Quote ="BartonFlyer"I just can't believe the sheer rudeness of some on this site - "Vievers is a yes man" say quite a few - Solly, GT et al (who's Al I hear you ask....) - how the f*** do you justify that kind of insult?'"
You make it sound like I've called him a useless, fat, bald c**t or something similar.
Honest answer? I've nothing against Vievers himself and, to be honest, I do think that he'll do a good job. However, it does seem a bit strange to me that he was overlooked in the first instance for Parish but is then put into the post when he leaves under a cloud and telling everyone how sh*te the club is.
Does that mean he's definitely a "yes man"? No.
Does that mean Vievers thinks of himself as/knows he's a "yes man"? No.
Does that mean the club have got him in the job because he's been around for a while and they think he'll be less questioning of what goes on behind the scenes and will be easy to keep to the party line? In my opinion (yes, opinion, I have no problem with other people's opinions differing, would you believe) yes, that's probably how the club looked at it. Particularly has the job would be very hard to sell to anyone else outside Salford.
Whether that is true or not remains to be seen. How things will work out remains to be seen. As has been mentioned elswhere, Phil could easily go about sorting things out internally without shouting about it - as it is, he could be as radical as Parish wanted to be but we may never find out. He's certainly got my support whilst he's in the post anyway, regardless of my opinions stated above.