But why care? What this actually amounts to is Wise blowing his top. Hardly the first time. And he's certainly acted like a nasty little cnut in the past, but he isn't this time, and unless he does so again then as far as I'm concerned it's in the past. Why care about stuff he did years ago, before he became a manager?
I'm with Paul Reaney about the Mole. You shouldn't give anything away, and it shouldn't be tolerated. You just can't act like that. Not if you think the point of the game is to actually win it. Taylor said a revealing thing that wasn't mentioned much at the time, in the same quote he gave: [some very much like] "... of course Dennis, when he was a player, would never have done something like that." And that's the attitude I want from a Leeds manager. Everything else Wise is blamed for hasn't been down to him, in my view, apart from picking the team - from a pool of inexperienced kids, loanees, short-termers, traitors, and whoever we could get. I'm with Bates when it comes to pre-season. Fcuk that up next year, and yes, tar and feather Wise. Incidentally considering our pre-Kishishev squad revealing that Thompson wasn't playing is tantamount to revealing the whole team and tactics, which amounted to a load of pointless huffing and puffing and hoping that Blake would manage something. I'm not convinced Kelly is better than Richardson. Wasn't last year, wasn't the year before. Same goes for the people I go the games with. We all think Kelly is past it. I'm the most moderate; I reckoned it was worth trying him in midfield. If he was match fit... I agree that not letting him play against Derby was poor - in principle. In practice, I don't think the administrators would have been pleased. How about this for a conspiracy theory: Bates has spent the season trying to avoid administration for as long as possible, first in the hope that whatever was going to happen in January would occur and then to avoid a points deduction before relegation was settled. Trying to avoid administration tends to involve not giving extra appearance money to players the manager thinks you don't need. There are tons of good things to be said about Kelly, but they all involve 'was' and 'has' and 'been'. On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:01:23 +0000 , "Phill Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark > >I realise that you expect others (certainly me) to provide sworn affadavits >from any individual who I dare to speculate about. It would be a quiet list >iof all had to do this, you should of course abide by the same criteria. > >Re Derry. I suspect I know no more than you but from what I have picked up >here is my summary. Derry was in the Palace hotel the night before our game >with them. His agent has admitted that. At some point he let slip Thommo was >injured (speculation on my part). Wise said after the game that a "player" >had revealed the full team and tactics for the game. He made clear it was a >deliberate act of treason. Mr Harvey subsequently glossed over this and >implied it was a misunderstanding. Derry has not played since and at some >point became injured (fact) and is hobbling around (fact) at present. Wise >has blown him away (again me speculating). > >I said Wise & Bates had been guilty of misinforming the public and I am >delighted you have finally agreed re your comments about his handling of >Kelly. Your weasel words of Wise being "diplomatic" and not providing the >"whole truth" refer. I have personally heard Wise say that Kelly was unfit >and then interestingly insisted it mattered not anyway because Richardson >was playing out of his skin and was now 1st choice. Just because Kelly didnt >train with the team does not make him unfit. Its managers way of telling >players they are not wanted. The Radio Leeds pundit claimed Kelly was fit >and that not playing him against Derby and allowing him to say his farewells >was poor. I agree. > >As regards football needing blokes like Wise and him being honest & >straightforward. Look at the guy's personal and professional history and you >have proof that he is a nasty c&nt. That does not make him a Brian Clough >who I am loath to mention in the same sentence. I accept that he has got the >team pulling in the same direction since he arrived though - relegation. >Well done Dennis! > >You could hire a phone booth for a Dennis Wise fan club meeting, presumably >you would be on the door though. > >I know this, if Bates grubby hands are prised away from Leeds and new owners >come in then Dennis will follow him. Perhaps he can practise becoming a >decent manager at someone else's expense - as a man he will of course remain >a c&nt. > >Regards > > >Phill > > >>From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "'Phill Shields'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>CC: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >>Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 08:56:44 +0100 >> >>So on the one hand you believe that Derry has been unfit since the CP >>incident, yet on the other hand you don�t believe Kelly has been? In fact >>didn�t someone report on the list that Derry himself had said he was fit? >> >>Make your mind up mate. >> >>As for Kelly, do you think it would be fair for Wise to come out and say, >>when asked why Kelly isn�t playing, that actually he was a mercenary >>bastard >>and refused to reduce his salary for a season? Has Wise come out since