Sorry, this isn't about "crucifying" anyone, but I want to hear answers from Pochettino. Presuming all this is true, it is a failure from him in either identifying Osvaldo as someone who would fit in, or as someone who could be coached to fit in. Don't exaggerate, no-one is calling for his head or anything remotely like that, but even the best should be held to account for their mistakes. If that means he hangs Osvaldo out to dry for letting him down, then so be it, but that's probably not going to happen.
Why are you wanting answers from Pochettino? What makes you think you should have them? I said before, it was a gamble that is looking like it was a failure. It happens. What do you want from him PTF? To stand on the pitch with a microphone and say "I failed"? Please explain what you'd like to happen to cover your "held to account for their mistakes". I know you don't like it when I criticize something that you've posted, but I just don't understand what you are looking to achieve and I wonder where you are going with it and what you expect. It was a mistake; they happen.
Have no problem at all with you questioning my opinion. No I don't think he should stand in the middle of the pitch with a microphone. I just hope that journalists ask him detailed questions about it and he answers them satisfactorily. I appreciate it was probably an honest mistake but if I make a mistake that big at work (this is our record signing we are talking about), I have to answer for my actions and that's how it should be. If he says "I thought he would behave and he's let us down" then that's fine. But if he's allowed to brush it off as a minor issue then that's not.
I still don't see why you need this. The club (so by that I would imagine MP instigating this up the tree as I would be surprised if the senior management would be at the training ground) have suspended Osvaldo for a training ground incident and therefore, by action, have "said" he has let us down. I find it a little odd to insist that you need to hear the words from the coaches mouth. He has taken the action. Matter dealt with. He hasn't been allowed to brush it off as a minor issue because a two week suspension has been imposed, so no brushing off. The only decision we need to await on is whether the incident means the end of his Saints career and I would imagine that would be decided after some thought and possibly in the next few days as the window closes.
Well yeah, that's how the modern workplace is. But it wasn't always thus, believe me. 20 or 30 years ago, if you worked in a predominantly male environment, the response to these sort of incidents would be to try and get the protaganists to shake hands and move on. All concerned would also be expected to keep schtum. I'm not saying that was the right way to go about things, but nor am I convinced that the world is altogether a better place now than it was then.
Internal discipline is one thing, but the managers are required to speak to the press for a reason. This is a player who had his issues before and we were asked to get behind, and we did. Now if he's really to be let go this soon I for one would like to hear the whole story. I'm sure I'm not alone.
I'm sure the next time MP has a press conference, he'll be asked and he'll say something. I doubt you'll get the whole story though, and that's his prerogative because some things will be rightly kept in-house.
Mauricio will say more at the press conference than Nigel would, but it still won't go much beyond he's let us all down, disappointed, dealing with internally. There will be a lot of Spanish words reduced to fewer English ones by the beloved David.
Added to this, if we're really looking to sell, MP coming out now and saying "**** me, he's batshit. I couldn't control him, sorry everyone" is unlikely to really help our cause....
Yeah, I appreciate that of course. If it's true that we are going to loan him somewhere with a view to selling permanently that probably won't help either as the time between now and the end of the season is clearly enough to time to demonstrate that himself!
We'd all like to hear the whole story PTF, but we don't always get what we want. What more is there to hear? He had a bust up with Fonte, behaved badly and has been punished. It may lead to the end of his Saints career. This is NOT sarcastic, but what are you looking to hear? Was it a left hook, followed by a head butt or how much blood was there really? If you are referring to the discussions before we signed him about his reputation, then they are hardly going to come and say that they just took a flier are they? Is there really anymore to say other than a training ground bust up with Fonte?
Sorry PTF, I know you think I sometimes pick up on your posts, but I really don't understand what you want. I am trying to see what it is you want. Are you trying to say that we shouldn't loan him, but sell him quick before he does something daft again? I just don't see what you expect.
I don't know, I don't have enough information to decide what should be done with him. Maybe the two week suspension is enough and he will come back into the team, in which case all these answers may not be required (though some still will). Most of all I just don't want it to be brushed under the carpet. It's not a case of wanting to hear grisly details about what happened on the training ground, if they say it is serious enough for all this action to be taken then I trust their judgement on that, but people need to be held accountable for their errors, no matter how honestly made they were. You can't ask all the fans to support this firecracker character and give him the benefit of the doubt (which we all did, though many originally had reservations about him) and then just have him disappear without an explanation. You're free to disagree with me on this and I'm sorry if you can't understand my position but that's what I feel.
Is there not a limit that a player can be banned/fined internally and that is 2 weeks. Certainly is true of wages and I believe is also the case for internal bans - obviously if we decide to terminate contract or sell the player are other options (i.e. the Mutu case).
I may have been at cross wires, in your above post it seems your accountability for the actions is aimed at Dani, I thought originally your post was aiming that at MP for signing him. If so, then I had the wrong end of the stick and apologise. If it is aimed at MP for signing him, then I just don't get it. Of course they can ask the fans to support this character, they signed him and he played for our team. If it doesn't work and he goes for these incidents that is fairly self explanatory. It sounds to me as if you want someone to come out and say "sorry, we got that one wrong" Ok, let me ask: what do you want to know? Why we signed him? For me if he disappears now, there is an explanation: he had a bust up (two) and the second one was the final straw, so he goes. That seems simple enough an explanation.
No it was aimed at MP, obviously I don't expect to hear from Osvaldo about it! I just want to hear his explanation of the whole episode. You can't transfer list your record signing six months later without expecting to answer questions about it. You can say it would harm our chances of selling him, but it's naive in the extreme to presume a potential buyer won't be asking the same questions. I'd want to know specifically, given his reputation, what made Poch and the others think he would be worth £15m. If they had good reason to believe he would behave then fine, but it's a big gamble otherwise.
Ok, that's clear, thanks. I don't think you are being very realistic and I would surprised if you get your wish. You won't get an explanation of the whole episode any more than the brief synopses given on here. A player rated by MP with poor reputation; gamble taken; two bad incidents; = gamble failed. Without being rude, someone would have to be fairly blind to need an explanation as to why the record signing is (possibly) being transfer listed after 6 months when it is clear for all to see. If a journalist asked him why he is selling him, I'd half expect him to say "Duh, have you not heard what happened?" Taking your final comment, the 15m was the price they had to pay for the player that MP thought would benefit Saints. He worked with him in the past and clearly thought he had the ability needed (for what it's worth I think he had that ability too, but it would appear not the temperament). That was all part of the gamble mentioned above. If it has not worked, then correct it and if they think correcting it means having to sell him, then that is the end game. There really isn't anything else to see.
