Tekel Towers - DUFC Fans Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



12/8/2015 7:36 pm  #51


Re: Stevie campbell

Trap_6 wrote:

It's from his Facebook mate. Definitely him.

Goes on to mention in the comments about how he saw and heard things when he was in training at United. Basically he knew Jackie would get his way and get Campbell out of the club.

Seems to substantiate what some have been saying for quite some time.
 

 

12/8/2015 7:38 pm  #52


Re: Stevie campbell

Think the problem between certain people at the club is that they're not all working towards the same goals.  Whole point of a football club from top to bottom is for the 1st team to win as many games/trophies as possible.  When that stops becoming the main aim of the manager due to what he's being asked to do by the owner it's always gonna cause problems.

If this whole thing is just Jackie getting his way then the club is heading in the wrong direction completely.  I'll reserve judgement till I know tho.

 

12/8/2015 7:40 pm  #53


Re: Stevie campbell

fair approach Shed.  Dont mind admitting I get a bit hot headed with stuff like this.

 

12/8/2015 7:41 pm  #54


Re: Stevie campbell

RRDH wrote:

TheShed wrote:

RRDH wrote:

Like I said, im a nmbskull with the twitter so could be horse shit I suppose.  The 40+ likes however would indicate its from someone with plenty of "followers" right?
 

 
Yes, but says nothing about why he's been suspended, can't be angry about him being suspended when we don't know why he has been.

Could be a lot of shit where the club have to be seen to be going thru an investigation process knowing there's nothing in it, could be he's done something to warrant a suspension, we don't know.

Look, im just going come out and say Shed, my mind is made up on McNamara.  I am not a fan...  I dont wish him ill & I back United from my perch 100% in every game we play no matter who the manager is.  From everything I have heard, granted much of it rumour and speculation but some of it FACT such as his contract which ive been vocally against.  I dont have a good impression of him.  Just an opinion from the outside looking in.

Stevie Campbell on the other hand... quite the opposite.  The facts arent out yet mate, but I know which camp I am sitting in as of right now.  Waiting for the facts to come out but either way its not very good is it.
 

 
Your views on JM (and SC) are pretty much the same as mine, but just saying we don't know if this is anything to do with him that's all.

 

12/8/2015 8:08 pm  #55


Re: Stevie campbell

If it was a choice of either Steve or Jackie leaving I know what donut would leave......

 

12/8/2015 8:14 pm  #56


Re: Stevie campbell

Lets face it, the Chairman is going to back the manager. I hope to fuck Stevie is exonerated though.


Too much commotion
 

12/8/2015 8:29 pm  #57


Re: Stevie campbell

Get the feeling that mrs stevie campbell might be an interesting follow on twitter.....


If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
 

12/8/2015 8:36 pm  #58


Re: Stevie campbell

Question: Why does Jackie want Stevie out?

Is it because Stevie has been vocal in criticism of the Fantastic Four? Its piss poor if they are trying to shaft Stevie.

A wee aside: could Jackie be unhappy with the performances of the development team? Before everyone shouts me down about the u20s not being about that and Stevies record of producing players (all of which I agree with). However, anyone turning up to watch the u20s for a few games without knowing any of the above would seriously wonder about them because anytime I have seen them they are pretty dour, inflexible and although they try to play it on the deck, appear to be incredibly rigid and wearing what could only be described as a tactical straightjacket. Playing devils advocate could Jackie be unhappy with this?

I doubt it personally since we seem to produce lots of players with flair out of Stevies teams but just wondering if this is part of Jackies beef and maybe he wants his own man in.

It could well be the fact that our best laddies are in and around the first team at the moment and Stevies been left with pretty slim pickings which explains how they play right enough?

Last edited by lifesanocean (12/8/2015 9:05 pm)


Too much commotion
 

12/8/2015 9:04 pm  #59


Re: Stevie campbell

On a slightly different angle I feel SCs influence at the club has been overstated, Im not saying he is a bad coach however the crucial work is done lower down. The scouts and coaches of the younger boys (u10-15) do the bulk of the development work, SC has no input at this level.  Players like Gauld Souttar & Coote made thier Debuts before moving under SCs wing.    

 

12/8/2015 9:09 pm  #60


Re: Stevie campbell

Beharder wrote:

On a slightly different angle I feel SCs influence at the club has been overstated, Im not saying he is a bad coach however the crucial work is done lower down. The scouts and coaches of the younger boys (u10-15) do the bulk of the development work, SC has no input at this level.  Players like Gauld Souttar & Coote made thier Debuts before moving under SCs wing.    

 
There are literally hundreds of boys at 15 who could make it pro, the development of players from 15-19 is absolutely critical, to say the bulk of development is before that is just wrong.

 

12/8/2015 9:25 pm  #61


Re: Stevie campbell

TheShed wrote:

Beharder wrote:

On a slightly different angle I feel SCs influence at the club has been overstated, Im not saying he is a bad coach however the crucial work is done lower down. The scouts and coaches of the younger boys (u10-15) do the bulk of the development work, SC has no input at this level.  Players like Gauld Souttar & Coote made thier Debuts before moving under SCs wing.    

 
There are literally hundreds of boys at 15 who could make it pro, the development of players from 15-19 is absolutely critical, to say the bulk of development is before that is just wrong.

