by Snowflake Royal »
02 Nov 2018 13:26
NewCorkSeth Snowflake Royal NewCorkSeth I know you're probably on a wind up here but in my original comment I said "He's really calling himself the only person to blame there.."
Then you disagreed with me. So how does it seem pretty obvious Ian? I said the same thing Hound said albeit in a different way.
Not on a wind up at all, just amazed at how biased against him you are that you'll twist anything he says like a pretzel.
There is a difference between an interpretation of what he's said - the buck stops with him. And what is reality - fault lies in a lot of places, mainly not him but he has responsibility to fix them and take responsibility for them.
And Hound told you your interpretation was crazy as well.
Just FYI saying Gourlay isn't responsible is not synonimous with saying only Clement is responsible. I'd have thought that would be screamingly obvious but apparently it needs to be spelled out
Ignore everything except for my original comment and your original comment for a moment.
Snowflake Royal NewCorkSeth Paraphrasing here but Clement said not to blame Gourley as he has nothing to do with the tactics, players, performances etc.
He's really calling himself the only person to blame there..
Really? No one who has gone before or the players?
It's a manager's job to take responsibility... good on him for doing so, doesn't mean the issues are actually down to him. He's just the one who has to try to fix them.
That's you disagreeing with me saying Clement is calling himself the only person to blame.
Then Hound joins in and says:
Snowflake Royal Hound Really? I read it as him basically staying the buck stops with him
Yeah, seems pretty obvious doesn't it. I think ncs has lost the plot.
And you agree with him. What is the massive difference you see between "Clement says the buck stops with him" and "Clement is calling himself the only person to blame"?
I imagine your just going to post an eyeroll rather than actually respond but I cannot see a huge difference (one that makes 1 correct and the other incorrect) between those 2 comments.
Ok, the issue here is that similar but different words have different meanings and you seem to be missing some subtleties of my posts, maybe through my own lack of clarity.
Firstly, I completely disagree with your inference from Clement saying Gourlay isn't to blame with Clement implying he is the only one to blame. Ruling one person out doesn't rule everyone and everything else out as well. And even if Clement had actually said it, I would still be disagreeing with it, because it's wrong and I would see it for the sanitised corporate message it would be.
Secondly, there is a difference between 'blame' and 'responsibility'. Clement deflecting blame from Gourlay is taking responsibility, but not necessarily blame. It is a manager's job to take responsibility. They are the one employed to fix problems. Clement would have total responsibility to sort our mess out even if Stam was wholly to blame. The manager is there to act as the focus and deflect pressure from others. He is assuming focus and responsibility, without actively saying he is totally toblame.
Thirdly, you need to remember that what any club rep says is sanitised and communicated through professional and corporate filters. What Clement says, means and thinks are not necessarily the same thing. See McDermott claiming he identified and pushed for the signing of Pogrebnyak whilst employed by AZ, whuch turned out to be hogwash.
Finally, there is nothing underhanded, dishonest or deceitful about what Clement has said when you consider these things. He is saying the right things, taking the right responsibilities and acknowledging the problems that exist.
