Current version

Posted June 09, 2016 06:06 · last edited June 09, 2016 06:09

Putting aside the merits of Woods decision to attend the wedding over playing the final to one side, this reeks once again of a Royal NZ football cock up

They obviously knew about this clash well in advance and where Chris's priorities lay

Nevertheless they made him captain. The first question that should be asked of them is Why would you do that if you knew he wasn't going to lead the team all the way? Maybe a player but captain?

The second question is why didn't they announce his unavailability when the squad was named? Did they think let's see if we can get to the final first and then deal with the fall out/crap if/when we make it? That's a child's attitude but seems to have been their approach. 

Question 3, should be when was the team advised of his unavailability? I wouldn't be surprised if once again it was only after the semi final. If so then that would be inexcusable as it is one thing pulling the wool over the public's eyes it is another pulling it over your fellow team mate. The fact this wasn't leaked suggests to me that could have indeed been the case. If it was then someone needs to be fired.

Previous versions

4 versions
AucklandPhoenix edited June 09, 2016 06:09

Putting aside the merits of Woods decision to attend the wedding over playing the final to one side, this reeks once again of a Royal NZ football cock up

They obviously knew about this clash well in advance and where Chris's priorities lay

Nevertheless they made him captain. The first question that should be asked of them is Why would you do that if you knew he wasn't going to lead the team all the way? Maybe a player but captain?

The second question is why didn't they announce his unavailability when the squad was named? Did they think let's see if we can get to the final first and then deal with the fall out/crap if/when we make it? That's a child's attitude but seems to have been their approach. 

Question 3, should be when was the team advised of his unavailability? I wouldn't be surprised if once again it was only after the semi final. If so then that would be inexcusable as it is one thing pulling the wool over the public's eyes it is another pulling it over your fellow team mate. The fact this wasn't leaked suggests to me that could have been the case.

AucklandPhoenix edited June 09, 2016 06:08

Putting aside the merits of Woods decision to attend the wedding over playing the final to one side, this reeks once again of a Royal NZ football cock up

They obviously knew about this clash well in advance and where Chris's priorities lay

Nevertheless they made him captain. The first question that should be asked of them is Why would you do that if you knew he wasn't going to lead the team all the way? Maybe a player but captain?

The second question is why didn't they announce his unavailability when the squad was named? Did they think let's see if we can get to the final first and then deal with the fall out/crap if/when we make it? That's a child's attitude and approach. 

Question 3, should be when was the team advised of his unavailability? I wouldn't be surprised if once again it was only after the semi final. If so then that would be inexcusable as it is one thing pulling the wool over the public's eyes it is another pulling it over your fellow team mate. The fact this wasn't leaked suggests to me that could have been the case.

AucklandPhoenix edited June 09, 2016 06:08

Putting aside the merits of Woods decision to attend the wedding over playing the final to one side, this reeks once again of a Royal NZ football cock up

They obviously knew about this clash well in advance and where Chris's priorities lay

Nevertheless they made him captain. The first question that should be asked of them is Why?

The second question is why didn't they announce his unavailability when the squad was named? Did they think let's see if we can get to the final first and then deal with the fall out/crap if/when we make it? That's a child's attitude and approach. 

Question 3, should be when was the team advised of his unavailability? I wouldn't be surprised if once again it was only after the semi final. If so then that would be inexcusable as it is one thing pulling the wool over the public's eyes it is another pulling it over your fellow team mate. The fact this wasn't leaked suggests to me that could have been the case.

AucklandPhoenix edited June 09, 2016 06:06

Putting Woods decision to attend the wedding over playing the final to one side, this reeks once again of a Royal NZ football cock up

They obviously knew about this clash well in advance and where Chris's priorities lay

Nevertheless they made him captain. The first question that should be asked of them is Why?

The second question is why didn't they announce his unavailability when the squad was named? Did they think let's see if we can get to the final first and then deal with the fall out/crap if/when we make it? That's a child's attitude and approach. 

Question 3, should be when was the team advised of his unavailability? I wouldn't be surprised if once again it was only after the semi final. If so then that would be inexcusable as it is one thing pulling the wool over the public's eyes it is another pulling it over your fellow team mate. The fact this wasn't leaked suggests to me that could have been the case.