Think there's positive nervous excitement amongst Jacks on twitter. Feel the fans' are now galvanised, hope Garry's got the team the same too!! Think the Liberty's going to be fever pitch with anticipation... Think we'll get our club back today...
In response to the title article I have cut and paste some comments I made on a different thread. Perhaps there is some truth in both but I am still not sure the board have acted openly & honestly. Heard today Monk denied being asked to work with Laudrup "never going to happen" I think the discarded players were allowed to upset the managerial regime from day one. I don't know what has being on behind the scenes or on the training ground. I am not denying that have been issues, but I don't think these can all be blamed on Laudrup. There rumours at the vey beginning regarding training but I think I remember this was discussed with Laudrup and changes made. Equally it seemed to be associated with a number of disgruntled players who were being told they were not part of his plans. This season they dealt with multiple matches in a week and I am not sure fitness has been so bad? Like any manager Laudrup wanted to get in new players, no doubt he saw this year as a great opportunity for the club. No doubt he wanted to use his agent who had served him and us well, but an issue arose between him and HJ. Agent was dispensed with and Laudrup continued. In the meantime we may have missed some targets? I think he wanted some more pace upfront? Have we struggled since not having Graham upfront. Not unusually there were clearly tension with regard transfer ambition and dealings. This has often been the case with our club. The biggest issue for me was that Laudrup had signed an extension but had always said he saw this as a short term project. It was widely accepted that Laudrup would leave at the end of this season. Media, players, board supporters and agents probably believed this was his final season. "dead man walking scenario" previous mangers have been on rolling contracts. Perhaps HJ had fallen out with him and wanted him to leave but the board perhaps half heartedly let him have a run in Europe and hope that some team would come in for and get compensation. However they did this without fully supporting him and this combined with injuries, runs of difficult games, bad luck and loss of confidence has lead to our position at the end of transfer window. In any other team the manager would have been screaming for funds in January to boost team for relegation battle, FA Cup & Europe. In our previous successful seasons we have always got someone in January, Gylfi, Borini etc. Not now ML clearly not supported. Opportunities to get some young exciting players on loan were ignored. How would you feel if you were the manager? I think the board has now panicked and sacked him. I stress these are my thoughts only, I am sure there is no smoke without fire but the problems are not all done to ML, the board has contributed to this difficult position. I hope there has not been a situation, where disgruntled players who found knocking on HJ door successful with Sousa leaving, tried doing the same again now. If this is case where will it end, players managing the team??? However good or bad ML is a s manger I am not proud of the way the Swans have handled the situation. We have claimed to try to do things differently but we have just joined the countless band of clubs who panicked sack mid season. Normally however they have a seasoned manager ready to attempt to rescue the club. Not so long ago Mrs Monk stated she hoped her husband could get away from Swansea. He is I believe, a genuine Jack but I hope he has been innocent in this process. As Swans manager I hope he does a good job for the sake of our club. The Swans Supporters Trust and board need to give the fans some answers.
Well the Mirror is reporting quite the opposite?? They are saying Michael Laudrup's snubbing of Thomas Ince, Lewis Holtby and Nacer Chadli led to his Swansea sacking? reportedly had the opportunity to snap up one or all three of the stars on loan deals late in January but decided against moves? Now there's a new Twist, and apparently this infuriated our board and was the final straw..........
Chadli has been crap this season, hence why Spurs were offering him on loan, Holtby is a central mid, and with injuries back we don't need him, ideally we would have been able to call Ki back, but the board ****ed that up. Ince was more trouble than he was worth, so what else. Load of **** if that has any bearing on his sacking. And why would Laudrups choices be any different to the board signing Emnes on loan, or Ngog? Cos I bet they were not Laudrup signings either. Non story if you ask me.
The board are desperately throwing crap all over the place through the media ,with regard to Laudrup's sacking , hoping something will stick.Our board have become the masters of leaks to media, which can't be traced back to them . And the media don't care where the stories come from , as long as it's a story.
It was Laudrup that said he couldn't bring Ki back in case he got upset. So Laudrup to blame, not the board.
Laudrup said he didn't want to call him back at the time, as he had a chance to go to the final with Sunderland, that was prior to Canas getting an injury, so those comments were not set in stone. And if ML was under the impression he hasd until the end of January to recall him, then he wouldn't rush the call back if he could make do with what we had, then Canas gets injured, he decides to recall Ki, only to find the board ****ed up. Thats all guess work, but it could have happened.
When the injury list became critical, Laudrup relented and wanted Ki back understandably believing he was in good time. Not his fault that Jenkins hadn't read the contract properly.
If all was well the board wouldn't have sacked him.There must have been somethings seriously wrong for him to be sacked. I very much doubt they sacked him on some kind of a whim. We'll probably never know the full story. Water under the bridge now. Time to move on.
I have mixed feelings over the sacking, but if I had to make a decision, I think it would have been his dismissal, results were falling of a cliff, with no sight of any consistency, and at the end of the day, whatever issues there are with the Squad comes down to the manager, and lets be honest here, it's been a very poor season which Garry Monk has now got to rescue, lets see what the commitment of our players are today, lets see if there is passion back, and if there is then that will tell you all you need to know about Laudrup!.......
I do as I am done by, plastic. Ever notice me adopt this tone with any other posters? I don't because they treat me and other posters with respect, therefore I am very happy to do so with them. Mutual respect, it has a certain ring to it and that's how it should be. This self proclaimed "number one fan" (what a joke THAT is) gets a great kick out of wumming, upsetting people with garbage "facts", running our club down on other boards (FACT), derailing threads and generally disrespecting many of the people on here for no good reason other than, it seems, for his own pleasure. Neither he, nor you, should be surprised when people fire back in that case. By the way, I get no pleasure from these unpleasant exchanges, I come here to swap opinion and have a relaxed period of pleasant debate with my fellow supporters. If Dai desisted, I would be more than happy to meet him halfway and I offer him an olive branch right now. Let's see what happens.
I say it is his fault, he should never have left it until his last man dropped, he simply missed the boat, your just blaming the ferryman!.................
I thought it was reported that the board had a meeting and decided to pull out of Ince deal. This latest doesn't make sense as the board clearly made moves for the players we ended up getting and so why not enforce moves for the likes of Ince as well. No sorry, not sure I believe that story..but I guess we don't know the full story.
Yes it does sound a bit odd that they got two players that ML didn't want and then sacked him for not wanting another 3 that they didn't bother getting. If it was a sacking offence, then they could have sacked him and still signed the players. Doesn't make any sense. Maybe it's meant to confuse us.
