mao tse tung
Vital Champions League
It appears that Danny Taylor was non too impressed with the first part of the Q&A session with Nic Randall.
His latest article in todays The Athletic, titled "Nottingham Forest must no longer over-promise and under-deliver" takes aim at last weeks Q&A and re hashes a number of issues from an earlier broadside.
I cannot post the link: I mailed The Athletic a while ago to ask if it was acceptable to post links to articles and was told in no uncertain terms that it was not, and that they could tell from the link who had posted what, so I will not bother.
Having read the article twice, I find it difficult to comprehend where he is coming from; he clearly has an Axe to grind with Vrentzos, who appears to be the source of everything that is going wrong at the Club as far as he is concerned, which I think everyone gets.
And it is not even the "I know something you do not" tone which is the problem; after all, you would expect a top class journalist like him to have a long list of credible contacts in the game; its the way he is lumping on other issues for effect that is the concern, particularly when you find out later that some of the minor claims are not correct.
He does not think that Andy Caddell was the correct person for the interview, as it was un Jeremy Paxman like; he thought "in cricket terms, the Q&A could have done with a googly or two being sent down – maybe even the odd bouncer – rather than just a few gentle lobs that could easily be batted away."
He was critical of Randall who he thinks is there purely for effect; did you know for example that the staff have been informed that it is mandatory to include the letters "QC" after all mentions of Randall's name?
Maybe this is an initiative for the future because there was a distinct lack of those letters in the correspondence I have received from the Club during the last fortnight.
After painting a picture which portrays Randall as an "extra sheen of respectability" Danny then quotes David Johnson "Johnson’s verdict was blunt and straight to the point. On football matters, he said, the problem was that Randall “hasn’t got a clue?”
The really surprising thing about using Johnson's quote was not the very selective nature of the quote, the full version of which gives a totally different impression, but the fact that during the Q&A, Randall went to great pains to emphasise that his role at the Club was focussed on Governance and Regulatory issues; why he is being blamed in part for the on field failures was not explained.
One of the major surprises in the article was the swing that Danny took at Johnny Owen's; well, maybe swing is the wrong word because it was more like a combination of punches thrown.
I got the impression that Danny and Johnny were good buddies; it appears not.
Johnny is now described as "Cardiff City fan who has switched allegiances" and "Vrentzos’ right-hand man, and occasional spin doctor."
He again made reference to the Miracle Gates, and the fact that the Stand has not been built yet and that the Academy has not moved yet, but surely they are ongoing projects.
Danny has obviously taken issue with something that has happened or with how something is being done; that's fair enough - he has earned that platform from which to air his views and he is well within his rights to publish them.
However, it remains unclear what the central point of his argument is, other than Vrentzos is involved; if Vrentzos has done something bad, we need to be hearing about it, if it is just a personal spat, we dont.
And continually adding ephemera into the mix, for effect, does nothing more than undermine whatever argument he has.
His latest article in todays The Athletic, titled "Nottingham Forest must no longer over-promise and under-deliver" takes aim at last weeks Q&A and re hashes a number of issues from an earlier broadside.
I cannot post the link: I mailed The Athletic a while ago to ask if it was acceptable to post links to articles and was told in no uncertain terms that it was not, and that they could tell from the link who had posted what, so I will not bother.
Having read the article twice, I find it difficult to comprehend where he is coming from; he clearly has an Axe to grind with Vrentzos, who appears to be the source of everything that is going wrong at the Club as far as he is concerned, which I think everyone gets.
And it is not even the "I know something you do not" tone which is the problem; after all, you would expect a top class journalist like him to have a long list of credible contacts in the game; its the way he is lumping on other issues for effect that is the concern, particularly when you find out later that some of the minor claims are not correct.
He does not think that Andy Caddell was the correct person for the interview, as it was un Jeremy Paxman like; he thought "in cricket terms, the Q&A could have done with a googly or two being sent down – maybe even the odd bouncer – rather than just a few gentle lobs that could easily be batted away."
He was critical of Randall who he thinks is there purely for effect; did you know for example that the staff have been informed that it is mandatory to include the letters "QC" after all mentions of Randall's name?
Maybe this is an initiative for the future because there was a distinct lack of those letters in the correspondence I have received from the Club during the last fortnight.
After painting a picture which portrays Randall as an "extra sheen of respectability" Danny then quotes David Johnson "Johnson’s verdict was blunt and straight to the point. On football matters, he said, the problem was that Randall “hasn’t got a clue?”
The really surprising thing about using Johnson's quote was not the very selective nature of the quote, the full version of which gives a totally different impression, but the fact that during the Q&A, Randall went to great pains to emphasise that his role at the Club was focussed on Governance and Regulatory issues; why he is being blamed in part for the on field failures was not explained.
One of the major surprises in the article was the swing that Danny took at Johnny Owen's; well, maybe swing is the wrong word because it was more like a combination of punches thrown.
I got the impression that Danny and Johnny were good buddies; it appears not.
Johnny is now described as "Cardiff City fan who has switched allegiances" and "Vrentzos’ right-hand man, and occasional spin doctor."
He again made reference to the Miracle Gates, and the fact that the Stand has not been built yet and that the Academy has not moved yet, but surely they are ongoing projects.
Danny has obviously taken issue with something that has happened or with how something is being done; that's fair enough - he has earned that platform from which to air his views and he is well within his rights to publish them.
However, it remains unclear what the central point of his argument is, other than Vrentzos is involved; if Vrentzos has done something bad, we need to be hearing about it, if it is just a personal spat, we dont.
And continually adding ephemera into the mix, for effect, does nothing more than undermine whatever argument he has.
