Jay Lynch

[Exile on Spencer St]

Originally Posted by DAV007

Lynch has provided a independent news paper with his version of events, Stanley have not challenged them nor provided an

Possibly because, unlike some of us on here, the club have much more important things to with their time and have moved on.

[DAV007]

Thank you for proving my point

[Chubbyman]

Originally Posted by DAV007

Please explain where I have sought to expose a 'great evil' or where I stated Stanley have acted incorrectly?

We have not been told what Lynchs 'behaviour' was that would be unacceptable?

Lynch has provided a independent news paper with his version of events, Stanley have not challenged them nor provided an alternative story.

Shakermaker, stop burying your head in the sand.

Dav he had to be let go....simple economics. Stanley had four keepers, even if he played for free there's all the invisible expenses and insurances.It would seem Stanley may have to play Joe Lumley as long as he's not injured or if not have to pay a percentage of his salary as has happened with loan players in the past,just a hunch,maybe Mr T could enlighten us if he's allowed to.

[DAV007]

That's fine, but it would appear Mr.Lynch was told one thing by the club but the club acted differently.

Also, whose fault cease it forcgivong the young lad an opportunity and a bit of hope without fully analysing the finances?

I can understand why the lad feels hard done by, likewise I would rather the club was financially sound instead of having a wage budget it can't afford.

Fans having a pop at Lynch are out of order.

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by DAV007

Lynch has provided a independent news paper with his version of events, Stanley have not challenged them nor provided an alternative story.

No, you're right. This revolutionary must be halted. The club must put an end to the gigantic damage that this front page exclusive will do. The world must know the truth, otherwise what will become of Accrington Stanley? The population would be led to believe that a player released from a club before earning a contract was miffed! Quick, get Dan on the case - this requires our one media resource's full attention. I don't see any other possible solution.

[Chubbyman]

Originally Posted by DAV007

That's fine, but it would appear Mr.Lynch was told one thing by the club but the club acted differently.

Also, whose fault cease it forcgivong the young lad an opportunity and a bit of hope without fully analysing the finances?

I can understand why the lad feels hard done by, likewise I would rather the club was financially sound instead of having a wage budget it can't afford.

Fans having a pop at Lynch are out of order.

I think i'm right in saying he arrived before the Lumley deal was completed,or perhaps fully sanctioned(as a stand in keeper until Dawber was fully fit).After Lumley arrived he'd be 3rd choice at best,a luxury Stanley couldn't afford(for a spell last year we had no keeper on the bench)In the end Stanley did give him the opportunity that at the time no other club did......but when Lumley came he had to go ...simple economics.

[lancsdave]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

No, you're right. This revolutionary must be halted. The club must put an end to the gigantic damage that this front page exclusive will do. The world must know the truth, otherwise what will become of Accrington Stanley? The population would be led to believe that a player released from a club before earning a contract was miffed! Quick, get Dan on the case - this requires our one media resource's full attention. I don't see any other possible solution.

If the club don't respond quickly they face the danger of having their ultra smooth, over resourced reputation going down the pan.

By the way the media department is bigger than you think,there's also Dan with an extra Y