HarryCharltonsCat wrote: Darlogramps wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:28 pm
HarryCharltonsCat wrote: Darlogramps wrote: ↑
Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:07 pm
Alun Armstrong in pre-season: “All the lads have been great, apart from one or two from last season.” See the Northern Echo.
Jonny Burn hasn’t featured this season despite being under contract, even in the midst of numerous injuries and absences in our squad.
Jonny Burn performed badly last season and subsequently didn’t feature under TW.
Well-connected people on this board have said he doesn’t want to play for us, and has been offered ways out but would rather have taken his wages here (as he’s entitled contractually). So there’s been no assumptions. In fact it’s fairly clear.
Instead, I suspect you’re just being difficult for the sake of it, which you have a habit of doing.
I’d suggest a comparatively well-paid footballer who was initially brought in as a first choice starter not playing regular footballer because two managers don’t think he’s up to it is an issue, particularly given our player shortage.
It isn’t difficult to put two and two together.
Super Les, who I've always assumed was well connected to the club stated earlier "The reason he didn't play is the two managers he has had at Darlo didn't fancy him.
As the club have not stated that he has been difficult, refused to play/train, then I'm not sure why I should take the view he has. Not sure why that makes me "being difficult for the sake of it"
So things only happen if the club release a statement saying so? At best that’s a naive point of view. But you know fine well many things occur behind the scenes without a club statement. It doesn’t mean they haven’t occurred.
Moreover, Alun Armstrong himself said “one or two players from last season” hadn’t demonstrated a good attitude in training. Again, it doesn’t take a genius to work it out. A week ago we had a third of our squad absent, yet Burn was nowhere near being picked.
That’s not a case of “not fancying him”, there’s a more fundamental issue. There’s no other explanation for someone who was a former league player, signed as a first teamed, a professional player two years ago, and who commanded a good wage, being nowhere near the squad despite an injury crisis.
Do you really think I’d Burn was fit and up for playing, that Armstrong would ignore him in an injury crisis even if he wasn’t keen? There’s no sense in that logic.
That’s why I’m saying you’re being deliberately difficult and obtuse.
If you’re going to insist there’s nothing to believe Burn has demonstrated issues with playing, then you need to properly answer the question why Armstrong wouldn’t play him despite missing a third of his squad.
You took out the bit from Super Les' quote about Burn by all accounts having turned up for training as required and having done all requested of him, for some reason.
Because it doesn’t tally, for reasons I’ve previously explained. If he did all that is asked of him, and turned up with a good attitude in training why did Armstrong not play him, or even have him near the squad despite our lack of numbers? For some reason, you’re dodging that particular question, and deflecting in any way you can.
Are we really to believe someone who was a professional little over a year ago has deteriorated to a point he’s not even capable of playing part-time National League North, and that’s in no way his fault?
What are you suggesting? That he’s naturally deteriorated to that extent in the space of 12 months? Seems highly unlikely and you’re yet to provide anything to support it. Your only response has been to deflect and provide supposition instead. At the risk of repeating myself, this is where “Difficult for the sake of it” comes in.
And let’s grant you all of it. Let’s say Burn is entirely blameless and it’s both AA and TW, and their respective coaching staff, and the people at director level who’ve all got Burn wrong. That still wouldn’t explain why Burn, technically a senior player on account of being a former professional recently, was not being played despite our player shortage. In that scenario, it wouldn’t be difficult to convince a manager to play you, if you genuinely wanted to.
It would be entirely illogical for AA to complain of squad shortages, yet have an eager, capable player and on good wages not even near the squad. The only explanation would be that Burn was neither eager nor capable, despite receiving hundreds of pounds a week and being an ex-EFL player just a couple of years ago.
On the other hand, I’ve got Armstrong’s thinly-veiled comments in the press, Burn’s failure to play this season, his falling out of favour last season and suggestions from well-connected people Burn was motivated solely in receiving a pay-off.
Again, it all points in one direction. And it isn’t towards your argument of suppositions I’m afraid.
Also, your whole argument is that people are making assumptions about Burn without evidence (although I’ve since provided some which you ignore). Yet here you are, assuming Super Les’ account is correct and using it to back yourself up.
For clarity, I’m not saying Super Les is incorrect at all, and agree he is seemingly well-connected. My point is you’re being a hypocrite in criticising one set of assumptions (which are actually not because they have supporting evidence) yet leaping on another set because it’s convenient to you. It undermines your own argument I’m afraid.
The standard of your debating here has been uncharacteristically poor HarryCharltonsCat.