Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2989862, member: 8215"] So you're agreeing that he was in his rights to plan ahead should the immediate swap eventuate. Your issue comes down to (1) him attempting to thwart that outcome, and (2) lying about it. On (1), he had a contract for 2019, and he had made it clear that his preference was to stay. He had also made it clear that he would not step down. In choosing to stay, you may perceive that as "torpedoing" it, but for mine, with a contract, and after literally being asked by the Broncos what his decision was, he had absolutely every right to state his preference - which is something he never once wavered from. And (2), ideally, yes, he should have made the obligatory "no comment" when questioned. Because there was no answer that would have satisfied people. My issue is that the blowtorch that was applied to Bennett was never applied elsewhere. Why weren't the Broncos officials ever hounded multiple times a day about whether they were working behind the scenes for an immediate switch? The answer is they likely were, but never fielded the calls or refused to answer the questions. But had they answered the questions, you can bet your life they would have stuck to the official story, exactly like Bennett did. One final thing - the terms of Bennett's sacking is "confidential". Some details have been leaked. But I highly doubt the outcome was a surprise to Bennett. In fact I have serious doubts that he was not actually consulted. His one requirement would have been that he doesn't go willingly, that they'd have to sack him. Deliberately being out of contact for an extended period of time would be a great way to sell it. His own words allude to exactly that: [I]"I’m pleased to be here and I’m pleased I came on my terms in the sense that I didn’t ask to leave the the Broncos, I was sacked or [B]asked to leave[/B].”[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 19 (members: 0, guests: 19)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now