Rahic on the Radio Tonight

There is nothing else you can call it : noun: hearsay
information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.
"according to hearsay, Bez had managed to break his arm"
synonyms: rumour, gossip, tittle-tattle, tattle, idle chatter, idle talk, mere talk, report; More
stories, tales, titbits;
bavardage, on dit;
Kaffeeklatsch;
labrish, shu-shu;
informalbuzz, the grapevine;
informalgoss;
informalscuttlebutt;
informalfurphy;
informalskinder;
rarebruit
"a story based only on hearsay"
antonyms: confirmed facts
Law
the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
"everything they had told him would have been ruled out as hearsay

I've posted stuff on here and when someone quotes as park did, I can't substantiate it, yes I believe the person who told me but others maybe wont.

 

What's your point? Signing a manager early on in pre season and giving him a squad already full of talent is hardly a reason to expect underachievement. The foundations had been set and they weren't foundations which were built under Rahic and Rupp.

Getting to Wembley was a great achievement for all concerned (Rahic and Rupp, McCall, Abbott etc) but it was hardly the epitome of Rahic and Rupp's reign when the overwhelming majority of our back room staff and best players was down to the previous regime. In contrast, we've seen what happens when Rahic fully stamps his authority on the club and like most City fans, I'd rather he didn't.

 

I'm not sure it is, just to play devils advocate. it's no different ITK than anyone else saying they've heard from someone at the club.

and that's all we're both doing here. I've heard the McMahon suspension story from someone at the club, you've heard that he bullied someone from someone at the club.

I'm not sure I see the difference and why it makes yours near fact and mine rubbish.

 

The last sentence wasn't really in reference to anyone or thing in particular in fairness. Was more tongue in cheek than anything. I've got absolutely no reason to think you're making it up and I doubt you are.

I just posted what I was told. As we all do.. As I say though if the suspension thing is true and it was Grayson who insisted on him been brought back in why was he playing at Oldham? when McCall was still in charge and potentially would not have been sacked yet had he won that game (although the sacking was just a matter of time unfortunately)

 

that's fair enough, I've got my timeline out regards who or when he came back - but that would lead me to believe he was kept away from the club for the month of January.
Just doing the same as you mate, repeating what I heard that Tony was suspended as he was a senior member of the squad that spoke up on behalf of the players regarding several gripes and grievances.

 

Sod the McMahon stuff, i want to know more about supporters club turf wars.

 

Probably a fair reflection, i’m guessing there are two sides in every story and this is no different. Both Rahic and McMahon are strong ‘characters’ and theres usually only one winner in a power struggle.

 

HAHA - No Comment

 

Me too, but struggling to get answers

 

In relation to McMahon whether injured or suspended is that he's taking a lot of rubbish from people claiming he downed tools and was injured (and whilst he might not care) if it's not true then I would come out and say so, he clearly doesn't like Rahic, so why not just stick the boot in.. Again all I've seen is an attempt on Instagram for him to stir sh!t up a little bit but with no real conviction! which tells me he's not exactly blameless int he whole thing. Neither will Rahic be by the way

 

They probably have confidentiality clauses linked to money??

 

He's left now... He can say whatever he wants

 

I wouldn't lose sleep over it. It's nothing that bad

 

I've got some swampland you might be interested in buying.

 

It's hardly a serious problem, unless all the other clubs where the owners take little interest also have serious problems. Last time I looked Man U and a few of the others seem to have survived

Actually, all these furrowed brows about our owners are the L1 equivalent of when the Glazers took over United, if you remember the club was finished

Fortunately, the true outcome is nearly always more boringly sane in comparison to the early fears

 

100% agree.
Rahic - "pants on fire".

 

Call it what you will hearsay, tittle tattle,Gossip, nonsense. I am sure Rahic wants his pound of flesh and he has rattled a few out of their comfort Zone and in some cases out of the club so there a few out there with axes to grind and I think they are grinding them

 

... and FC United were going to rise from the ashes as the ‘true’ club of Manchester.
A decade later they are still scratting about in Vanarama north playing the ‘true’ club of Bradford whilst Salford pay players £4k per week in the conference

 

But many were saying these things during the first closed season of these two's reign you know after we'd been to Wembley, when nobody was out as you put it with axes to grind.

 

At what point do we draw a line under the start of the season and move forward?
I'm sure Hopkin won't be looking back and thinking what if. We can continue to rake over he said, she said but If we get off to a solid start under Hopkin, I'm sure we'll get the buzz again.

I can't help thinking though, some supporters won't be happy regardless of how well we do.

Time for the football to do the talking.