One of the stranger things about the scenario that GMac has described is that the initial rejection must have come in December/January.
- It sounded as if Goodman/Williams were saying that it was embarassing to play GMac when they had a £30m player and a player they'd just awarded a 5-year contract.
- I'd have thought Pardew picked the team, maybe this was implied by Pardew (the great big idiot) rather that direct from the board? Maybe it was easier for Pardew to justify leaving GMac out this way than to actually have an open and honest conversation?
- Mind you we didn't 'lose 4 games in a row' until February (or a previous run that finished in mid-November) neither of which really fit in with what GMac said about asking for a loan move.
- In that run of 4 defeats in Oct/Nov - i.e. previous to the transfer window - GMac started in 3 and came on as a sub in the other.
- Plus in January, GMac was in the squad for all 4 league games starting 1 and coming on as a sub in 2 more. Which again - when the window was open - would imply that GMac was being utilised and therefore getting game time (he said he wasn't) and therefore not available for loan.
- The heirarchy was Williams, Goodman, Hammond and Pardew.
Then, the failure to offer a new contract must have come under Jenkins (including a change of DoF to Terraneo). Heirarchy - Jenkins, Terraneo and Moore.
It's not clear from the article but, 2 completely different heirarchies seem to have rejected GMac - one from a feeling of embarassment/self justification and the other - against the wishes of the only person with relevent football insight - on a financial basis (although the consequence was spending £4.5m on Bartley... so not just a financial decision afterall).
I like GMac. He was suberb value for money and a real solider for the club. But something about his story doesn't totally add up. I can believe that Moore wanted him, but that Jenkins didn't think he'd offered value for money though.
GMac deserved a much better exit.