Jens Lehmann

I haven't made any excuses. I've asked pertinent questions. Because I don't believe in action for the sake of taking action. Action without forethought. But support for that is prevalent at this point in time.

FFS. We're 1 single game into this season. Ok then, what did you expect to see this season? And do you think it's acceptable to sack a coach after 1 season & 1 game?

Sorry - is this news to some of you?? Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?!?? 1 more loss is only that - 1 loss. Where was this angst and calling for heads last season? NB. It's just as stupid to do it now...

You noticed any women complaining? Or in fact, anyone? Besides those targeted by the comments, obviously. No. Domestic abuse happens. You think that by mentioning the subject, it somehow becomes more prevalent or painful? What are you worried about? That someone will recognise your avatar in the street and assume you abuse your spouse? Oh. That's right. You want to make it another issue to hide behind, so you don't have your flaky argument pulled apart again. Got it. Now, just breathe deeply and ask yourself... Have I stopped beating my wife yet?

I've responded by asking numerous questions about your interpretation of the score line RR, but you constantly avoid answering. Pathetic.

Who exactly was screwed? If I recall correctly, they screwed themselves with their performance in 186.

You might have been please to hear Neeld during the week say the we do not employ a zone defense, in spite of how it looked on Sunday.

That's great. Thanks for that concise summation. But please tell us how long it takes to create such a culture? And can you also tell us what other amazing coach has taken a club with an exceptionally poor culture (as MFC has, as we are endlessly told) and eradicated it after 1 season?

Of course he's a troll. He won't engage in discussion. It's just continual pushing his agenda. Over and over. And over.

I know it suits your argument, but surely you know Mark McLure is a blithering idiot? An older David King, if you will. Not to mention another of the media vultures with a clear agenda.

A fact? You're quite liberal with your definition of the word "fact." I didn't hear Garry himself go on radio and say that, I have not heard of that happening, and I have seen no evidence of it happening. I also find it thoroughly implausible that Lyon would go on radio, announce that his friend the CEO was in the firing line, but that he would then phone Stynes to intervene in Bailey's firing. You don't have any proof that Lyon saved Schwab, nor that if he did it was for the reasons that you say. Only that he was an advisor and confidant to the president at the time, and that he took over the football director role temporarily following that. Good to have you back, blowing hot air again HSOG.

Damn! I've been waiting 2 days for the perfect chance to introduce this... It's what I imagine a lot of demonland posters to be like, but without actually being coaches.

And it was suitably and purposefully vague. There is a lot to detail in that regard, but for brevity we shall say he came to the belief that the coach did not have the ability or gameplan or strategies to take us forward, and that he wasn't ruthless enough with the players, especially in terms of list management.

The "commonly held belief that Lyon intervened"..?? Really? People believe that? You're honestly the first I'be heard raise it.

Wow. An administrative error, or a delay in posting a membership. The club is going down the toilet... Spare me.

Right. So what has caused that win-loss ratio? Why do you expect it to be any different? Stop hiding behind it and analyse what you see as symbolic of our failure. And nice photo, great imagery... I get it. "The wold is at the door." But beyond a colourful cliche, what do you even mean by that? It's emotive guff with no substance. The club isn't in "crisis." That's pure hyperbole. We have problems, and we need to analyse them then find realistic solutions. You're as bad as the media jocks, RR. Difference is, they want to create a frenzy so they have something to talk about and justify their existence. Oh. Maybe you're not so different... 1. We'll never know the exact content of the Andrews Report, not should we.But it was obvious that it recommended a restructuring of the football department, and that for them to be able to do their jobs properly, it needed less interference from the administration. Schwab had tried to right the ship himself by being a control freak and having too much control in areas where he should have given people the resources and opportunity to fulfil their roles and responsibilities as outline in their job description, or replace them with those that could. 2. The club could see there was a rift between the football department and the administration, particularly Schwab. This was because he interfered where he felt people weren't performing their roles effectively and he needed to have input to ensure it worked. The board initally saw him as an antagonist, and he was in their sights. When the board saw that his concerns were well founded, and his efforts, although misguided, were in the clubs best interests, they turned their attention to those who were failing in their posts. Not having someone fill Leoncelli's shoes immediately led to this situation, because then this situation would have been monitored. I can see Schwab was working with an outdated model for a football department and wasn't informed in how to build and structure a modern one. He also knew that, hence the Andrews Report was commissioned. From that, his role has been re-defined to prevent a similar situation occurring. As long as that continues, he's a valuable contributor to the club.

You're right. The MFC must have made it up because they're worried about the current trend of demonland posters claiming he is slow...

And surely it'd be "Brendan", would it not?

I'm not sure you'll find too many people that agree with that, save for those want to stick pins in Schwab. So you're big criticism is in fact that he didn't do a presser in regards to the tanking verdict? For what purpose? What did you want him to say exclactly? One of the criticisms of him previously was that he was too visible. Now he stays away from the media and concentrates on doing his job. As long as he continues to do it well, I'm pretty happy with that result.

You're just happy the posts from yesterday are gone, since I comprehensively destroyed your spineless arguments. I'm happy for this thread to stay up too, RR. And I'm happy for some logical and deserved criticism of Schwab. No skin off my nose. But so far, you're blindly clutching at straws.

Ok, since you won't address the above fabrication, I will. Schwab was given feedback that as part of his role as CEO, he was involving himself with the operations of the football department too much, to the point of interfering. This has been scaled back considerably to concentrate on the roles within his job description. Or simply hasn't given a quote to the media, since it is not his responsibility nor is it necessary. The coach can sufficiently deal with a single disappointing loss, and the president has given a statement also. Maybe you'd like a quote from the boot-studder? Besides, if he did give comment, I'd wager London to a brick, you'd find another feeble way to criticise Schwab. What restriction has been made to his duties? That he's been told to concentrate on his own role and not interfere with others? That's your interpretation of it?? "Restricted" would imply he is doing less than he should. You think he should be interfering? "Light" would imply that Schwab is doing less than the workload of someone in his position - what evidence do you have of this? All this shows, is that Schwab was actually taking on more responsibility in an attempt to affect change, but in a misguided manner. After seeking feedback, he has corrected his behaviour. Sorry rjay, but you're well out of your depth on this one.

The point is rational and logical discussion, but you constantly deviate from that or completely ignore questions that will out you.

Is the bolder sentence the one you refer to, as "evidence" that Schwab is "on light or restricted duties" (you'd think if it were so clear-cut, there wouldn't be an "or" in there)..?

Where?

?