| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? 19:39 - Feb 3 with 4621 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 19:40 - Feb 3 with 3432 views | waynekerr55 |
Did they send the email?
Was this a request that they chose to respond to? |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:47 - Feb 3 with 3335 views | UplandsJack |
They released this statement shortly after Laudrup was axed.
Trust chairman Phil Sumbler said the Trust had been aware of "growing concerns" among the Swansea City board regarding Premier League performances.
In a statement, the Trust said: "During its tenure at the club, the current board, including a representative of the Supporters' Trust, has made key decisions which have taken the club forward, and ultimately we believe that this decision has been taken with the best interest of the club in mind." |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:48 - Feb 3 with 3320 views | UplandsJack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:47 - Feb 3 by UplandsJack |
They released this statement shortly after Laudrup was axed.
Trust chairman Phil Sumbler said the Trust had been aware of "growing concerns" among the Swansea City board regarding Premier League performances.
In a statement, the Trust said: "During its tenure at the club, the current board, including a representative of the Supporters' Trust, has made key decisions which have taken the club forward, and ultimately we believe that this decision has been taken with the best interest of the club in mind." |
Doesn't say anywhere it was their decision or that they were pushing for it to happen. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:51 - Feb 3 with 3272 views | sg1912 |
She told a half truth about his wages, he was on 500k post relegation and as for Laudrup, HJ consistently overruled him on transfer dealings and it continued with the managers that followed, therefore I am sceptical about the Trust being involved |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:52 - Feb 3 with 3249 views | Jack11 |
She’s shot HJ in the foot with that statement anyway. Esentially she is saying the trust had sway in big decisions or were at least heavily consulted. Then the way the takeover was handled proves she’s talking shite. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:58 - Feb 3 with 3190 views | WarwickHunt |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 19:51 - Feb 3 by sg1912 |
She told a half truth about his wages, he was on 500k post relegation and as for Laudrup, HJ consistently overruled him on transfer dealings and it continued with the managers that followed, therefore I am sceptical about the Trust being involved |
After foisting N’Gog and Emnes on him and his insistence that Monk joined the coaching staff didn’t result in his Laudrup’s expected resignation, Jenkins (after shaking hands on Laudrup staying) made one or more phone calls and sacked him within hours by email. Classy,
I’d bet that Morgan was consulted and the Trust weren’t. |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:11 - Feb 3 with 3099 views | BLAZE |
A lot of people wanted him gone at the time, people conveniently forget that now. I admit I thought it was the right decision at the time - I had no reason to doubt the shareholders and trusted their judgement - but looking back it was clearly the start of the decline
If the trust wanted him gone then they weren’t alone. The claim that they demanded it is hilarious though. Give or take some small victories to keep them sweet, when did the other shareholders ever care what the trust thought? |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:14 - Feb 3 with 3060 views | magicdaps10 |
Put my hands up here, I wanted Laudrup gone but it is certainly a case of being wise after the event.
It was clear Laudrup lost interest after the goings on in the background. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:15 - Feb 3 with 3041 views | swan65split |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:11 - Feb 3 by BLAZE |
A lot of people wanted him gone at the time, people conveniently forget that now. I admit I thought it was the right decision at the time - I had no reason to doubt the shareholders and trusted their judgement - but looking back it was clearly the start of the decline
If the trust wanted him gone then they weren’t alone. The claim that they demanded it is hilarious though. Give or take some small victories to keep them sweet, when did the other shareholders ever care what the trust thought? |
Yep we were in a bad spell, but just like now, something was brewing in the background, that most of us never know about.
sadly since that Cup win, things have deteriorated, there is a common denominator no doubt. |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:16 - Feb 3 with 3022 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:11 - Feb 3 by BLAZE |
A lot of people wanted him gone at the time, people conveniently forget that now. I admit I thought it was the right decision at the time - I had no reason to doubt the shareholders and trusted their judgement - but looking back it was clearly the start of the decline
If the trust wanted him gone then they weren’t alone. The claim that they demanded it is hilarious though. Give or take some small victories to keep them sweet, when did the other shareholders ever care what the trust thought? |
No I actually agree. It was the right time for Laudrup to go, he lost the dressing room.
My question, I suppose, is was the Trust complicit with Jenkins pretty much taking over transfers and recruitment, which is widely assumed happened immediately after Laudrup was given the boot. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:19 - Feb 3 with 2986 views | Oldjack |
Sleep walking us into relegation ,shame that |  |
| Prosser the Tosser dwells on Phil's bum hole like a rusty old hemorrhoid ,fact
You Greedy Bastards Get Out Of OUR Club!
|
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:24 - Feb 3 with 2932 views | Dr_Winston |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:16 - Feb 3 by 34dfgdf54 |
No I actually agree. It was the right time for Laudrup to go, he lost the dressing room.
My question, I suppose, is was the Trust complicit with Jenkins pretty much taking over transfers and recruitment, which is widely assumed happened immediately after Laudrup was given the boot. |
As many said at the time, the problem was not the removal of Laudrup. It was replacing him with Jenkins' chief informer, who was utterly unqualified and unsuitable for the job.
