Jump to content
IGNORED

Tinnion interview


Henry

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

With the void left by not having a CEO, Tinnion was able to take on more power.

He decided he was able to influence team selection for example.

Is this fact now? I thought it was just conjecture based on people's interpretation of Pearson's interview, but fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

With the void left by not having a CEO, Tinnion was able to take on more power.

He decided he was able to influence team selection for example.

Tinnion the stalking horse.

Tinnion the power hungry usurper.

He pretended for years he was just a committed member of the club with a hell of a history and suddenly morphed into Dunsford's & Ashton's love child in 6 weeks

All that work he's done was just a front because in reality he's a frothing megalomaniac set free to spread his evil by the psychopathic Lansdowns.

Where's Thatch when you need a good boo?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Fammyfan said:

I believe so, it came out that the hierarchy had an issue with the inclusion of Andy King

If the question was "why are actual centre halves not being picked or only good for the bench, instead of playing King?" Then I think that was a fair question. Whether that was Tinnion or someone else in the club we don't know, I admit Tinns does seem the most likely candidate.

As it turned out, he had a reasonable game, apart from the bit where he treated the ball like it was a Shane Warne googly, but I wonder if all this would have come to a head earlier if it had gone tits up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had loads of injuries and we didn’t have any senior defensive options on the bench and with Knight ill, I think there was a reluctance to play him (albeit he ended up coming on after 38 mins).

I suppose there was the option to go with a back four of Roberts, Pring, Dickie and either Sykes or Gardner-Hickman but if Nige felt the best team on the day was to include King, it ultimately should be his decision to make.

I think a lot of it is down to how it’s delivered, there’s nothing wrong with a constructive challenge on the team selection but you’d expect that it was more than that for Nige to mention it in the public domain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

If the question was "why are actual centre halves not being picked or only good for the bench, instead of playing King?" Then I think that was a fair question. Whether that was Tinnion or someone else in the club we don't know, I admit Tinns does seem the most likely candidate.

As it turned out, he had a reasonable game, apart from the bit where he treated the ball like it was a Shane Warne googly, but I wonder if all this would have come to a head earlier if it had gone tits up. 

We had loads of injuries and we didn’t have any senior defensive options on the bench and with Knight ill, I think there was a reluctance to play him (albeit he ended up coming on after 38 mins).

I suppose there was the option to go with a back four of Roberts, Pring, Dickie and either Sykes or Gardner-Hickman but if Nige felt the best team on the day was to include King, it ultimately should be his decision to make.

I think a lot of it is down to how it’s delivered, there’s nothing wrong with a constructive challenge on the team selection but you’d expect that it was more than that for Nige to mention it in the public domain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

Is this fact now? I thought it was just conjecture based on people's interpretation of Pearson's interview, but fine. 

I guess at the end of the day if true, he only tried to influence, he didn’t succeed because Nige picked King.  I’ve heard all sorts, some I think sounds more likely than the other.  To sit completely on the fence, Nige has asked Rennie what team he’d pick in the last, so not unreasonable to seek Tins view.  There is obviously a difference between seeking a view and being given it!

44 minutes ago, Rossi the Robin said:

Is Manning reporting directly to Tinnion or to JL? 

We don’t know, but I suspect whichever way it is, there’ll be a dotted line into the other.

11 minutes ago, Fammyfan said:

We had loads of injuries and we didn’t have any senior defensive options on the bench and with Knight ill, I think there was a reluctance to play him (albeit he ended up coming on after 38 mins).

I suppose there was the option to go with a back four of Roberts, Pring, Dickie and either Sykes or Gardner-Hickman but if Nige felt the best team on the day was to include King, it ultimately should be his decision to make.

I think a lot of it is down to how it’s delivered, there’s nothing wrong with a constructive challenge on the team selection but you’d expect that it was more than that for Nige to mention it in the public domain

That was his rationale, there was going to be a lot of change introduced, why not add a wise-old head into the back line.  You might argue a James / King double-pivot might not have the kegs either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spreadsheet Boy said:

I guess at the end of the day if true, he only tried to influence, he didn’t succeed because Nige picked King.  I’ve heard all sorts, some I think sounds more likely than the other.  To sit completely on the fence, Nige has asked Rennie what team he’d pick in the last, so not unreasonable to seek Tins view.  There is obviously a difference between seeking a view and being given it!

We don’t know, but I suspect whichever way it is, there’ll be a dotted line into the other.

That was his rationale, there was going to be a lot of change introduced, why not add a wise-old head into the back line.  You might argue a James / King double-pivot might not have the kegs either.

It was a logical decision, particularly in the circumstances. I think the thought process was also likely thinking of trying to get Sykes further forward too in the RWB role he played that day, it made sense.

Granted we had to change the system but we ended up winning the game, it’s frustrating that the selection was made an issue.

  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

Unlike "Swiss" he has a wealth of football knowledge both playing and coaching, not enough according to some but I am not sure what additional skills they think he needs.

What do you reckon is job description is ?

Genuine question, as I think that might go some ways towards satisfying a number of naysayers that Tinnion is where he is because of his suitability for the role rather than any perception that he's a backstabbing arse licker (just generalising some anti comments on here).

Not that it makes any difference either way of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

What do you reckon is job description is ?

Genuine question, as I think that might go some ways towards satisfying a number of naysayers that Tinnion is where he is because of his suitability for the role rather than any perception that he's a backstabbing arse licker (just generalising some anti comments on here).

Not that it makes any difference either way of course.

It's interesting isn't it? I don't think those sort of roles came with a Job Description in the HR sense in the past, I suppose they might now? A Job Profile is more likely i.e. the skills and qualities of someone to take on that position, although I think it would probably be quite sketchy compared to anything you would find outside of sport. 

I wonder if it's worse than Sports Direct where I turned up to train their "HR" dept on their new IT system, only to find two young IT guys who knew nothing about HR and admitted there wasn't a HR department in the Company..... yet. 🤣

That was 2 loooong days of training. :facepalm:

Edited by Port Said Red
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

It's interesting isn't it? I don't think those sort of roles came with a Job Description in the HR sense in the past, I suppose they might now? A Job Profile is more likely i.e. the skills and qualities of someone to take on that position, although I think it would probably be quite sketchy compared to anything you would find outside of sport. 

I wonder if it's worse than Sports Direct where I turned up to train their "HR" dept on their new IT system, only to find two young IT guys who knew nothing about HR and admitted there wasn't a HR department in the Company..... yet. 🤣

That was 2 loooong days of training. :facepalm:

Yeah job profile much more relevant than a JD.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Natchfever said:

Yeah job profile much more relevant than a JD.

 

Although of course theoretically you can't design a JP without knowing what the JD is, but as I said I don't know if our HR dept goes into that much detail for playing side roles. I mean can you imagine writing the JD and the JP for "a footballer"? Or would you need a separate one for each position? 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...