Quote: Maislebugs "I don't doubt your totally correct on this and the similar situation vis a vis Briggs being rated 50/50 and then being ruled out for 4 weeks. However, isn't the real issue here a fleeting suspicion that the club occasionally 'tells the tale to suit itself' as my late Mum would say. A poster on here recently suggested (unchallenged) that Jamie Langley wasn't injured when he was missing for a large part of last season. The conclusion of the Matt Orford saga left a nagging sense that something was not quite as presented.
It's things like this that erode that little bit of trust and cause people to question when there's probably no reason to do so.'"
Can understand that POV, tbh. In response, could I suggest anyone concerned about an issue (real or imagined) ring or email Stuart Duffy when questions like this crop up? He has always said he will seek to answer any reasonable questions from fans (as indeed the directors have said), and that has certainly been my experience. Surely that is far better than wild speculation on here? How much easier to just pick the phone up, or send an email or even a text?
I'm sure you can forgive the club for thinking that there are some people (I'm not meaning you, btw) who seem far happier going on about some half-baked artificial issue rather than actually finding out the inconvenient truth of the facts?
The conclusion of the Orford saga reflected the legalities of the situation. I am sure if the club was in a position to explain in full what went on, and why decisions were taken as they were, then most fans would have a much better understanding of the situation the club was in. And some few of the more vocal critics and conspiracy theorists would probably look and feel pretty foolish, tbh. But the club is bound by legalities and other constraints for issues like this, as I know you appreciate and I would hope most other folk would likewise appreciate.
