Mayer on 2SM

[simonthetiger]

So basically everyone has been jumping up and down like nutteras over complete lies written by the media to get a story.

The only fact is that there was a board meeting…..

Everything else was a complete lie.

Pack of dogs!!

PS...I agree Mayer should have done this straight away,but better late than never I guess.

 

[jctiger]

With all the support Potter is getting his job should be 100% safe

I bet his job isn't safe though

Unfortunately Potter is getting support from everybody that does count.
When the new board members come in Bailey will say we have to discuss Potter's contract. The new board members will say " no worries, so who is Potter and what exactly does he do around here ?"

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

 

[jctiger]

With all the support Potter is getting his job should be 100% safe

I bet his job isn't safe though

Unfortunately Potter is getting support from everybody that doesn't count.
When the new board members come in Bailey will say we have to discuss Potter's contract. The new board members will say " no worries, so who is Potter and what exactly does he do around here ?"

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

 

[innsaneink]

I wasn't convinced by Mayer's response to the questions about the Roy Masters article. I had the impression that the question caught him unprepared. My thoughts are, if he didn't know about it, he should have.
After that it was good. Like the prepared messages we used to practice in media training.

I tried searching for the Roy masters article. No luck.

A listener just called 2SM saying that Graeme Hughes was the only person that seemed to care about Masters claims in his article (senior players going to the board via high profile sponsor to air grievances about coach)
The caller said it could all have been hearsay.

Hughes than stated that he's had it confirmed it in fact happened.

 

[Geo]

I wasn't convinced by Mayer's response to the questions about the Roy Masters article. I had the impression that the question caught him unprepared. My thoughts are, if he didn't know about it, he should have.
After that it was good. Like the prepared messages we used to practice in media training.

I tried searching for the Roy masters article. No luck.

A listener just called 2SM saying that Graeme Hughes was the only person that seemed to care about Masters claims in his article (senior players going to the board via high profile sponsor to air grievances about coach)

The caller said it could all have been hearsay.

Hughes than stated that he's had it confirmed it in fact happened.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/word-games-from-wests-tigers-board-only-makes-potter-dilemma-worse-20140728-zxlpy.html?rand=1406549317749

I think it's this article…

 

[Tim Sheens]

I wasn't convinced by Mayer's response to the questions about the Roy Masters article. I had the impression that the question caught him unprepared. My thoughts are, if he didn't know about it, he should have.
After that it was good. Like the prepared messages we used to practice in media training.

I tried searching for the Roy masters article. No luck.

A listener just called 2SM saying that Graeme Hughes was the only person that seemed to care about Masters claims in his article (senior players going to the board via high profile sponsor to air grievances about coach)
The caller said it could all have been hearsay.

Hughes than stated that he's had it confirmed it in fact happened.

I was also listening on the way home today Ink, with his comments certainly coming as no surprise this end.

Masters is as good as it gets as far as sports journos go, with his brother Chris, they have access to key figures in many fields. Roy is standing by his story, and rightly so.

Like it or not fellow WT supporters, if the bookies were setting a price on whether Farah was involved, they would be offering mighty short odds, and with good reason.

Put any slant you like on it, but he eventually admitted in the Gould interview that Tallis was the one telling the truth, even though both should have kept their mouths shut, albeit fifteen months apart.

Whilst he is entitled to that opinion, even to this day, but as far as I am concerned,he is still dancing around the issue, as I still cannot recall any clear "I", "me", or "my" statements from him. Please anybody, direct me to one in case I missed it? The playing group blah,blah blah,does not cut it.

 

[1_4_chicken_chips]

Where there's smoke there's fire ….please all I want is a football team that can compete,and play finals football on a regular basis .is that asking for too much ?

 

[tig_prmz]

Where there's smoke there's fire ….please all I want is a football team that can compete,and play finals football on a regular basis .is that asking for too much ?

Since only half the teams make it to the finals each year, what you're asking for is actually quite hard to achieve.

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

 

[weststigers4life]

I wasn't convinced by Mayer's response to the questions about the Roy Masters article. I had the impression that the question caught him unprepared. My thoughts are, if he didn't know about it, he should have.
After that it was good. Like the prepared messages we used to practice in media training.

I tried searching for the Roy masters article. No luck.

A listener just called 2SM saying that Graeme Hughes was the only person that seemed to care about Masters claims in his article (senior players going to the board via high profile sponsor to air grievances about coach)

The caller said it could all have been hearsay.

Hughes than stated that he's had it confirmed it in fact happened.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/word-games-from-wests-tigers-board-only-makes-potter-dilemma-worse-20140728-zxlpy.html?rand=1406549317749

I think it's this article…

Yep that's the article Geo, Hughes said today that was the only Q Gould didn't ask Farah & it also wasn't Harry T but another sponsor

 

[cqtiger]

Sunny day everything's a-okay??
Why does it take a week to get a story straight enough to go public with?
To me, the more that comes out 'officially' the more questions I have, because it is what's not being said that is significant.
The media reports that came out on Sunday last week said that Potter would be sacked that night. (Of course this report resulted in the cyclone of sh!t that engulfed the team and almost certainly influenced their performance against the dragons.) I haven't heard or seen any communication from the club directly denying that allegation or explaining where it came from. For some reason the board conducted a hasty meeting that afternoon to discuss the matter and followed up with a nothing statement that Potter is safe till seasons end. If there was nothing to the allegation, why did they have to meet about it? Why didn't they deny it directly within minutes?
There was also the (paraphrased) allegation about privately the board not wanting Potter to make the finals so that they wouldn't be embarrassed. If ever there was a media statement that required a rebuttal that was it. Where did that come from? The journalist must have had a source. What did the club say? Schtumm.
Then there was the Roy Masters piece alleging that the players approached an influential person outside the board with a message. What did the club say?
From my experience; the CEO at my workplace has an executive secretary. Every morning, first thing, the exec sec and an administrative assistant go through the papers looking for articles that might impact on the business. They cut them out and put them in a folder for the CEO to read.
Is it possible that 'the club', for want of a better term, has not directly rebutted these things because they don't want to see the public comeback response from the original journalists? They certainly didn't like the response from Gorden Tallis.
An investigator will tell you that if you ask a suspect a direct question and they look you in the eye and say directly 'I didn't do it', there's a fair chance they didn't. If you ask the same direct question to someone else and they say 'I wasn't even there', they've deflected the question and it's time to ask more questions.

So if I really wasn't there, they are going to keep asking me questions anyway? So logically, I should just say that I was there? Even though I wasn't?

_Posted using RoarFEED V.4_

 

[clokan]

Whilst he is entitled to that opinion, even to this day, but as far as I am concerned,he is still dancing around the issue, as I still cannot recall any clear "I", "me", or "my" statements from him. Please anybody, direct me to one in case I missed it? The playing group blah,blah blah,does not cut it.

http://www.weststigers.com.au/news/2014/07/26/press_conference_robbie_farah.html

"I think he has done a really good in the time he has been here"