So says David Sullivan anyway. Not sure I’m totally convinced about that, but what else could he say really?
The two David’s have been getting plenty of stick over their handling of the whole Avram Grant affair. West Ham legend Julian Dicks had a swipe at them yesterday and just about every media outlet in the whole of the UK has been reporting about how Avram has handled himself with such dignity.
Personally, I’m not sure I agree with that. What were Grant’s choices? He either walks and loses his sacking windfall, or he keeps his mouth shut and gets on with things, then if they do sack him, he gets his failure pay out. Would dignity not to have been to say ‘I’m not standing for this’ and walking out?
I’m also not sure if this has been handled as badly as we’re told it has been. Why? Well because West Ham needed to have a replacement lined up for when they sacked Grant, every properly run club usually already has their next manager lined up before they sack the current one. So why is it so wrong for West Ham to have done this?
One instance in which it would be wrong is if the Martin O’Neill story was leaked by Gold or Sulliavan. The two clearly went out of their way to undermine Gianfranco Zola last season. They released details of his contract and said things like they expect him to take a wage cut at the end of the season. They were clearly briefing against Zola and it looked like a deliberate attempt to force him out in my view.
Maybe they were doing the same with Avram Grant, by deliberately leaking the O’Neill story. If so, this is wrong and it might go some way to explaning why O’Neill apparently changed his mind late on.
Or maybe O’Neill just watched Saturday’s match with Arsenal and realised the reality of the situation!