Tan remains "fully committed" to the Championship club insists chairman Mehmet Dalman...

[NYCBlue]

. The pre season trip to the USA was stupid idea for many more reasons than the ban on Tomlin and Madine. Excessive travel and poor quality opposition for starters. A lot of cost for very little benefit. .

Pre-season tours any further than western Europe just make no sense. I understand why the big clubs do it. But it's still a bad idea from a footballing point of view. You hear the stories of Dave Jones' trips to Portugal and it's just mind-blowing. Two weeks on the piss. I suppose it could be "team-building" but those sorts of situations can also cause bad blood. I'm fine playing Bath, Cheltenham etc. with the players able to sleep at home and go in for treatment the next day. That farce of USA tour was ridiculous. We played a team in San Antonio (about a 10-hour flight from the UK) that had high school players in the team. WTF was that all about?

[Citizen's Nephew]

I agree that Dalman is a smooth bullshitter (although the 'best chairman' Warnock ever had apparently) and the Board lacks any clear strategy (or at least one they have shared with the fans) or football knowledge. I don't understand what the new Board member is supposed to bring to the club despite a number of gushing pieces by WOL. But it does appear that there have been major steps forward over the past 2 years around the academy (coaching and pathway to the first team) and some elements of club infrastructure. But when it comes to playing style and communication there is very little progress.

Compared to Brentford or even Barnsley, the club do appear to be unsure what they are trying to do a lot of the time. There was more leadership, even if misplaced or unconvincing, when Tan was doing long fan meetings in support of Russell Slade. At least then there was an attempt to spell out a vision and a plan.

But I don't agree with you on your two of your three examples. 1. Warnock and the club were traumatised by Sala's death, but are you really saying he should have been sacked or sent on compulsory sick leave if he didn't want that? We do not know what was or was not in place to provide support for Warnock or others most affected and no evidence that the club failed in its duty of care to employees. 2. The pre season trip to the USA was stupid idea for many more reasons than the ban on Tomlin and Madine. Excessive travel and poor quality opposition for starters. A lot of cost for very little benefit. 3. The whole Sala tragedy has been done to destruction on this Board over the past two and a half years, but from my understanding of the situation the club are right not to pay Nantes - at least until they have taken the case through CAS.

Cheers, Jon. I can hold my hand up and say I've chosen to focus on things I have an emotional investment in. I did say I was surprised the board sanctioned the USA trip and totally agree with your points but I only focused on the Madine Tomlin aspect because I felt sorry for them and could imagine how sh*tty that would have felt.

I don't know what the club did in terms of DOC which is why I'm interested in that part. But I'll likely never know. However, whatever they did, there was always never going to be an easy resolution to Warnock's position and I look at this thing from the perspective of 'what would I do?' 'what's best for the club?' etc. That said, if I turn the question around and ask 'should the board have kept Warnock because they felt sorry for him?' then doesn't it change the whole dynamic somewhat? My focus would have been - we must stay in the PL. I would have done everything possible to make sure that happened. I would have gone full Spock on this and just looked at the logic and suppressed my human side! This is a clumsy way of not saying what I want to say about the whole saga.

I really liked your reference to Tan's meetings in support of Slade because there was definitely a feeling that the owner was part of CCFC at that time and was building both bridges and rapport. I don't know what he's building today.

Anyway, I'm sure I've bored enough people already and I'm happy to draw a line under the whole thing *massive cheer*.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Are we allowed to do this?
I thought it was said yonks ago that we had to leave the insurance deal with it.
Some things don't look the best publicly but sometimes it's not all down to public relations, if we have our hands tied with the insurance there isn't much we can do?

I say all that on the basis that the comment I read was indeed accurate...

Honestly, I don't know what the truth is and I naturally don't trust the 'official line'. I agree about the PR bit and having hands tied from a legal point of view. It's a mess for sure. :-(

[dembethewarrior]

Honestly, I don't know what the truth is and I naturally don't trust the 'official line'. I agree about the PR bit and having hands tied from a legal point of view. It's a mess for sure. :-(

Not sure it was just an official line, it's been a while but I'm sure a few people who seemed to have knowledge with how insurance works said pretty much the same.

This was all long ago and vague memories only get more vague as time pushes on.

[Citizen's Nephew]

Not sure it was just an official line, it's been a while but I'm sure a few people who seemed to have knowledge with how insurance works said pretty much the same.

This was all long ago and vague memories only get more vague as time pushes on.

It's scary just how long ago! Thanks for that info though. Appreciated.