Had we appointed a competent manager and let him get on with it then thing would probably have been very different. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:30 - Feb 3 with 2872 views | monmouth |
The Trust Director at the time was a super nice guy, bigger Swans fan than anyone on the Board, but a compromised doormat that naively thought everyone was on the same side. The Trust was simply not equipped to fight the war it didn't realise it was fighting and will always be harshly judged on that.
Did Huw Cooze insist Laudrup was sacked and Jenkins said 'ok boss'? The idea is laughable. Cooze would have found out after or agreed with the consensus before and ben perfectly justified in doing so given the circumstances, and I can't remember too many disagreeing at the time. I certainly didn't, and still don't. Just wish we'd got a real manager in as a replacement and told Monk to f*ck off to Bristol City with his poison.
I assume the Jenkins PR strategy is now 'discredit the Trust' before mediation and the vote. Jenkins would come out of proceedings badly, whatever the outcome, and has already been exposed as refusing mediation. The Yanks will probably be after his blood now too. |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:33 - Feb 3 with 2839 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:30 - Feb 3 by monmouth |
The Trust Director at the time was a super nice guy, bigger Swans fan than anyone on the Board, but a compromised doormat that naively thought everyone was on the same side. The Trust was simply not equipped to fight the war it didn't realise it was fighting and will always be harshly judged on that.
Did Huw Cooze insist Laudrup was sacked and Jenkins said 'ok boss'? The idea is laughable. Cooze would have found out after or agreed with the consensus before and ben perfectly justified in doing so given the circumstances, and I can't remember too many disagreeing at the time. I certainly didn't, and still don't. Just wish we'd got a real manager in as a replacement and told Monk to f*ck off to Bristol City with his poison.
I assume the Jenkins PR strategy is now 'discredit the Trust' before mediation and the vote. Jenkins would come out of proceedings badly, whatever the outcome, and has already been exposed as refusing mediation. The Yanks will probably be after his blood now too. |
That last para. It’s become pretty obvious on here today. |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:54 - Feb 3 with 2695 views | Garyjack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:33 - Feb 3 by exiledclaseboy |
That last para. It’s become pretty obvious on here today. |
I stated in another thread some hours ago that his 'resignation' had a bad smell about it. Monny nailed it.
Edit: Though i don't think the yanks are after his blood. I truly believe at this point that it's co-ordinated. [Post edited 3 Feb 2019 21:02]
|  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:55 - Feb 3 with 2671 views | Uxbridge |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:33 - Feb 3 by exiledclaseboy |
That last para. It’s become pretty obvious on here today. |
It was to be expected. |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:20 - Feb 3 with 2510 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:54 - Feb 3 by Garyjack |
I stated in another thread some hours ago that his 'resignation' had a bad smell about it. Monny nailed it.
Edit: Though i don't think the yanks are after his blood. I truly believe at this point that it's co-ordinated. [Post edited 3 Feb 2019 21:02]
|
It was obvious on Thursday night when it emerged that Jenkins had stopped Dan’s transfer by becoming incommunicado that he would be sacked. I posted it then. |  |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:24 - Feb 3 with 2478 views | LeonWasGod |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:11 - Feb 3 by BLAZE |
A lot of people wanted him gone at the time, people conveniently forget that now. I admit I thought it was the right decision at the time - I had no reason to doubt the shareholders and trusted their judgement - but looking back it was clearly the start of the decline
If the trust wanted him gone then they weren’t alone. The claim that they demanded it is hilarious though. Give or take some small victories to keep them sweet, when did the other shareholders ever care what the trust thought? |
Yes they did, agreed. I wasn't unhappy to see the change either. Sad, but not unhappy. |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:25 - Feb 3 with 2460 views | Jack59 |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:14 - Feb 3 by magicdaps10 |
Put my hands up here, I wanted Laudrup gone but it is certainly a case of being wise after the event.
It was clear Laudrup lost interest after the goings on in the background. |
Who wouldn't loose interest ? He was promised non interference, that's the only reason he came here in the first place. | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:35 - Feb 3 with 2404 views | majorraglan |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 20:14 - Feb 3 by magicdaps10 |
Put my hands up here, I wanted Laudrup gone but it is certainly a case of being wise after the event.
It was clear Laudrup lost interest after the goings on in the background. |
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]
| | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:40 - Feb 3 with 2370 views | Garyjack |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:20 - Feb 3 by Joe_bradshaw |
It was obvious on Thursday night when it emerged that Jenkins had stopped Dan’s transfer by becoming incommunicado that he would be sacked. I posted it then. |
Nothing is obvious here Joe. Just bare that in mind.  | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:41 - Feb 3 with 2365 views | Joe_bradshaw |
| 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]
|
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. | |
| |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:54 - Feb 3 with 2267 views | 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 |  | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:55 - Feb 3 with 2262 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| 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 |
Fair enough.
Cheers Phil | | | |
| Did the Trust insist Laudrup was sacked? on 21:55 - Feb 3 with 2258 views | Kilkennyjack |
| 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. |  |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
