| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore 16:46 - Dec 11 with 1554 views | Trequartista |
Norwood says Cook has been brilliant and his hands were tied.
Cook didn't even select him in the squad
McGreal selects him and he scores.
The only truth that seems to fit this is that Ashton banned Cook from selecting him and has lifted that ban for McGreal. Why would he do that? Media don't seem to be able to get answer. |  |
| |  |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:47 - Dec 11 with 1516 views | Wacko |
Or Cook told Norwood a massive porky |  |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:47 - Dec 11 with 1487 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
I would not try to make too much sense of most of what Norwood says. |  |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:53 - Dec 11 with 1371 views | jeera |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:47 - Dec 11 by Nthsuffolkblue |
I would not try to make too much sense of most of what Norwood says. |
There's just no point in speculating is there.
You could drive yourself mad with it all. |  |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:56 - Dec 11 with 1280 views | pointofblue |
Ashton was happy to hide behind Cook with the ban, Cook left, Norwood called it out, Ashton lifted in an attempt to prove otherwise. | |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:57 - Dec 11 with 1228 views | Dubtractor |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:47 - Dec 11 by Wacko |
Or Cook told Norwood a massive porky |
Let's be honest, this is the most plausible reason isn't it? |  |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:59 - Dec 11 with 1159 views | Trequartista |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:56 - Dec 11 by pointofblue |
Ashton was happy to hide behind Cook with the ban, Cook left, Norwood called it out, Ashton lifted in an attempt to prove otherwise. |
Sounds plausible - Cook kept saying he was available for selection whilst the media outlets were saying he wasn't. Whilst Norwood was out, it wasn't really a big issue, but now he's back in the fans deserve an answer. | |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 17:01 - Dec 11 with 1091 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:56 - Dec 11 by pointofblue |
Ashton was happy to hide behind Cook with the ban, Cook left, Norwood called it out, Ashton lifted in an attempt to prove otherwise. |
You appear to have missed off "def info". | |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 17:04 - Dec 11 with 1037 views | 44_not_out |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:56 - Dec 11 by pointofblue |
Ashton was happy to hide behind Cook with the ban, Cook left, Norwood called it out, Ashton lifted in an attempt to prove otherwise. |
How about we also bring in a Director of Football and new manager/head coach?
Then Ashton can continue putting stickers up and dealing with contracts and leave the football side of things to people who know what they’re doing. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:12 - Dec 11 with 783 views | Guthrum |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:59 - Dec 11 by Trequartista |
Sounds plausible - Cook kept saying he was available for selection whilst the media outlets were saying he wasn't. Whilst Norwood was out, it wasn't really a big issue, but now he's back in the fans deserve an answer. |
More likely Cook just preferred to stick with his first choice of Bonne as a lone striker. After all, he barely played Pigott, either.
All this pantomime about Ashton giving orders on player availability over the head of the Manager, then reversing them due to some oblique comment on Twitter (coincidentally just after the latter is sacked) sounds extraordinarily far fetched to me. These aren't 10-year-olds making playground gangs, they're experienced senior administrators and coaches. |  |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:16 - Dec 11 with 731 views | ZXBlue |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:12 - Dec 11 by Guthrum |
More likely Cook just preferred to stick with his first choice of Bonne as a lone striker. After all, he barely played Pigott, either.
All this pantomime about Ashton giving orders on player availability over the head of the Manager, then reversing them due to some oblique comment on Twitter (coincidentally just after the latter is sacked) sounds extraordinarily far fetched to me. These aren't 10-year-olds making playground gangs, they're experienced senior administrators and coaches. |
The number of people simply making stuff up about things they have no information on is absurd.
Stop buying the bitter Bristol fans' narrative about Ashton ffs | | | |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:17 - Dec 11 with 726 views | SamWhiteUK |
I think I side with Norwood on this one. I don't see what reason he has to lie, whereas Ashton is media-facing and going to be a master of spin. |  | | |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:19 - Dec 11 with 718 views | wkj |
Im quite pleased. If he scores a few - it'll add a few quid to his transfer value. |  |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:23 - Dec 11 with 698 views | Geminiblue |
Maybe his hands were tied by performance and fitness guys rather than Ashton, and having played the last two u23 matches that was part of his journey back to fitness and subsequent availability to the first team. Just a possibility but no idea what goes on behind the scenes. | | | |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:24 - Dec 11 with 684 views | wkj |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 16:47 - Dec 11 by Wacko |
Or Cook told Norwood a massive porky |
Seems the most likely thing - although "My hands are tied" can be steeped in delicious ambiguity that would confuse the 'Bants Meister' | |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:38 - Dec 11 with 632 views | Trequartista |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:12 - Dec 11 by Guthrum |
More likely Cook just preferred to stick with his first choice of Bonne as a lone striker. After all, he barely played Pigott, either.
All this pantomime about Ashton giving orders on player availability over the head of the Manager, then reversing them due to some oblique comment on Twitter (coincidentally just after the latter is sacked) sounds extraordinarily far fetched to me. These aren't 10-year-olds making playground gangs, they're experienced senior administrators and coaches. |
I'm not saying it was strange he wasn't selected ahead of Bonne or Pigott. Norwood was banished from the squad and was training with the U23s with local media adamant in saying that was it for him here. Why would Norwood go out of his way to praise Cook for that? | |
| |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:41 - Dec 11 with 614 views | Trequartista |
| This brings the Norwood conundrum to the fore on 19:23 - Dec 11 by Geminiblue |
Maybe his hands were tied by performance and fitness guys rather than Ashton, and having played the last two u23 matches that was part of his journey back to fitness and subsequent availability to the first team. Just a possibility but no idea what goes on behind the scenes. |
I hadn't considered that. Not beyond the realms of possibility but didn't Norwood come back this season much more trim and his removal from the squad co-incided with the drink-driving verdict or appeal? It's possible he let his fitness go at the same time i suppose. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