Will have to disagree with you there Shed. Each club in the elite youth development leagues will have squads of around 16 only a few of them have a chance of making it most of the rest are just making up the numbers.  Ive been watching these games for years and  its easy to see who utds best kids are from a very early age. Sadly Celtic are as far ahead in youth football as they are in the real thing. 
 

Last edited by Beharder (12/8/2015 9:30 pm)

 

12/8/2015 9:31 pm  #62


Re: Stevie campbell

Beharder wrote:

TheShed wrote:

Beharder wrote:

On a slightly different angle I feel SCs influence at the club has been overstated, Im not saying he is a bad coach however the crucial work is done lower down. The scouts and coaches of the younger boys (u10-15) do the bulk of the development work, SC has no input at this level.  Players like Gauld Souttar & Coote made thier Debuts before moving under SCs wing.    

 
There are literally hundreds of boys at 15 who could make it pro, the development of players from 15-19 is absolutely critical, to say the bulk of development is before that is just wrong.

Will have to disagree with you there Shed. Each club in the elite youth development leagues will have squads of around 16 only a few of them have a chance of making it most of the rest are just making up the numbers.  
 

BH, not having a go.  Even if I was to agree with your initial post which I dont.  I think this argument folk make about over stating SC's influence on our youth setup are debunkable based on that the players themselves heap credit on him for their development.  You are right that it takes more than one bloke but when you head the whole thing up, you're in charge of who is in the positions at U-15 & younger.

There are so many factors that go into a players development though you're right.  That's why I cant f ucking stand incentivising one f ucking man as much as we do when they are sold on.
 

 

12/8/2015 9:43 pm  #63


Re: Stevie campbell

RRDH wrote:

Beharder wrote:

TheShed wrote:


 
There are literally hundreds of boys at 15 who could make it pro, the development of players from 15-19 is absolutely critical, to say the bulk of development is before that is just wrong.

Will have to disagree with you there Shed. Each club in the elite youth development leagues will have squads of around 16 only a few of them have a chance of making it most of the rest are just making up the numbers.  
 

BH, not having a go.  Even if I was to agree with your initial post which I dont.  I think this argument folk make about over stating SC's influence on our youth setup are debunkable based on that the players themselves heap credit on him for their development.  You are right that it takes more than one bloke but when you head the whole thing up, you're in charge of who is in the positions at U-15 & younger.

There are so many factors that go into a players development though you're right.  That's why I cant f ucking stand incentivising one f ucking man as much as we do when they are sold on.
 

RRDH SC is not in charge of U15 & younger he does  not pick coaches etc Brian Grant is that man. SC is handed the players at the age of 16, most of them excellent prospects. To get back to my original point Im not saying SC is not a good coach however he is not polishing turds.     

 

12/8/2015 9:48 pm  #64


Re: Stevie campbell

polishing turds! havent heard that in yonks.  Yeah but again, those that have worked with him I have only ever read positive remarks & credit given.  I dont know Garry Kenneth, but he is United through and through.  personally I take his comments to heart like

 

12/8/2015 9:49 pm  #65


Re: Stevie campbell

I must look busy as fluck at work today... if only they knew...

 

12/8/2015 10:16 pm  #66


Re: Stevie campbell

Must say i'm a wee bit surprised at Garry's comments.This was reply (post 23) when asked if he rated McNamara during his Q+A in early June.

garrykenneth5 wrote:

jackie should stay, he is a very intelligent manager, give him time he will develop an unbelievable squad of young n experienced players, be patient though

 

12/8/2015 10:20 pm  #67


Re: Stevie campbell

Tbf, probably didn't want to give a bad answer on a public forum

 

12/8/2015 10:24 pm  #68


Re: Stevie campbell

Waffelz wrote:

Tbf, probably didn't want to give a bad answer on a public forum

Of course.

But it was quite a glowing endorsement nonetheless.

 

13/8/2015 6:53 am  #69


Re: Stevie campbell

Did Kenneth not back Jackie in the local press fairly recently?


Yeah yeah Industrial Estate
 

13/8/2015 7:41 am  #70


Re: Stevie campbell

huntedbyafreak wrote:

Did Kenneth not back Jackie in the local press fairly recently?

Couldn't imagine a ex player actually publicly slagging off the manager in the local press, not really the done thing to do.
 

 

13/8/2015 9:29 am  #71


Re: Stevie campbell

Is it really ONLY 18 MONTHS since ST, JMcN & SC were getting a standing ovation and showered in rose petals at the Whitehall Theatre.  It seems light years ago sadly 

 

13/8/2015 9:41 am  #72


Re: Stevie campbell

Foo Kin Twat wrote:

Is it really ONLY 18 MONTHS since ST, JMcN & SC were getting a standing ovation and showered in rose petals at the Whitehall Theatre.  It seems light years ago sadly 

Ken.  I thought that was a bit of a minter at the time though.
 

Last edited by lifesanocean (13/8/2015 9:41 am)


Too much commotion
 

13/8/2015 10:07 am  #73


Re: Stevie campbell


On twitter don't know how legit, but think I'll buckle up


I don't know a lot, but I know what I like!
 

13/8/2015 10:13 am  #74


Re: Stevie campbell

Soonds like shite is really gonna hit the fan 


 

13/8/2015 10:14 am  #75


Re: Stevie campbell


Too much commotion
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum