Barmby Statement

[Happy Tiger]

Just in case its not obvious, the assertion that Nick has actually been paid off handsomely is an insinuation from his "Mates" on these forums, it's not based in proven fact whatsoever and is not in any official announcements.

The way the announcement reads in fact to me is, both sides agreed they'd acted like twats, they've shaken hands and are both moving on as they recognise that's what is best for the club. Least I hope that's the case.

 

[mussiesredhat]

If Nick wants to say the story from his side, then I'm sure he will, he hasn't been gagged or paid off and told he isn't ever allowed to talk about Hull City again, that is a fact. Maybe he will tomorrow, maybe next year or maybe never, it is his life and his "story" and he can make his own decisions and do what he thinks best for him and his family.

It is utterly pointless me or anyone else saying what we know, it will only result in a lot of abuse, accusations of lies and won't prove anything. I stand by what I have said in the past but going over all ground won't achieve anything, I'd rather use my energy supporting the team tomorrow.

well said that man. Barmby was the Hull City Manager, as was Taylor, Neil, Kaye and others before him. The only certain thing about Steve Bruce is that he will eventually be sacked. Indeed, the Allams may well be history themselves in a few years. The one constant is Hull City and life goes on. We move on

 

[mussiesredhat]

Knowing as much as I do, which is not a great deal I must admit, I am almost certain that Nick Barmby has no direct 'Mates' on this forum.

 

[Dr.Stanley O'Google, HCFC]

Knowing as much as I do, which is not a great deal I must admit, I am almost certain that Nick Barmby has no direct 'Mates' on this forum.

Ho, ho, ho......

 

[....]

why would he now speak the "truth" when he has a nice cheque to help his bank balance and never make him need to think about work again (he didn't need it anyway lol)

he has accepted this "truce" and has walked away with money from the club "that he loves" ,,, says enough in my opinion

 

[Murdoc]

Could just be a stint to try and get the crowds back, many people aren't turning up to the Stadium because of how the Allams dealt with the situation. If they all of a sudden turn up and say, "Sorry Nick! We should put this all behind us, we were wrong to do what we did". It makes them look good and the people return.

Or am I being too cynical there?

 

[....]

wouldn't happen , Nick is too busy helping out his beloved Hull fc .. or maybe certain people didn't realise he is actually a stakeholder there now ? ... not that it would be nicks or ADAMS fault .. not at all

 

[mussiesredhat]

Could just be a stint to try and get the crowds back, many people aren't turning up to the Stadium because of how the Allams dealt with the situation. If they all of a sudden turn up and say, "Sorry Nick! We should put this all behind us, we were wrong to do what we did". It makes them look good and the people return.

Or am I being too cynical there?

if city start to score goals regularly, the crowds with flood back. Hull sports fans are traditionally fickle

 

[John. Walkington.]

Knowing as much as I do, which is not a great deal I must admit, I am almost certain that Nick Barmby has no direct 'Mates' on this forum.

If he got a lot of money out of it he can be my mate.

 

[PLT]

Thats just bollocks but it came from OLm most likely, spoon feeding comes to mind.

OLM also reported Barmby was given a better contract than Pearson, was that cost cutting.

So in the worst recession for years the Allams are cost cutting, my god are they stupid, do they know nothing they should be spending freely.

Disregarding almost certain fact because it suits your argument is the basis of nearly all Barmby criticism I know, but it really isn't a good start for making a point. Even if it wasn't widely accepted, it'd make pretty good sense. Barmby was at Leeds who were paying crazy wages like us under Duffen at the time, we'd just got out of Division 3, and Pearson/Wilkinson didn't have the funds to sign players like Barmby unless they were prepared to take an almighty hit.

He may well have had a better contract than Pearson, but that's because he was already a player. Players get a **** load more than managers. Pearson will have been on **** all. Of course it was cost cutting - it was the cheapest option. Not only did they get a manager for free but they saved money doing it because they took a bit-part player from the wage bill. That would be fair enough, especially as it turned out quite well initially, but to then not back him financially on the grounds that he's inexperienced (why not just appoint someone else in the first place?) is just ridiculous.

If the club saving a couple of grand here and there is more important to you than the infrastructure in place and the first-team squad then so be it.

PT has given his account loads of times and been branded a liar. I've put things on here that I know are true and been told I made it all up. Like he says, what he has got to achieve by posting any more? I'd love to hear it personally, but I can see why he won't.

The thing that continually disappoints me is that this argument is done time and time again but the thing that's always ignored is the importance of what Barmby claims 0 that he had no money to spend. I know some people choose not to believe that despite the evidence, but if that is true then that is the exact reason we couldn't buy a goal, the reason tired players weren't replaced, the reason we had to make do with a tiring and out-of-form Stewart on the wing for half a season. There were no replacements. Yet people still slate his record, choosing only the month in which we lost a few games to judge him on. That's the time when we needed new players most, when we were playing Saturday-Tuesday every week and had 12 players to do it with. Yet the fact we won 4 of our last 5 or whatever it was is always ignored, even though it was pretty incredible given the players we had available and the state they were all in.

 

[Hull City Wok Tiger]

Just in case its not obvious, the assertion that Nick has actually been paid off handsomely is an insinuation from his "Mates" on these forums, it's not based in proven fact whatsoever and is not in any official announcements.

The way the announcement reads in fact to me is, both sides agreed they'd acted like twats, they've shaken hands and are both moving on as they recognise that's what is best for the club. Least I hope that's the case.

I don't understand how you can make sweeping statements about Barmby as a manager given that he wasn't actually a manager for very long and we weren't exactly in the relegation spots or anything. I think we have all moved on now maybe you should do the same too.

 

[originallambrettaman]

Party's bang on, this should now be filed under regretable.

 

[WhittlingStick]

Disregarding almost certain fact because it suits your argument is the basis of nearly all Barmby criticism I know, but it really isn't a good start for making a point. Even if it wasn't widely accepted, it'd make pretty good sense. Barmby was at Leeds who were paying crazy wages like us under Duffen at the time, we'd just got out of Division 3, and Pearson/Wilkinson didn't have the funds to sign players like Barmby unless they were prepared to take an almighty hit.

He may well have had a better contract than Pearson, but that's because he was already a player. Players get a **** load more than managers. Pearson will have been on **** all. Of course it was cost cutting - it was the cheapest option. Not only did they get a manager for free but they saved money doing it because they took a bit-part player from the wage bill. That would be fair enough, especially as it turned out quite well initially, but to then not back him financially on the grounds that he's inexperienced (why not just appoint someone else in the first place?) is just ridiculous.

If the club saving a couple of grand here and there is more important to you than the infrastructure in place and the first-team squad then so be it.

PT has given his account loads of times and been branded a liar. I've put things on here that I know are true and been told I made it all up. Like he says, what he has got to achieve by posting any more? I'd love to hear it personally, but I can see why he won't.

The thing that continually disappoints me is that this argument is done time and time again but the thing that's always ignored is the importance of what Barmby claims 0 that he had no money to spend. I know some people choose not to believe that despite the evidence, but if that is true then that is the exact reason we couldn't buy a goal, the reason tired players weren't replaced, the reason we had to make do with a tiring and out-of-form Stewart on the wing for half a season. There were no replacements. Yet people still slate his record, choosing only the month in which we lost a few games to judge him on. That's the time when we needed new players most, when we were playing Saturday-Tuesday every week and had 12 players to do it with. Yet the fact we won 4 of our last 5 or whatever it was is always ignored, even though it was pretty incredible given the players we had available and the state they were all in.

For me , the only real stand out bollock up NB did as manager was to only use Simpson for the last couple of mins of THAT cup game and then not follow it up for the league .

 

[Happy Tiger]

I don't understand how you can make sweeping statements about Barmby as a manager given that he wasn't actually a manager for very long and we weren't exactly in the relegation spots or anything. I think we have all moved on now maybe you should do the same too.

Actually I've interpreted the press announcement in the most neutral way possible and in fact the most obvious way, i.e. both sides acted badly, neither came out of smelling of roses, and the fact is, we're in a better position club wise with SB and the new signings than we were with Nick. If we want to get back to the PL, the worst way is to appoint a player to learn how to be a manager. While he was our manager he had my 100% support, even when we lost but I'm happy he's gone, he wasn't ready for it and we needed better.

I said all along we wouldn't get a Nicks version, and even the press release was released by the LMA and not him.

Its people like you that need to move on, he wasn't a saint, he wasn't the messiah, he did a job for us and was handsomely rewarded for that, he was in fact, a very naughty (rich- and you know, good luck to him for that, he earned it) boy and he paid for that. Or are you suggesting that only people who think Nick was blameless and the messiah should be allowed to comment in these threads? Good luck with that.

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

Disregarding almost certain fact because it suits your argument is the basis of nearly all Barmby criticism I know, but it really isn't a good start for making a point. Even if it wasn't widely accepted, it'd make pretty good sense. Barmby was at Leeds who were paying crazy wages like us under Duffen at the time, we'd just got out of Division 3, and Pearson/Wilkinson didn't have the funds to sign players like Barmby unless they were prepared to take an almighty hit.

He may well have had a better contract than Pearson, but that's because he was already a player. Players get a **** load more than managers. Pearson will have been on **** all. Of course it was cost cutting - it was the cheapest option. Not only did they get a manager for free but they saved money doing it because they took a bit-part player from the wage bill. That would be fair enough, especially as it turned out quite well initially, but to then not back him financially on the grounds that he's inexperienced (why not just appoint someone else in the first place?) is just ridiculous.

If the club saving a couple of grand here and there is more important to you than the infrastructure in place and the first-team squad then so be it.

PT has given his account loads of times and been branded a liar. I've put things on here that I know are true and been told I made it all up. Like he says, what he has got to achieve by posting any more? I'd love to hear it personally, but I can see why he won't.

The thing that continually disappoints me is that this argument is done time and time again but the thing that's always ignored is the importance of what Barmby claims 0 that he had no money to spend. I know some people choose not to believe that despite the evidence, but if that is true then that is the exact reason we couldn't buy a goal, the reason tired players weren't replaced, the reason we had to make do with a tiring and out-of-form Stewart on the wing for half a season. There were no replacements. Yet people still slate his record, choosing only the month in which we lost a few games to judge him on. That's the time when we needed new players most, when we were playing Saturday-Tuesday every week and had 12 players to do it with. Yet the fact we won 4 of our last 5 or whatever it was is always ignored, even though it was pretty incredible given the players we had available and the state they were all in.

Almost certain fact isnt fact sorry its conjecture and positive pr.

Nick could sign for us because of his wgaes being paid by Leeds still, once that ran out he will have been one of if not the highest paid player.

Do you really see Nick being on 4 grand a week when ***end and others were getting 20 grand in the premiership? Do you know anything about footballers?
Nick Barmby will have secured a great deal for himself, as he has throughout his career, and good luck to him for that. We all would do the same, just dont fall for the spin he's done it for next to nothing.

 

[Clapham Tiger]

Rofl.

Sounds like both sides agreed they were at fault. Much like was said by some of us way back at the start of this debacle, along with the expectation there would be no hugely explosive Nicks side of the story type story. Shame neither side could have just said sorry at the time instead of way they both handled it.

Thank god we can move on now.

The Allams wont be going hungry either

Until Ramadan

 

[Hull City Wok Tiger]

Actually I've interpreted the press announcement in the most neutral way possible and in fact the most obvious way, i.e. both sides acted badly, neither came out of smelling of roses, and the fact is, we're in a better position club wise with SB and the new signings than we were with Nick. If we want to get back to the PL, the worst way is to appoint a player to learn how to be a manager. While he was our manager he had my 100% support, even when we lost but I'm happy he's gone, he wasn't ready for it and we needed better.

I said all along we wouldn't get a Nicks version, and even the press release was released by the LMA and not him.

Its people like you that need to move on, he wasn't a saint, he wasn't the messiah, he did a job for us and was handsomely rewarded for that, he was in fact, a very naughty (rich- and you know, good luck to him for that, he earned it) boy and he paid for that. Or are you suggesting that only people who think Nick was blameless and the messiah should be allowed to comment in these threads? Good luck with that.

To be honest when you come on here spouting off about 'Barmbys mates on these forums' I don't think you can be taken very seriously in whatever you write, didn't read your response sorry. If you can't understand why people were supporting him as a manager then you're not a fan of the club.

 

[King Curtis]

Sounds like there was fault on both sides, like Party said it should be filed under regretable and we move on. If Nick is keeping quiet on things then I trust it is due to the fact he cares enough for the club that he doesn't want to disrupt things at the club rather than for the money. I don't think any mud slinging would do anyone any good at present and I think it is cynical to look at money as the motive.

I liked Nick as a manager and think in time he would achieve things with us, but I'm happy with Bruce as a manager and think we are better off with him this season than we would have been with Nick. The position we're in now is where I think we would be with Barmby in about 2 seasons time. He had his faults as a manager, but I suppose if you've only just become a club manager for the first time you're hardly going to be faultless are you? It was fustrating to see us throw away a good chance of the play offs last season but I think Nick would have learned from his mistakes and become a better manager for it. He needs the chance to build on his mistakes as manager here, judging him as an incapable and poor manager on the basis of 6 months in the role is frankly foolish. People highlight our poor run of form in March but they seem to forget our good run of form which took us to 4th at Christmas, a win at Reading, a credible draw at at the time an in form Birmingham and a decent end to the season after the 5 game losing streak. I think in the end Nick would have achieved things with us but with Bruce I think we've made that step about 2 years quicker then we would with Barmby. I think we have a lot to look forward to now as supporters of this club, after the mess we were in when we were relegated 2 years ago it's amazing to see the transition of the club. I thank Nick for his part in that transition.

 

[RicardoHCAFC]

Remember the Aluko transfer and how long it took to get the paperwork done? That was because our previous football secretary Phil Hough (the person who deals with the FA, FL, etc.), who by all accounts was very good at his job, was made redundant and replaced with someone cheaper from Allam Marine who didn't have a clue, so it took this person a month to complete Aluko's signing. Just one of the latest crazy moves for the sake of a few pence. But I probably made all that up like the scouting thing because I'm Barmby's wife or something.

Bollocks. It was to do with the situation at Rangers, unless before he left Phil Hough was also completing the paperwork for FC Sion, Southampton, Norwich, Everton, Stoke, and every other club who over the summer signed players registered to Rangers last season.

Step forward OLM; step forward Premier Tiger. Tell what you know!

You haven't both been silenced as well, surely......

If NB has signed a gagging order, then anybody who got their information from Barmby would need to keep quiet as well. Otherwise Nicky might as well just tell his Mrs to do an interview with the HDM. It's not a legal requirement, but a moral one.

Could just be a stint to try and get the crowds back, many people aren't turning up to the Stadium because of how the Allams dealt with the situation. If they all of a sudden turn up and say, "Sorry Nick! We should put this all behind us, we were wrong to do what we did". It makes them look good and the people return.

Or am I being too cynical there?

And Barmby would agree to that because?

 

[Hull City Wok Tiger]

Nicky isn't going to talk, end of story, no point anybody keeping up Barmby related arguments on here. We aren't ever going to know what really happened. Maybe the best thing is to close this thread and concentrate on all the positive stuff happening at the minute.