Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="lynx000, post: 2987849, member: 2065"] By the way it is `input'. Your evidence being what? You pull this routine all of the time. Your statement was: `Maybe he didn't do an interview, maybe that's what an interviewer called it when he asked WB the same question yet again and WB had a crack at them.' I have some very bad news for you. That is not evidence, that is an opinion which actually flies in the face of the known facts, something that I thought you despised? I am very, very surprised you would take the approach of calling an opinion evidence. I would have thought we could have expected that you would apply the same detailed forensic analysis that you do to those posts that you disagree with, to your own musings? It flies in the fact of the known facts because the journalist states in the article: “They have gone missing in action,” [B]Bennett declared in an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph.[/B] Now if that was not true, do you not think that Bennett would be seeking a retraction, calling them out for printing something he did not say? If this was said by WB, how can you not consider this pot stirring by him: “[I]But because (the media) can’t get access to the chairman (Morris) and they can’t get access to the chief executive (White), they have gone missing in action, I am out there trying to defend the indefensible. “I don’t want to be in that situation because I haven’t been party to the boardroom decisions and other discussions. “I’d rather do a runner and get that headline then stand in front of a camera and lie. “The comment I hate most of all is no comment. I just leaves everyone feeling empty.'[/I] At the very least that is one of the best examples of hyperbole I have seen in recent times. What is the indefensible thing that WB is so stridently defending? Is it the decision of the Board to not give the coach an extension on his contract? Is that the indefensible thing? If so, how is he defending it. Is it signing a new coach for 2020, something they had apparently told him earlier in the year that they were going to look at doing. Is that indefensible? Just out of interest [USER=1992]@Huge[/USER], can you honestly say that you believe that the manner in which WB conducted himself last week was professional and portrayed the organisation in a good light? WB has been coaching since 1976 and dealing with the media over that entire time. He does not say anything to the media that he does not want to say. If he does not want to speak to them, he doesn't. When he does, he usually has a reason for doing so. What do you think his reason was for the contents of that article? [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 123 (members: 0, guests: 123)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now