Exile 1976 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

neilcork68 wrote:IMO its b loody ridiculous that we have been allowed to get the game postponed because of 'International call ups'.........1 first team player , 1 kid who has not featured for us apart from a mickey mouse cup and a player who has been 'frozen out ' by the manager and not played 1 second of league football this season even though he is 'fit ' to do so.
I dont blame Cheltenham fans being peed off with us and questioning the way the club has gone about it ( even though we have broken no rules in doing so )

Boxing day about forty years ago we were home to Reading. At the time Reading had an injury crisis. There was a morning kickoff but an overnight deluge meant the pitch wasn't ready for an 11 O'Clock kickoff. County suggested that the game could start at 1 O'Clock. Reading were on the bus and away quicker than rat up a drainpipe.

I agree about Cheltenham being p1ssed about this but they would do it to us.

100% ... our manager has made the decision, one which he was perfectly entitled to do, and if it was the other way round they would definitely have done the same.

My view is that as Flynn knows how many of the team have 'niggles' he is in the best position to judge.

I would be annoyed if I were Cheltenham. I would be annoyed if I had bought train tickets, I see and understand all that. I simply take the view that managers are judged on one criteria alone, results.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: My view is that as Flynn knows how many of the team have 'niggles' he is in the best position to judge.

I would be annoyed if I were Cheltenham. I would be annoyed if I had bought train tickets, I see and understand all that. I simply take the view that managers are judged on one criteria alone, results.

That's not what you said when you suggested he went on gardening leave for talking to another club...

Marsh Brown sent off for Guyana.
Lost 2-1 also

SJG99 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: My view is that as Flynn knows how many of the team have 'niggles' he is in the best position to judge.

I would be annoyed if I were Cheltenham. I would be annoyed if I had bought train tickets, I see and understand all that. I simply take the view that managers are judged on one criteria alone, results.

That's not what you said when you suggested he went on gardening leave for talking to another club...

Isn't it? My view was that he should have been put on gardening leave rather than take the team to Northampton. You may recall we lost at Northampton.

I further take the view that Michael Flynn is now de facto bigger than the club. Which is unhealthy.

Now try finding a post of mine where I have been critical of Flynn, either in terms of his behaviour or his results. You won't find any such post. I have been and remain critical of the club for the way they handled the whole affair.

To be clear. Flynn behaved in his own best interest. His wife was not prepared to move. And by being totally pusillanimous the club end up paying him more even though having chosen to stay his negotiating position was weaker.

Stan's view is - quote - the sooner Mike Flynn leaves the better. - unquote.

Something I should have asked at the time is who would come in and do a better job right now with the squad he has assembled.

George Street-Bridge wrote:Stan's view is - quote - the sooner Mike Flynn leaves the better. - unquote.

Something I should have asked at the time is who would come in and do a better job right now with the squad he has assembled.

Had you asked I would have answered that I don't know. As I said above, I make no criticism of Flynn. My argument is that no individual should ever be bigger than the club and that in the way Newport County mismanaged the situation that is the position we are now in.

You know George, when you make comments putting forward a point of view I find your contribution interesting. Whether I agree with them or not. If you want to know my view on any subject just ask. Trying to be clever, as you were above, just results in tit for tat arguments which many, myself included, find tiresome.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

George Street-Bridge wrote:Stan's view is - quote - the sooner Mike Flynn leaves the better. - unquote.

Something I should have asked at the time is who would come in and do a better job right now with the squad he has assembled.

Had you asked I would have answered that I don't know. As I said above, I make no criticism of Flynn. My argument is that no individual should ever be bigger than the club and that in the way Newport County mismanaged the situation that is the position we are now in.

You know George, when you make comments putting forward a point of view I find your contribution interesting. Whether I agree with them or not. If you want to know my view on any subject just ask. Trying to be clever, as you were above, just results in tit for tat arguments which many, myself included, find tiresome.

Edit.

On reflection I add also that whilst I have no idea who could replace Flynn, I likewise thought the same about Dan Butler and Mark Byrne. But replace them we did. And please don't misconstrue this into any criticism of Flynn. His record is very good and I have never suggested otherwise.

