TWF could only comment on here during the broadcast because it was recorded. Never seen in the same place at the same time...
Made more interesting by Bartletts comments at the end. How could Duffen sign a player and change the Bullard contract without Bartletts knowledge? As the owner, surely Bartlett must have rubber stamped everything?
He got an easy ride, Mike White had a bit of a go in the second half of the interview, but it was weak. Jimmy should have been avoided, it was too easy to dismiss, it was the Ghilas deal that he should have been pressed on, along with the ridiculous deals for the likes of Sonko and Kilbane.
Duffen said the only two players had relegation clauses, but didn't Kilbane do a deal by extending wages over two years instead one?
My point was more if Kilbane had relegation clause he wouldn't need to defer his wages over two years.
And it's a valid point. Bullard, Kilbane and Ghilas definitely didn't have relegation clauses, so there was obviously more than two.
I know for cast iron FACT that Duffen's claim here are bollocks. Fewer players had relegation salary reduction clauses than didn't have them.
He did tell the truth, he got sacked for it. We've moved on now. I see no benefit in rehashing what went before, I think it was disappointing, but what's done is done. Things turned out very well for the club, so I'm happy, I'm also directly connected to many of those involved, whereas others know **** all and have to depend on basing their opinion on whatever spin they're fed.
Sums it up really. One of them is lying that much is true. The reality is thought that it's probably a bit of both...
I suspect Bartlett is worse than Duffen, but they're both twats. Phil Buckingham has got this bang on tonight.
Been saying that for ages. At the end of the day, if the Allams trust Duffen then so do I. I've got more reason to trust them then I have Adam Pearson, you or your "inside sources". No offence like.
