| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? 19:39 - Feb 3 with 4710 views | 34dfgdf54 |
Is anyone going to counter what Jenkins Mrs said earlier?
I know at the time they came out and said they agreed with it, or something along those lines, but were they front runners in the action being taken? |  | | |  |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:59 - Feb 3 with 1187 views | glanmorjak |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:35 - Feb 3 by majorraglan |
The performance against West Ham was abject, but I wanted him to stay.
Looking back it appears there were cliques amongst the players and that was enough, along with some patchy form to see him gone. Certainly looks like player power may have been a factor, but when you have a settled nucleus of players who’ve been at a club for a long time, unless you are someone like Alex Ferguson it may be a difficult situation. A new manager changing things may not always be appreciated. Look at Man U and the contrast between results under Mourhinio and Solskjaer.
Edit - clarification. [Post edited 3 Feb 2019 21:36]
|
Results hadn't been very good during Laudrup's 2nd season but one of the main reasons that attributed to Laudrup being sacked was his association with his agent Tutumulu, somebody who had supplied almost all of the players the previous League Cup winning season and somebody who wanted to continue supplying players to the Swans.
This philosophy went against HJ's vision of recruitment, on the basis that should Laudrup move on, his agent would go as well, leaving the Swans with no recruitment policy.
With long serving Garry Monk having turned down a move to Bristol City and coming to an end to his playing career, and somebody in the dressing room quite happy to maintain a cosy relationship with Jenkins, Monk was in the right place at the right time to take on a caretaker role after Laudrup was sacked, and become the instigator of moving the club away from an identity forged via a style of playing.
After being installed as manager a best ever finish the following season in the PL saw Monk firmly establish himself with Jenkins but what was to envelop over the next 3/4 season as Jenkins immersed himself 100% in the player recruitment world would ultimately get the club to the position it currently holds. |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:00 - Feb 3 with 1183 views | monmouth |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:54 - Feb 3 by Phil_S |
From what I remember of the time there was no demanding he was to be sacked but Huw (Cooze) would have been involved in the discussions (indeed I remember him calling me on the night of the sacking to tell me the decision had been taken) and eps abreast of the decision
But to say he was sacked because the Trust demanded it is s stretch of the truth that I cannot see many believing |
Is not as if Jenkins has stretched the truth, or made up anything, in the past though. Honest as the day is long, that boy. |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:07 - Feb 3 with 1142 views | hobo |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:41 - Feb 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
The West Ham performance was indeed abject. We dispatched Fulham in the previous game with comfort and not long before that we won at Old Trafford.
I don’t believe for one second that we were “sleepwalking to relegation “ as appears to have become the accepted version of our situation at the time.
Laudrup was not sacked for the results on the pitch. |
We had a spate of injuries at the time, and having to juggle domestic and European competitions. Our form would have improved drastically in the coming games, and I'm sure we would have dispatched Napoli too |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:08 - Feb 3 with 1142 views | Jonathans_coat |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:00 - Feb 3 by monmouth |
Is not as if Jenkins has stretched the truth, or made up anything, in the past though. Honest as the day is long, that boy. |
Well exactly.
Consider the source of this particular tidbit of information. Even disregarding the fact that it doesn’t make any sense, and has never even been hinted at in the years following the event, the source alone should render it unreliable information in the eyes of most sane individuals. [Post edited 3 Feb 2019 22:10]
|  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:14 - Feb 3 with 1105 views | Garyjack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:59 - Feb 3 by glanmorjak |
Results hadn't been very good during Laudrup's 2nd season but one of the main reasons that attributed to Laudrup being sacked was his association with his agent Tutumulu, somebody who had supplied almost all of the players the previous League Cup winning season and somebody who wanted to continue supplying players to the Swans.
This philosophy went against HJ's vision of recruitment, on the basis that should Laudrup move on, his agent would go as well, leaving the Swans with no recruitment policy.
With long serving Garry Monk having turned down a move to Bristol City and coming to an end to his playing career, and somebody in the dressing room quite happy to maintain a cosy relationship with Jenkins, Monk was in the right place at the right time to take on a caretaker role after Laudrup was sacked, and become the instigator of moving the club away from an identity forged via a style of playing.