and >>said that is the reason? No it was Bates. It is called being 'diplomatic', >>which Wise can be when not in the heat of an post match press conference. >> >>Was Kelly training with the first team all season? Was Kelly match fit? >> >>I dunno about the first but he certainly wasn't match fit, so if asked if >>Kelly is in the squad, would it actually be a lie to say that he wasn�t >>(yet) fit? >> >>No, it's not the whole truth of the matter, but Wise was not in a position >>to give the whole truth, and frankly it is no one else's business but >>Bates/Harvey, Wise/Poyet and Kelly/his agent. Indeed Kelly may well have >>been given the option as to what the official line was - do they tell >>everyone the real reason he wont be picked, or shall we say he isn't fit? >> >>I would also suggest that this kind of thing goes on all the time in >>football. >> >>I will stand by my original assertion, as far as I am concerned Wise is an >>honest straightforward bloke. We need more people like that in football >>and >>we certainly need that kind of uncompromising attitude to get a squad of >>players together who act like a team and pull in the same direction. If we >>do that then we will be back up at the top sooner rather than later. >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Phill Shields [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: 09 May 2007 18:38 >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Cc: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> >>You know full well that Derry hasnt played how the f*ck can he when he is >>on >> >>crutches. Neither of us can say what really happened - we have made >>different assumptions on what we have heard. I expressed my view, thats >>what >> >>we do on the list is that ok with you? >> >>Lets talk about Kelly then. Since Barnsley away he hasnt played because he >>was "injured" or "unfit". Funny, Kelly doesnt realise that because when >>anyone cares to ask him he says there is nothing wrong with him. Someone >>must be telling porkies - who do you think it is? >> >>I didnt actually say Wise had retracted the sh*te he came out with after >>Palace, it was Harvey that tried to limit the damage. Wise would never >>admit >> >>he has said or done anything wrong because he is far too arrogant. Think >>about it Mark, if he couldnt name & shame why open his gob in the first >>place. To gain sympathy for poor little Dennis just like the Nicholls saga. >>If you think Wise came out looking good in both these cases you shouldnt go >>into PR mate, you would make much. It did of course tarnsih our name again, >>along with getting sent to the stands, moaning about refs etc. >> >>So fact, Kelly privately has insisted he is fit and Wise says he isnt. For >>contractual reasons obviously Wise has Kelly by the short & curlies but in >>my view Kelly is in Wise's bad books and thats him finished. Do you think >>Kelly deserves that, how do you think existing or prospective new players >>will feel about playing for Wise. He is a real man manager - yeah, little >>man syndrome mate. >> >>So come on Mark. Who is lying - Kelly or Wise? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >To: "'Phill Shields'" >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >CC: [email protected] >> >Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> >Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:07:30 +0100 >> > >> >Wise 'opened his gob' in the post CP press conference and said that one >>of >> >his players had given info to CP before the game about the team, and that >> >player would not play for Leeds again. >> > >> >Tell me, has Derry played since he said that? >> > >> >Tell me, did Wise, at any point, say that the player would be sacked? >> > >> >Tell me, did Wise, at any point, say that he over-reacted? >> > >> >No. How you therefore say that he publicly back-tracked I find hard to >> >see. >> >He did exactly what he publicly said he would do. Now others, on the >>other >> >hand, were suggesting the player would be named & shamed, would be sold, >> >would be sacked etc etc. Wise, I think you will find, did not. >> > >> >Wrt the Nicholls situation, I simply put forward an alternative (and I >> >would >> >say more realistic) sequence of events. >> > >> >Calling Wise a liar based on a load of tosh posted up on a chat forum, >>and >> >the infamous 'i have been told by x at the club but I cant say who it is, >> >but believe me it really really is the truth, scouts honour' line we have >> >heard a million times before is frankly ridiculous. >> > >> >If you are going to call someone a liar publicly at least have the common >> >courtesy to provide facts to back that up. Think yourself lucky that >>Wise >> >isn�t as litigious as Bates, is all I can say. >> > >> >I'm not suggesting for a second that people should like the bloke, I am >>old >> >enough and ugly enough to know I'm ever going to change anyone's opinion >>on >> >that score but, as I said, in my opinion he may be a lot of things but a >> >liar he aint. If you are going to argue he is then at least let's see >>some >> >facts. I believe I have provided enough 'proof' to justify my assertion >> >that actually he didn�t lie, or backtrack on the mole issue. Its >>generally >> >taken for granted the 'mole' was Derry. Wise said at the time that the >> >person would not play for Leeds again. >> > >> >Once again, has Derry played for Leeds since that