Synbad wrote:
Cazzesman wrote:
Synbad has thrown out a few bits of 'bait' suggesting there is some behind the scenes 'angst' at CFC .
My question would be...........................If these people with angst actually exist what makes these people any more right in their thinking than those they are unhappy with. How is it that Synbad can hint that Ratts, Sticks, Icke and Swanny have got things wrong and then know his 'source' has all the right answers. What makes his source any better than those in Power.
Just because there might be some nervous nellie behind the scenes who may or may not have a bee in his bonnet about something that annoys him, that doesn't mean there should be a Royal Commission into all things CFC.
At all clubs there are many people behind the scenes who are just supporters who are simply higher up the food chain than the rest of us. As supporters they still jump at shadows like many supporters on TC. Just like The Cranium posted his public venting on TC many people in coterie groups and on boards vent in private about who they believe is and who isn't capable of certain things within a club. The private then becomes public because that's human nature. Guys like Hutchy thrive on people with big mouths who have an opinion.
In every office, in every building, in every town in the world there is the 3rd in command who believe's he can do a better job than the bloke in charge.
Ego might not be a dirty word but in sporting organisations it's a bigger killer than cancer.
Regards Cazzesman
If thats the case Elliot would still be around... cos people thought he wasnt doing it right.
Thats such a lame argument Cazz...
Its important that there is vigorous debate and not a sheep flock mentality...
Some people are cynical and some people are sheep....
Might need a compromise but having a go at me for saying there is stuf and divisions about how best to go forward behind the scenes is ridiculous...!!!
lol
Ok so Synbad has implied that important people are concerned about the coach and the culture of the club.
Cazz - despite admirable use of "mays" - has basically acknowlegde that he's correct, but that this is irrelevant because the person(s) is/are, at the end of the day, just another supporter(s) whose views are no more correct than anyone elses.
As entertaining as all this alludation is (I think I just invented a word, how very shakepearian of me), can't you just tell us who you're both talking about so we can all decide for ourselves how much weight to attach to their whiteanting?
Who is this Voldemort who can't be named?