After being installed as manager a best ever finish the following season in the PL saw Monk firmly establish himself with Jenkins but what was to envelop over the next 3/4 season as Jenkins immersed himself 100% in the player recruitment world would ultimately get the club to the position it currently holds. |
That's how i've always seen it. Great post. |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:21 - Feb 3 with 1081 views | SomethingRandom |
It was a downward spiral after Laudrup got sacked. Monk didn't like the Spanish players he'd brought in and by getting rid of them and changing the style over the next 18 months ended up fighting relegation 3 years on the trot. | |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:21 - Feb 3 with 1080 views | Darran |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:14 - Feb 3 by Garyjack |
That's how i've always seen it. Great post. |
Did Monk turn down a move to Bristol City or did he get injured?
Serious question I can’t remember the timeline. |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:26 - Feb 3 with 1048 views | Private_Partz |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:41 - Feb 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
The West Ham performance was indeed abject. We dispatched Fulham in the previous game with comfort and not long before that we won at Old Trafford.
I don’t believe for one second that we were “sleepwalking to relegation “ as appears to have become the accepted version of our situation at the time.
Laudrup was not sacked for the results on the pitch. |
100% spot on. ML did not lose interest. It boardered on constructive dismisal.
Had he stayed there would have been a clear out of players only they would have been entirely different to the lot that went and Monk would have been top of the list. Dare I say it but Leon could easily have been in that bunch as well.
I would love Curt to write a book. His version of the ML saga would be very different to the 'lost interest' theory imho. ML has always remained in contact with him and kept tabs on the club after his departure.
The undermining and eventual sacking of ML, plus the sheer arrogance and recklessness in appointing Monk, was the beginning of the end for us. |  |
| You have mission in life to hold out your hand,
To help the other guy out,
Help your fellow man.
Stan Ridgway
|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:26 - Feb 3 with 1048 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:21 - Feb 3 by Darran |
Did Monk turn down a move to Bristol City or did he get injured?
Serious question I can’t remember the timeline. |
I thought his back went on him. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:30 - Feb 3 with 1017 views | Garyjack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:21 - Feb 3 by Darran |
Did Monk turn down a move to Bristol City or did he get injured?
Serious question I can’t remember the timeline. |
From what i remember, he was due to go the wurzels on loan but then got 'injured'. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 23:39 - Feb 3 with 933 views | Brynmill_Jack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:59 - Feb 3 by glanmorjak |
Results hadn't been very good during Laudrup's 2nd season but one of the main reasons that attributed to Laudrup being sacked was his association with his agent Tutumulu, somebody who had supplied almost all of the players the previous League Cup winning season and somebody who wanted to continue supplying players to the Swans.
This philosophy went against HJ's vision of recruitment, on the basis that should Laudrup move on, his agent would go as well, leaving the Swans with no recruitment policy.
With long serving Garry Monk having turned down a move to Bristol City and coming to an end to his playing career, and somebody in the dressing room quite happy to maintain a cosy relationship with Jenkins, Monk was in the right place at the right time to take on a caretaker role after Laudrup was sacked, and become the instigator of moving the club away from an identity forged via a style of playing.
After being installed as manager a best ever finish the following season in the PL saw Monk firmly establish himself with Jenkins but what was to envelop over the next 3/4 season as Jenkins immersed himself 100% in the player recruitment world would ultimately get the club to the position it currently holds. |
Let’s also not forget a punishing Europa League and PL schedule, a long injury list and a group of disgruntled ex players who should have been moved on. |  |
| Each time I go to Bedd - au........................ |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 00:50 - Feb 4 with 883 views | UplandsJack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:21 - Feb 3 by Darran |
Did Monk turn down a move to Bristol City or did he get injured?
Serious question I can’t remember the timeline. |
He faked an injury i think it was the day before he was supposed to sign for them on loan. Some story about slipping on one of his kids toys on the stairs. Actually told me himself he'd done it, as was afraid he'd never get back if he left. |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 00:53 - Feb 4 with 877 views | UplandsJack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:26 - Feb 3 by Private_Partz |
100% spot on. ML did not lose interest. It boardered on constructive dismisal.
