I understand that but you seem to be letting your opinions on matter come to the fore. If it's a case of "this is what I've heard there you go" kind of thing I can understand but you are letting how you interpret it infringe slightly
Pritchard
- Thread starter Scout73
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I understand that but you seem to be letting your opinions on matter come to the fore. If it's a case of "this is what I've heard there you go" kind of thing I can understand but you are letting how you interpret it infringe slightly
P
Prehab26
Guest
No. I trust what I was told implicitly. And I have to say everything has played out exactly like I said it would. So I am assured it is reality.
I mean on this specially too, just in case you were making reference to anything else mate.
Anyway, the fella is gone. But I stand by what I said last week before this all come out.
I think we've got a good pathway to the first team for young players and we're identifying those players earlier.
This is all a bit puzzling and, as you say, the facts may never be known.
No offence to anyone but it's well known, by some on here, that Mowbray is a bit of a gossip and likes a moan.
He was like it, for all to see, in his press conferences, when he was obviously digging out people at the club.
He may as well have said, 'Why do I keep having foreigners forced on me who can't speak the language?'
It's no surprise he wanted Dack and that he wanted Pritchard at Birmingham.
Looking back at Mowbray''s other rhetoric and it seems he was sometimes suggesting he'd succeeded despite having to play foreigners, and young lads, rather than because of them. Did he throw them under a bus with the way he 'managed' the Boro match when Neil was sent off?
I've struggled to follow what you've said about the way Speakman handled this situation. As it's quite a big issue, and you've said the club were complicit in some seriously bad behaviour, could you spell out what actually happened? I can't understand how a club, where players who could easily move elsewhere, probably for more money, keep choosing to stay at Sunderland ... yet Pritchard was double-crossed and pushed into a situation where he was mentally unbalanced and unable to play for the team. I can't believe the move to Birmingham, which is a long contract and a big commitment, was sorted out so rapidly when 'Speakman pulled the Sunderland offer'.
This is an aging player who struggles to last a game, often performs poorly if started and has a history of calf and ankle injuries. I really don't think he'd be given two and a half years anywhere but Birmingham where Mowbray has clearly pushed for him. If I was making a guess I'd say Mowbray had a hand in Pritchard engineering the move.
If that's wrong and the club pushed Pritchard into such a mental state, that he was unable to play, and withdrew an agreed contract that's disgraceful. I can't comprehend why they would do that, toss him an inferior contract then expect him to be an asset and play to his maximum. It just doesn't make sense to me, I'm hoping you can clarify things, put me straight and put this to bed.
Which is where I'm going
Last edited:
This is all a bit puzzling and, as you say, the facts may never be known.
No offence to anyone but it's well known, by some on here, that Mowbray is a bit of a gossip and likes a moan.
He was like it, for all to see, in his press conferences, when he was obviously digging out people at the club.
He may as well have said, 'Why do I keep having foreigners forced on me who can't speak the language?'
It's no surprise he wanted Dack and that he wanted Pritchard at Birmingham.
Looking back at Mowbray''s other rhetoric and it seems he was sometimes suggesting he'd succeeded despite having to play foreigners, and young lads, rather than because of them. Did he throw them under a bus with the way he 'managed' the Boro match when Neil was sent off?
I've struggled to follow what you've said about the way Speakman handled this situation. As it's quite a big issue, and you've said the club were complicit in some seriously bad behaviour, could you spell out what actually happened? I can't understand how a club, where players who could easily move elsewhere, probably for more money, keep choosing to stay at Sunderland ... yet Pritchard was double-crossed and pushed into a situation where he was mentally unbalanced and unable to play for the team. I can't believe the move to Birmingham, which is a long contract and a big commitment, was sorted out so rapidly when 'Speakman pulled the Sunderland offer'.
This is an aging player who struggles to last a game, often performs poorly if started and has a history of calf and ankle injuries. I really don't think he'd be given two and a half years anywhere but Birmingham where Mowbray has clearly pushed for him. If I was making a guess I'd say Mowbray had a hand in Pritchard engineering the move.
If that's wrong and the club pushed Pritchard into such a mental state, that he was unable to play, and withdrew an agreed contract that's disgraceful. I can't comprehend why they would do that, toss him an inferior contract then expect him to be an asset and play to his maximum. It just doesn't make sense to me, I'm hoping you can clarify things, put me straight and put this to bed.
Which is where I'm going
bang on about that
Would it not be reasonable, considering his fitness that the club offered an extended contract at lower pay. Maybe Pritchard refused this, maybe he said he knew he could get a better offer elsewhere, so the offer was withdrawn. The club could then prepare to acquire a replacement.
P
Prehab26
Guest
I'd agree with you, about this and the BCB which are still being used to attack the club.
It's still being posted that the club have behaved so badly the PFA might've become involved. All I'm asking is that someone, who knows what happened, clarifies it.
I'm not after a prolonged argument, just clarification.
P
Prehab26
Guest
It's been clarified many times from a couple on here. I won't be posting about it again.
It really hasn't, I doubt anyone has a clue what all these rumours add up to.
You've spent a lot of time claiming the club have acted disgracefully ...
.... two more minutes wouldn't kill you.
P
Prehab26
Guest
No worries. Think I have been rather clear in this thread and others on the situation. But yeah, all allegedly anyway. So, on with the match today and this is old news.
P
Prehab26
Guest
I disagree entirely. However, it's old news so not worth the energy to cover old ground.
It's current news, you've made some serious accusations and accused Speakman of lying, which you can't prove. I suspect you want the thread locked because you can't answer the very reasonable questions I've asked about the timeline which simply doesn't stack up.
P
Prehab26
Guest
No. I have said what I was told. I trust the person who told me, but yeah it's allegedly to avoid any doubt.
I just can not be arsed to go over it again. It's all across threads. If you want to be detective smug do and look.
- Status