I think ordinarily I would agree with you. But we find ourselves in a position of being a poorly supported club, owned by the supporters trust, no wealthy benefactors and batting way above our current natural position (not our potential natural position).

Changing managers because of some tentative principle would be a massive gamble to take, and if it didn't pay off the club would look like a bunch of fools.

I'm not suggesting any criticism of Flynn by you, that's your own straw man. But I don't see how wanting him to leave sooner rather than later is currently compatible with wanting the team to do well. It does fit a sort of cracked logic if scraping around for sticks to beat the board with is a bigger priority than wanting the team to do well.

George Street-Bridge wrote:I'm not suggesting any criticism of Flynn by you, that's your own straw man. But I don't see how wanting him to leave sooner rather than later is currently compatible with wanting the team to do well. It does fit a sort of cracked logic if scraping around for sticks to beat the board with is a bigger priority than wanting the team to do well.

If I have understood your argument correctly it is that Flynn has been so successful that we should keep him in any event. Mine is that Flynn has become bigger than our club which is not acceptable.

Your argument is logical and reasonable, it is one with which I simply don't agree.

I don't think that your post, which in my view is needlessly confrontational advances the conversation.

rncfc wrote:I think ordinarily I would agree with you. But we find ourselves in a position of being a poorly supported club, owned by the supporters trust, no wealthy benefactors and batting way above our current natural position (not our potential natural position).

Changing managers because of some tentative principle would be a massive gamble to take, and if it didn't pay off the club would look like a bunch of fools.

I see that point. I just disagree.

Let's make a fresh start. Rather than row all the time let's try debating. And to be clear I have been as guilty as you as this, I am not going to suggest otherwise.

Frank Nouble 3 wrote:Marsh Brown sent off for Guyana.
Lost 2-1 also

Well there goes the possibility of having three on international duty next time around. I'm guessing these international breaks are the only times matches are played, competetive or friendly.

Edit: I suppose if they have back to back matches, he could be in their squad but available only for the second match.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: If I have understood your argument correctly it is that Flynn has been so successful that we should keep him in any event.

No, if I thought that, it's what i would have said. He is currently so successful that I find it perverse to want him out sooner rather than later, and the only way I can make any sense of it is if the team's success isn't top priority.

George Street-Bridge wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: If I have understood your argument correctly it is that Flynn has been so successful that we should keep him in any event.

No, if I thought that, it's what i would have said. He is currently so successful that I find it perverse to want him out sooner rather than later, and the only way I can make any sense of it is if the team's success isn't top priority.

My view remains. No matter how successful no individual should ever be bigger than the club. In the long term I believe that will be detrimental to the success of the team.

You can disagree with that. But I have to say that calling my view perverse or implying that I don't want our club to be successful is needlessly confrontational.

As I have said, I have been guilty of responding in a confrontational way in the past. It is a failing not least because it detracts from that which I try to articulate. You may, on reflection, come to agree.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

SJG99 wrote:

Stan A. Einstein wrote: My view is that as Flynn knows how many of the team have 'niggles' he is in the best position to judge.

I would be annoyed if I were Cheltenham. I would be annoyed if I had bought train tickets, I see and understand all that. I simply take the view that managers are judged on one criteria alone, results.

That's not what you said when you suggested he went on gardening leave for talking to another club...

Isn't it? My view was that he should have been put on gardening leave rather than take the team to Northampton. You may recall we lost at Northampton.

I further take the view that Michael Flynn is now de facto bigger than the club. Which is unhealthy.

Now try finding a post of mine where I have been critical of Flynn, either in terms of his behaviour or his results. You won't find any such post. I have been and remain critical of the club for the way they handled the whole affair.

To be clear. Flynn behaved in his own best interest. His wife was not prepared to move. And by being totally pusillanimous the club end up paying him more even though having chosen to stay his negotiating position was weaker.

I mean I don't want to "Stan" you here, but who said anything about you being critical of Flynn? Why are you creating your own straw man? You said results were all that matter, and clearly previously stated something other than results (we were undefeated in the league until Northampton) mattered. Nothing else to discuss (and nor will I be).

I also think it's a bit presumptuous, naive even, to assume the new deal was agreed after he chose to stay.