Had he stayed there would have been a clear out of players only they would have been entirely different to the lot that went and Monk would have been top of the list. Dare I say it but Leon could easily have been in that bunch as well.
I would love Curt to write a book. His version of the ML saga would be very different to the 'lost interest' theory imho. ML has always remained in contact with him and kept tabs on the club after his departure.
The undermining and eventual sacking of ML, plus the sheer arrogance and recklessness in appointing Monk, was the beginning of the end for us. |
Exactly how i hear it went / would have gone too. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 00:54 - Feb 4 with 876 views | UplandsJack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:07 - Feb 3 by hobo |
We had a spate of injuries at the time, and having to juggle domestic and European competitions. Our form would have improved drastically in the coming games, and I'm sure we would have dispatched Napoli too |
This..... | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 05:30 - Feb 4 with 800 views | icecoldjack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:21 - Feb 3 by Darran |
Did Monk turn down a move to Bristol City or did he get injured?
Serious question I can’t remember the timeline. |
He officially got a back injury/spasms but allegedly told people he wasn't going anywhere and was not going to be pushed out the club he loves by Laudrup . |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 08:39 - Feb 4 with 706 views | AnotherJohn |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:41 - Feb 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
The West Ham performance was indeed abject. We dispatched Fulham in the previous game with comfort and not long before that we won at Old Trafford.
I don’t believe for one second that we were “sleepwalking to relegation “ as appears to have become the accepted version of our situation at the time.
Laudrup was not sacked for the results on the pitch. |
Agreed. Actually many of us opposed Laudrup's sacking and were worried about the way things were shaping up. One cause for concern was the negative leaks to the press from inside the camp that were appearing regularly just before the sacking. Another (which may or may not have been related) was the sense that a number of senior players whose position was under threat were actively seeking to undermine Laudrup's position. Those of us who said that got a lot of stick on this board. Some who joined in don't look so smart now. [Post edited 4 Feb 2019 8:43]
| | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 08:51 - Feb 4 with 683 views | WarwickHunt |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 08:39 - Feb 4 by AnotherJohn |
Agreed. Actually many of us opposed Laudrup's sacking and were worried about the way things were shaping up. One cause for concern was the negative leaks to the press from inside the camp that were appearing regularly just before the sacking. Another (which may or may not have been related) was the sense that a number of senior players whose position was under threat were actively seeking to undermine Laudrup's position. Those of us who said that got a lot of stick on this board. Some who joined in don't look so smart now. [Post edited 4 Feb 2019 8:43]
|
Spot on.
We had an “agenda” apparently, remember? |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 09:08 - Feb 4 with 658 views | AnotherJohn |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 08:51 - Feb 4 by WarwickHunt |
Spot on.
We had an “agenda” apparently, remember? |
Yep, you were one of those who saw what was happening. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 09:20 - Feb 4 with 630 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:26 - Feb 3 by Private_Partz |
100% spot on. ML did not lose interest. It boardered on constructive dismisal.
Had he stayed there would have been a clear out of players only they would have been entirely different to the lot that went and Monk would have been top of the list. Dare I say it but Leon could easily have been in that bunch as well.
I would love Curt to write a book. His version of the ML saga would be very different to the 'lost interest' theory imho. ML has always remained in contact with him and kept tabs on the club after his departure.
The undermining and eventual sacking of ML, plus the sheer arrogance and recklessness in appointing Monk, was the beginning of the end for us. |
I met Curt out in Mallorca and he had nothing but good things to say about Laudrup and how managed us and he was professionaly etc. That's why I take people who go on about the "Paris Trip" etc with a pinch of salt.
As you say, he still keeps in contact with Curt and the fella who chauffeurs the players about, can't think of his name. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 09:23 - Feb 4 with 623 views | theloneranger |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 22:00 - Feb 3 by monmouth |
Is not as if Jenkins has stretched the truth, or made up anything, in the past though. Honest as the day is long, that boy. |
Checking his nose, is proof enough!! |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
