said that they want to sacrifice success for player sales? Changing the style has resulted in damaging success, but that doesn’t mean that was the intention. And as I’ve said already, I’m not sure that carrying on the style Val deployed was as easy as some make out or was it that realistic.
Well have to agree to differ on the interpretation of what was said. But one thing is fact once again a club representative lied in an interview. The CEO quite categorically stated the club had had no offers for its players in the summer which is complete nonsense as they sold at least one player in Chaplin. I've got a tip for the new CEO it's quite simple If you want people to believe what you tell them make sure you don't include blatant lies / mistakes in the statements you make
I mean come on. Do you really think he’s outright lying or do you think he meant actual regular first teamers who we all considered of high value? I’m 100% supportive of the criticisms being flung at the club right now, but this is just taking every word and over analysing it. Loads of us on here when discussing the Summer transfer window have said ‘we didn’t sell anyone this Summer’ but we’re not lying or trying to mislead, we’re just referencing the ‘star’ players.
Whether it was the intention or not it quite clearly has affected performance and they quite clearly have done **** all about that. So by the fact they've acted to try and improve player value and that's adversely affected on field performance but then done nothing about reversing the affect says to me they put player value above on field success which I and I think many other reds fans is totally wrong whether it was their intention or not.
I really don’t follow. But that’s ok because everyone is allowed to think differently - that’s why starting a thread calling out your fellow supporters and giving them a label of ‘board defenders’ without actually saying who you meant, or examples of them doing that, was called out.
He said they had received no offers NO offers for their players not that they'd only received offers for fringe players. Whether it's a deliberate lie or a mistake he's the CEO of the club and as such it's at least very unprofessional to make untrue statements in an interview / statement and at worst deceitful and let's be honest it's not the first time, how many times as it happened since this lot took over? No wonder the vast majority don't believe a word that comes out of Oakwell anymore.
Sorry but you’re blowing this one way out of proportion. This isn’t the kind of statement or comment that is making people not believe a word that comes out of Oakwell - there’s loads more examples of why that’s happening that are far more damning. I get it though, when things aren’t going well and it’s being a car crash of a ten days with the West Stand and comms, everything ruffles feathers.
Chaplin was on the field of play for 39 games in all competitions last season, scoring 4 goals. You can't get much more regular than that.
Would he have had that many games without the five subs rule? And was he ever referenced as one of our first team ‘stars’ in the Summer. I think you knew the point I was making though.
So you'd think maybe the CEO would make absolutely sure everything he said was factually correct especially as he's new to the job. I know I would if I was in his position if only to try and rebuild trust with the fans.
I think he’s in a one on one conversation with a local journalist who knows the club, talking off the cuff, where context to what’s been asked, how it’s been asked, the objective or reason for it being asked, is pretty clear. If the follow up response would have been ‘but you did get an offer for Conor Chaplin’, I’m sure he’d have said ‘you’re right. But I meant in terms of the players we weren’t prepared to sell and who we saw as being integral to this season’. You can disagree as it’s about interpretation (like I said at the start). But even disagreeing doesn’t make it as bad a comment as you’re making out.
"Barnsley had one of the five best seasons in their history - but there was not one offer for any player. If you look at developing and marketing the players, the value was zero." Chaplin went for £750,000. El-Ahmad doesn't even say first teamers - although the stats show he undoubtedly was one - so Stairfoot Red isn't the only one using some interpretation. You then guess that he wouldn't be involved as much this season - but again El-Ahmad didn't make that distinction.
So for clarity, you think this is a really offensive lie and the CEO is deliberately misleading the fans with this comment?