Post history

History for Ollie

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Back to topic

Current version

Posted May 03, 2020 01:14 · last edited May 03, 2020 01:45

I think there is going to a little more on this during the week. One question I would like the media to ask Andrew Pragnell is why on the 3rd April did he say that the reason was financial and not that it was in Danny’s contract. Would have been transparent and clear cut and although disappointing for Des would have been a clear decision. Instead there are a lot of holes and questions in the timeline from then to now.

Pragnell says that Des knew from the start of the covid crisis. The only thing we have heard from Des was that this is false and he learned of it on the 20th April. It it happened at the start (I think a date of 26 March was given in one of the interviews on Friday) why was the reason given as financial almost a week and a half into lockdown. We then hear nothing from NZF between the interview on the 3rd April and the press release on Thursday 30th April.

During this time a number of things we do know have happened.

1. Financial support from FIFA, Govt to NZOC and it being said that staff said they would work for free. This then nullifies any issue around finances.

2. A letter from 24 of the U23 Olympic players is sent to NZF to reconsider and try and find a solution. No real acknowledgement of this in the media from NZF. Technically Pragnell is in a job because 12 players presented NZF an ultimatum of either them or Andreas Heraf. I have been told by a player that the letter on Thursday evening that was sent to the players about the decision made no mention of their letter and their concerns.

Was the change in reason given by Pragnell on the 30th to the one given on the 3rd due to:

1. Forgetting what he had already said 3 weeks earlier?

2. Forgetting the actual reason when asked on the 3rd April and just throwing out finance as being the reason?

3. Was the response on the 3rd an attempt by him at SARCASIM?

4. Due to the original reason given appearing now null and void, an alternative reason needed to be found? Is the Ink dry yet? 

Too many things don’t sit right about this whole situation and looking at the feelings across social media most football people are not happy with what has happened and some serious question and answers are needed so we can move on.

Previous versions

3 versions
Unknown editor edited May 03, 2020 01:45

I think there is going to a little more on this during the week. One question I would the media to ask Andrew Pragnell is why on the 3rd April did he say that the reason was financial and not that it was in Danny’s contract. Would have been transparent and clear cut and although disappointing for Des would have been a clear decision. Instead there are a lot of holes and questions in the timeline from then to now.

Pragnell says that Des knew from the start of the covid crisis. The only thing we have heard from Des was that this is false and he learned of it on the 20th April. It it happened at the start (I think a date of 26 March was given in one of the interviews on Friday) why was the reason given as financial almost a week and a half into lockdown. We then hear nothing from NZF between the interview on the 3rd April and the press release on Thursday 30th April.

During this time a number of things we do know have happened.

1. Financial support from FIFA, Govt to NZOC and it being said that staff said they would work for free. This then nullifies any issue around finances.

2. A letter from 24 of the U23 Olympic players is sent to NZF to reconsider and try and find a solution. No real acknowledgement of this in the media from NZF. Technically Pragnell is in a job because 12 players presented NZF an ultimatum of either them or Andreas Heraf. I have been told by a player that the letter on Thursday evening that was sent to the players about the decision made no mention of their letter and their concerns.

Was the change in reason given by Pragnell on the 30th to the one given on the 3rd due to:

1. Forgetting what he had already said 3 weeks earlier?

2. Forgetting the actual reason when asked on the 3rd April and just throwing out finance as being the reason?

3. Was the response on the 3rd an attempt by him at SARCASIM?

4. Due to the original reason given appearing now null and void, an alternative reason needed to be found? Is the Ink dry yet? 

Too many things don’t sit right about this whole situation and looking at the feelings across social media most football people are not happy with what has happened and some serious question and answers are needed so we can move on.

Unknown editor edited May 03, 2020 01:29

I think there is going to a little more on this during the week. One question I would the media to ask Andrew Pragnell is why on the 3rd April did he say that the reason was financial and not that it was in Danny’s contract. Would have been transparent and clear cut and although disappointing for Des would have been a clear decision. Instead there are a lot of holes and questions in the timeline from then to now.

Pragnell says that Des knew from the start of the covid crisis. The only thing we have heard from Des was that this is false and he learned of it on the 20th April. It it happened at the start (I think a date of 26 March was given in one of the interviews on Friday) why was the reason given as financial almost a week and a half into lockdown. We then hear nothing from NZF between the interview on the 3rd April and the press release on Thursday 30th April.

During this time a number of things we do know have happened.

1. Financial support from FIFA, Govt to NZOC and it being said that staff said they would work for free. This then nullifies any issue around finances.

2. A letter from 24 of the U23 Olympic players is sent to NZF to reconsider and try and find a solution. No real acknowledgement of this in the media from NZF. Technically Pragnell is in a job because 12 players presented NZF an ultimatum of either them or Andreas Heraf. I have been told by a player that the letter on Thursday evening that was sent to the players about the decision made no mention of their letter and their concerns.

Was the change in reason given by Pragnell on the 30th to the one given on the 3rd due to:

1. Forgetting what he had already said 3 weeks earlier?

2. Forgetting the actual reason when asked on the 3rd April and just throwing out finance as being the reason?

3. Was the response on the 3rd an attempt by him of SARCASIM?

4.  Due to the original now being null and void an alternative reason needed to be found? Is the Ink dry yet? 

Too many things don’t sit right about this whole situation and looking at the feelings across social media most football people are not happy with what has happened and some serious question and answers are needed so we can move on.

Unknown editor edited May 03, 2020 01:27

I think there is going to a little more on this during the week. One question I would the media to ask of Andrew Pragnell  is why on the 3rd April did he  say that the reason was financial and not that it was in Danny’s contract. Would have been transparent and clear cut and although disappointing for Des would have been a clear decision. Instead there are a lot of holes and questions in the timeline from then to now.

Pragnell says that Des knew from the start of the covid crisis. The only thing we have heard from Des was that this is false and he learned of it on the 20th April. It it happened at the start (I think a date of 26 March was given in one of the interviews on Friday) why was the reason given as financial almost a week and a half into lockdown. We then hear nothing from NZF between the interview on the 3rd April and the press release on Thursday 30th April.

During this time a number of things we do know have happened.

1. Financial support from FIFA, Govt to NZOC and it being said that staff said they would work for free. This then nullifies any issue around finances.

2. A letter from 24 of the U23 Olympic players is sent to NZF to reconsider and try and find a solution. No real acknowledgement of this in the media from NZF. Technically Pragnell is technically in a job because 12 players presented NZF an ultimatum of either them or Andreas Heraf. I have been told by a player that the letter on Thursday evening that was sent to the players about the decision made no mention of their letter and their concerns.

Was the change in reason given by Pragnell on the 30th to the one given on the 3rd due to:

1. Forgetting what he had already said 3 weeks earlier?

2. Forgetting the actual reason when asked on the 3rd April and just throwing out finance as being the reason?

3. Was the response on the 3rd an attempt by him of SARCASIM?

4.  Due to the original now being null and void an alternative reason needed to be found? Is the Ink dry yet? 

Too many things don’t sit right about this whole situation and looking at the feelings across social media most football people are not happy with what has happened and some serious question and answers are needed so we can move on.