game? >> > >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Phill Shields [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: 09 May 2007 13:51 >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Cc: [email protected] >> >Subject: RE: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> > >> >Mark >> > >> >apparently Derry hasnt played for the pathetic reason that he is on >> >crutches. Of course since Wise opened his gob there has been a public >> >back-tracking and its apparent that Wise over-reacted. Lesson - keep your >> >gob shut if you dont know the facts. >> > >> >Saying Newell is a c&nt doesnt make Wise a saint. Who gave you all the >> >facts >> > >> >by the way, have you inside knowledge or are your relying on rumours like >> >the rest of us. >> > >> >Your response proves nothing apart from you are prepared to give Wise the >> >benefit of the doubt. Fair enough, I'm not. >> > >> >Your loyalty to Wise is touching, can I suggest that you and other fans >>who >> >share your feelings will be rewarded accordingly. >> > >> >Phill >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >To: "'Phill Shields'" >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >CC: <[email protected]> >> > >Subject: RE: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> > >Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:00:14 +0100 >> > > >> > >Erm, tell me, did Derry play for us again? >> > > >> > >Did Wise say that the player would be sold or sacked? No - thats what >> > >people on the list here and the press were assuming, I said at the time >> > >that >> > >Wise (rightly) said that the player in question wouldn�t play for Leeds >> > >again. He didn�t promise a full debrief of the incident for the fans >>or >> > >press. >> > > >> > >Newell is as thick as pig shit. How would he know that Nicholls had >>been >> > >offered to other clubs? He may well have been told this by Nicholls >> >agent >> > >to chivvy along a deal/approach. I doubt Newell is a liar in this >> >instance >> > >but that doesn�t mean to say that Wise is either. Wise said Nicholls >> > >wasn�t >> > >offered to other clubs, but he can only clearly speak on his/LUFC >>behalf, >> > >what Nicholls' agent got up to is another matter entirely. >> > > >> > >So, in those two examples I have shown that in the first instance Wise >> > >clearly didn�t lie, he was true to his word, and in the second instance >> >why >> > >on earth would Wise get pissed off that Nicholls wanted to go back to >> > >Luton, >> > >a relegation contender, if he had already ok'd him to go to QPR, >>another >> > >relegation contender? >> > > >> > >As I said, Wise may be a lot of things but I don�t think he is a liar, >> >and >> > >I >> > >have yet to see any evidence to the contrary. >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- >> > >From: Phill Shields [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >Sent: 08 May 2007 17:47 >> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >Cc: [email protected] >> > >Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> > > >> > >ok - what about accusing a player of deliberately leaking the team to >> > >Palace >> > > >> > >before the game, saying that player would never play for Leeds again >>and >> > >then........................nothing? >> > > >> > >I used the term misinforming and as things stand in this example it is >> > >accurate. >> > > >> > >Mike Newell of course disputes Wise's version of events - are you >>saying >> > >Newell is a liar? >> > > >> > >I personally wouldnt trust Wise as far as I could chuck him but you >>have >> > >gathered that already. >> > > >> > > >> > > >From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > >To: "'Phill Shields'" >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > >CC: [email protected] >> > > >Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> > > >Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:41:10 +0100 >> > > > >> > > >He may be a lot of things but Wise doesn�t strike me as a liar. >> > > > >> > > >Any rumours suggesting he is, therefore, I take with a huge pinch of >> > >salt. >> > > > >> > > >Nicholls was dropped because he contacted Newell/Luton and said he >> >wanted >> > > >to >> > > >go back there. Not because he insisted that Kelly played, which in >> > >itself >> > > >is frankly unbelievable - since when do captains think they can pick >> >the >> > > >side? He may have suggested something to Wise on that front, >>although >> >at >> > > >that time I believe Kelly was still injured, but Wise wouldn�t get >>all >> > > >arsey >> > > >about it, he would simply tell Nicholls to get back to training, or >> >even >> > > >explain that we cannot afford to pay an extra �4k per match. That >> >would >> > > >have been the start and end of it. >> > > > >> > > >Also the rumour about the rift with Cresswell is a load of bollox. >>"He >> > > >would have been dropped had Elliot been fully fit". Why not play >>4-5-1? >> > > >Why >> > > >not play one of the other kids? Why put Elliot in the squad if not >> >fully >> > > >fit? Why not sub Cresswell at the first opportunity? >> > > > >> > > >Load of bollox the lot of it. >> > > > >> > > >-----Original Message----- >> > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phill >>Shields >> > > >Sent: 08 May 2007 16:13 >> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >Cc: [email protected] >> > > >Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> > > > >> > > >Andy >> > > > >> > > >I have commented on the rumours because of Bates saying that Wise has >> > > >sorted >> > > > >> > > >out the dressing room and IMHO it is not the case and IMHO that is >> >clear. >> > > >We >> > > > >> > > >know the are problems there and unfortunately when further rumours >>come >> > >out >> > > >about last Wednesday (soz but they appear pretty credible) I think >>that >> > > >there is something in them. >> > > > >> > > >Neither Bates, Wise or LUFC need any help in shit-stirring. They have >> > >been >> > > >misinforming us for ages - what goes around comes around. >> > > > >> > > >As for helping our detractors, FFS we havent a leg to stand on. >> > > > >> > > >You can wait for the biographies and kiss & tell articles in the >> >tabloids >> > > >to >> > > > >> > > >get your "facts" - its just your semantics mate. I'm just watching >>Rome >> > > >burn. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >Phill >> > > > >> > > > >From: "Andy Clayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > >To: "Phill Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > >CC: [email protected] >> > > > >Subject: Re: [LU] Revelations or Allegations (take your pick...) >> > > > >Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 14:03:47 +0100 >> > > > > >> > > > >On 08/05/07, Phill Shields <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > > > > I can't believe this sh*te I really cant. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Bates has said that Wise inherited an unfit side where there was >> > > > >backroom >> > > > > > unrest. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I think ACAS would have a field ady with the fallouts that have >> >gone >> > > >on >> > > > > > since Wise took over and its pretty clear there was a big >>falling >> > >out >> > > >on >> > > > > > Wednesdays before kells do. >> > > > > >> > > > >Why is it clear? Because the YEP (who are hardly on speaking terms >> > > > >with Bates) said so? Or because the allegations were on WACCOE? The >> > > > >same thread breaking this news also had a rebuttal from someone who >> > > > >equally knew someone connected and said that not all reported had >> > > > >happened and implied it may just have been shit stirring. >> > > > > >> > > > >I'd hardly say it's clear. What I think is clear is that nothing is >> > > > >clear - and until it becomes clear (whichever way the ground lays) >> >the >> > > > >only benefit for this continued shit stirring & >> > > > >Bates/Wise/Kelly/Mole/Derry bashing is to add more grist to the >>mill >> > > > >for our detractors. >> > > > > >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > > >the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> > >administrators >> > > > >accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of >> > >contributors. >> > > > >Leedslist mailing list >> > > > >[email protected] >> > > > >http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> > > > >The Leeds List - "where never is heard a discouraging word..." >> > > > >> > > >_________________________________________________________________ >> > > >The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > >the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> >administrators >> > > >accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of >> >contributors. >> > > >Leedslist mailing list >> > > >[email protected] >> > > >http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> > > >The Leeds List - "where never is heard a discouraging word..." >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >_______________________________________________ >> > > >the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> >administrators >> > > >accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of >> >contributors. >> > > >Leedslist mailing list >> > > >[email protected] >> > > >http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> > > >The Leeds List - "where never is heard a discouraging word..." >> > > >> > >_________________________________________________________________ >> > >The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk/ >> > > >> > > >> > >> >_________________________________________________________________ >> >Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. >> >https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/ >> > >> > >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators >> >accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >> >Leedslist mailing list >> >[email protected] >> >http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> >The Leeds List - "where never is heard a discouraging word..." >> >>_________________________________________________________________ >>The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators >>accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >>Leedslist mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>The Leeds List - "where never is heard a discouraging word..." > >_________________________________________________________________ >The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk > > _______________________________________________________________ Hot new product - Spider Networks introduces stunning online ePortfolio solution for students and teachers http://www.spider-networks.net/solutions/eportfolio.html _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist The Leeds List - "where never is heard a discouraging word..."
