It's A Matter Of Interpretation

Not a day has gone by in the last week without some comment or another aimed as a dig at our current board of directors. Numerous quotes have been interpreted to make sure that it puts the slant on it that they want and there are no shortage of players who are prepared to say that it was a shock and a mistake. Of course, no matter what their opinion may be, there isn't really likely to be a player who actually says "Glad he has gone" is there - it's just not the done thing.

But what gets me is the mis-representation that they are continuing to use of what is really being said. It doesn't take much to make something sound as if one thing is being said when, in reality, it is completely different. And you can make the quotes fit what your feeling is when you write the article. Then of course you have the Cardiff based media who are always only too happy to take a swipe at Swansea despite their team being hugely in debt, albeit playing first division football, but a debt is a debt. Can you imagine the field day someone like the Wales on Sunday would have if Swansea were £21 million in debt and growing by the day?

But what is being mis-represented. Well, let's take a few of the statements that have been banded about so often and put just a different slant on them slightly. Maybe then they will look different to how they are being taken?

Swans chairman Huw Jenkins said "It has been very, very difficult for him and Kevin because their families are based in the north of England. "I can understand that families come first, but gradually the distance has made it harder and harder to keep moving the club forward. "Everybody wants results in football, but there are other issues involved that I will not go into. "Brian knew from the start our thoughts on wanting him to move down here, and I think persuading players to move to Swansea in the future when the director of football does not live here will not be easy."

This has been taken that any new manager must relocate his family to Swansea and is the basis of many an article in the press when speaking to other people. How about this take, the Swans are just about to agree terms with a new manager when he says

"Mr Jenkins, I don't want to relocate my family from the Outer Hebridies but I will be in Swansea six days a week to do my job. However, on the 7th day I will travel back home to see my family, but will be back here on Monday morning"

Come on, let's be honest, the board will not have an issue with that. Read into the statement what was really being said. Brian Flynn was not based in Swansea enough for the board's liking and wanted to spend too much time with his family? Puts a different slant on it don't you think.

Of course, this has now been taken further that, according to tonight's Evening Post we only want Welsh players who live in Wales. Pile of crap we do. We want players who are prepared to commit to being at Swansea City not players who want to travel back home a few days per week. The board are looking for unity in their side and want all to travel together to games and be as one unit - not one unit that meets together at the ground they are playing.

Now from the same statement there we have two different reasonings but both giving a completely different picture of the whole thing.

Another sentence that seems to have been missed out of Mr Jenkins statement above is "Everybody wants results in football, but there are other issues involved that I will not go into." How convenient that this one is forgotten when you are against the decision. He has said there that it is

a. Not to do with the fact they didn't live here alone

b. Not down to the results on the pitch

c. There is more reasons.

But of course if you want to make the decision look a bad one you forget that.

Now, today both the Evening Post and The Western Mail pick up on the trust statement from yesterday (click here to read it) They again throw it back to the fact that the board were looking for us to be in the top 5. Yes it says that in the statement but at no point does it actually state that it's the only reason behind the sackings and yet a good piece of journalistic licence will make you believe that it is (it is also worth pointing out to the Evening Post that Leigh Dineen is not the chairman of the Supporter's Trust - keep up!) Indeed, if you read the statement fully it will show you that Leigh is only commenting on the wage scenario because it was a concern raised by the trust members regards the various figures that had been banded about on this subject - but lets not let that get in the way of a good story either. And to Ian Hunt at the Western Mail - show me where Leigh called Flynn a failure please - interpretation again to create a worthy story from an innocuous statement

Of course, all the media are getting frustrated because Brian Flynn himself has said nothing. A 'close source/friend' of Brian's has come out with the accusation that he was given two years and he is stunned at the decision. Maybe he was given two years (neither side has confirmed that to my knowledge?) but that doesn't mean you need two years and, again if you think back to the comments by Mr Jenkins, there were other issues involved in this - not just performance but again that gets forgotten by the people who want to criticise the decision.

Now I have been accused on here of not providing a balanced argument at times and I confess, I don't. But then again I don't feel that I have to - it's a Swans site, run by a Swans fan and that makes my job almost impossible to be balanced. However, I do believe that a newspaper has to be more balanced in it's reporting and if your only source of Swans news was the Evening Post and Western Mail you would really feel for Brian Flynn at the moment. At least on here you have the voices of many others and can make your own mind up.

In the long run, they may turn out to be right but I find it incredible that these newspapers are so critical at this moment in time and yet back in the days of 9th Floor, Mike Lewis and Tony Petty they provided balanced reporting about the scandalous events that happened at those times. That in itself begs a very large question doesn't it?

Anyway, I have finished my rant now. My personal viewpoint is that whether you agree or disagree with the decision, the decision has been taken and there is nothing you or I can do to change it. The board, and presumably Brian Flynn, are fully aware of the full decisions behind it - we may well never know any more details that we have been given. However, don't take what is being reported at face value, have a think to see if the statement can mean anything else.

And as for the Cardiff based media - don't forget that some of them are actually reporting on the sacking of a friend here - how balanced is that argument likely to be?

The club will move forward and maybe when the media want something from the club they may start finding doors are not as readily accessible as they were before the colours were nailed to the mast.

Swansea City will survive this and maybe it is time to actually, after seven days, put all the debate behind us?

Why not check out the latest Vetch Verdict on the BBC site?