I can name 1 from the off, he plays for liverpool. Aspas. Just because he is not naming them, does not make it BS.
Ignoring most of the waffle that seems to be ML publicising his CV, I get the impression from ML himself that he refused a request by the board on three occassions to change the coaching set up. In normal business, one of the standard employment contract terms in most organisations is that refusal to carry out what is deemed to be a ' reasonable request' by your 'Line Manager' is grounds for termination of contract. So the main discussion point is , was the request for a coaching set up change 'reasonable'? If this is considered 'reasonable' then there may be grounds, in legal terms anyway, for a 'breach of contract'. My own opinion is that whilst this may be a valid point on principle, for the sake of avoiding negative media, the Board should just pay up ASAP just to put and end to this, just in case it affects the players and thus the results.
Its more than what the board have given us, at least we can kind of see there may be something to do with the training staff as the reason, rather than just poor performances, or a rift in the dressing room, or other rumours. If the board think they are not breaking any rules, then surely they don't have to worry about telling us the truth, as they have nothing to fear, right?
No breach of contract as stated in previous thread, they were merely observations that were made by ML as stated the coaching regime was discussed in operational meetings. No grounds for B of C there I'm afraid.
Did Swans' "miss out" on Aspas? Once Liverpool showed interest,he was surely only going to one place,and that wasn't The Liberty.
So is he suing us? Yes or no? If not then good luck and God bless. If he's suing us he can f*ck off, I'd say the same if my mammy was suing us. I care about SCFC, not Michael Laudrup or even Garry Monk at the end of the day.
Very similar to the aftermath of his time at Spartak and Mallorca, where he provided the excuse to anyone who would listen that ' it wasn't his fault' why he left or was sacked. This just smacks of a PR exercise to try to get back on the wanted list' of the bigger clubs rumoured to have wanted him last summer.
Thats not the point, the point was just because he didn't name any players did not mean we didn't fail to sign anyone. Yes Liverpool came in for him, but we still "failed" to sign him.
Don't know it seems, after all it is still going on behind the scene's hence why some questions he couldn't elaborate on, such as what was in the letter.
I don't see not signing Aspas as a failure. Liverpool are a much bigger bet than Swansea. Now if he had signed for a lesser Club,then yes,I agree,that would be a failure. We cannot compete with the likes of Liverpool.
Obviously the whole "changing of staff demand" was a plot to get rid of Laudrup. It seems that the reason for the firing of laudrup can be boiled down to a disagreement of ambitions between him and the board. That's fine if that's what they want, but to smear Laudrup like they did is just pathetic.
define fail "be unsuccessful in achieving one's goal." ML's goal was to sign Aspas, agree? Did we achieve ML's goal? No, right. So what does that mean, we failed to sign Aspas. define failure "lack of success." Did we succeed in signing Aspas? No, right. So it was a failure. You can put the spin on it that we lost out against Liverpool, and you have a point, but it doesn't deter from teh fact we were unsuccessful in signing Aspas. So therefore, failed. ITs understandable that we failed, because Liverpool beat us too, but we still failed regardless.
I cannot see that ASPAS signing for Liverpool instead of Swansea can be attributed as a fault on the part of anyone at Swansea , whether that is ML or HJ. So fans arguing about this is a bit of a wasted effort methinks. It should be quite simple: Either: A)The Board sacked Laudrup because they are unhappy with results and / or training methods....Fine, but this is not breach of contract, so we need to pay up ML contract. B) The Board sacked Laudrup as he was not co-operating with reasonable requests made by the board. Well this all depends on the wording of his contract and how it is can be legally interpreted. But for my pennys' worth, even if the Board think this is the case, they should still just pay up just to end this.
Your right, my point being though is that just because ML did not name names of targets, does not make the claim bogus. And Aspas was just the first name that came to mind of a player we, with a perfectly good reason, failed to sign. I would like the board to come out with a proper statement too now.
