Dunkan Jenkins on Twitter

[Roy Hobbs]

I've always maintained he should be sacked if what was alleged to have happened actually happened. The parts of the story that everyone agrees on are not in doubt and he deserves an apology for that but for the letter (or the part of the letter that has been released) still leaves a big wide gap as to exactly what the club are accepting took place. If it was just the phone calls and emails then I wouldn't be bothered if the club kept him or got rid.

 

BTW am I now a yank too?

 

 

 

 

Wow, you actually think having a director who feels its justified to harass and intimidate a fan has a place on the board of LFC. I'm staggered by that.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Every minute detail of this sham has been made available to the public. It's just plain wrong to suddenly pick and choose which sections of the letter he makes public at this stage, it should be all of it or none of it.

 

Have you seen the letter? Can you confirm that the part I highlighted earlier is complete? The Guardian have an article on this and they have a simple full stop in there report where as Sporting Intelligence (who have been his chosen media outlet from day one) have left it looking like the sentence has more to it.

 

Desperate, desperate spin.

[stringvest]

I've always maintained he should be sacked if what was alleged to have happened actually happened. The parts of the story that everyone agrees on are not in doubt and he deserves an apology for that but for the letter (or the part of the letter that has been released) still leaves a big wide gap as to exactly what the club are accepting took place. If it was just the phone calls and emails then I wouldn't be bothered if the club kept him or got rid.

 

BTW am I now a yank too?

 

 

 

That is your opinion, its not one I would agree with.

 

OK, so we're in agreement that he should be sacked if what happened was as reported. I believe it did, you are prepared to give Chang the benefit of the doubt. The club are not going to accept verbatim Sean's version of events unless there is irrefutable proof. Why would they? In exactly the same way that Gary Glitter is not going to own up to anything until the proof is presented for all to see, and there is nowhere for him to go. As Sean did not record the conversation (I've no doubt that Chang DID record the conversation, but that will never see the light of day), then the burden of proof remains with Sean. Who knows what was made available through the CCTV? Obviously enough to force Ayre into a humiliating apology on behalf of our mute communications director.

 

If Sean had misrepresented the tone and content of Ayre's email by selective omission, you can bet that Chang and his proxies would be all over it, and Ayre would be rightly pissed off. For you to suggest that this might be happening means that you have a particularly skewed view of all of this in my opinion. I'm convinced you have a less than objective view about this, I just don't know (for a fact) why.

 

And if you want to see the full text of the letter, perhaps you should contact Ayre or Chang and ask them to publish it. If there's anything to be gained (or rescued) by it, they'll be doing it anyway.

 

Chang is the latest self-inflicted blight on the club. He needs to go. Put the tealady in charge until we find a more appropriate candidate.

[Evil_Ways]

Nice touch by the club to apologise, but is it not Chang, and Chang alone who should stand up and say sorry and then probably resign...

Did he not do this on his own ?

[stringvest]

he had his helpers, but they are not necessarily on the payroll of the club.

[No2]

OK, so we're in agreement that he should be sacked if what happened was as reported. I believe it did, you are prepared to give Chang the benefit of the doubt. The club are not going to accept verbatim Sean's version of events unless there is irrefutable proof. Why would they? [

 

In exactly the same way that Gary Glitter is not going to own up to anything until the proof is presented for all to see, and there is nowhere for him to go. As Sean did not record the conversation (I've no doubt that Chang DID record the conversation, but that will never see the light of day), then the burden of proof remains with Sean. Who knows what was made available through the CCTV? Obviously enough to force Ayre into a humiliating apology on behalf of our mute communications director.

 

Well if they believe Sean then we have a bad onion in the club and he needs removing. Proof is probably required to sack him but gut instinct should be enough grounds to stand him down from his role on full pay until a pay off can be arranged. Either way if think Chang done what is claimed then he can't be allowed remain at the club regardless of cost.

 

If Sean had misrepresented the tone and content of Ayre's email by selective omission, you can bet that Chang and his proxies would be all over it, and Ayre would be rightly pissed off. For you to suggest that this might be happening means that you have a particularly skewed view of all of this in my opinion. I'm convinced you have a less than objective view about this, I just don't know (for a fact) why.

 

I have said consistently that it was one man's word against another and I wasn't prepared to have anyone opinions force feed down my throat. My views aren't skewed, they're just not the same as the majority and that is very well reflected in the negs I have received.

 

And if you want to see the full text of the letter, perhaps you should contact Ayre or Chang and ask them to publish it. If there's anything to be gained (or rescued) by it, they'll be doing it anyway.

 

That is a fair point, I'm sure it will be leaked by the club if I'm right and it will remain out of the public domain if you are right.

 

For the record I'm on this site 3 months before Chang joined the club and I'm a member if another site since 2007. I don't know Chang or any member of staff at the club and I don't know Sean either. If any mods want to pm me to check these facts I'll gladly pass on my details.

 

 

Chang is the latest self-inflicted blight on the club. He needs to go. Put the tealady in charge until we find a more appropriate candidate.

 

I have alluded to this above, maybe they should swap roles until an agreement can be reached.

[stringvest]

imho onion no less

[piscinin]

Nice touch by the club to apologise, but is it not Chang, and Chang alone who should stand up and say sorry and then probably resign...

Did he not do this on his own ?

 

 

He's an employee of the club, carrying out the club's business. They're clearly culpable, even if only of hiring people lacking judgment, social skills, etc.

[stringvest]

Indeed they are. However, you'd have thought it would be incumbent on him to make some sort of public statement, being that he is not only the protagonist but the communications director an'all?

[No2]

Indeed they are. However, you'd have thought it would be incumbent on him to make some sort of public statement, being that he is not only the protagonist but the communications director an'all?

 

Maybe he's already been barred from opening his trap.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

For the record I'm on this site 3 months before Chang joined the club and I'm a member if another site since 2007. I don't know Chang or any member of staff at the club and I don't know Sean either. If any mods want to pm me to check these facts I'll gladly pass on my details.

 

That isn't anything like approaching necessary. I find your staunch defence of Chang bizarre but you are free to think as you like even if you are swimming into a tide of mass disagreement.

 

But if you want to tell me your bank details, that wouldn't go amiss...

[OmarVizquel]

I had been following Chang on Twitter for about a year before he was hired by LFC. At the time he was an online editor for Sports Illustrated (a big sports magazine in the US), and occasionally wrote some interesting stuff about LFC and transfer targets. He always claimed to have great "sources" at LFC (he was in New York at the time). Seemed like a load of horseshit, and it probably was.

 

He was also incredibly rude and borderline inappropriate to people on Twitter, in a way that seemed really unbefitting of someone at his level in the media. So I was completely bewildered to see him get hired as CD by Liverpool, and am not surprised in the least that he's done something inappropriate like this.

 

Seems like a cocksure egghead who's conned his way to some good gigs, but he was always was bound to make a mess of things. I hate to see it, because it's put LFC in a bad light.

[coop]

It isn't one man's word against another, i can't believe this is still getting posted.

 

Not all of what Sean alleged Chang did can be proven but enough evidence via texts, emails etc has been given to Ayre during the initial meeting.

 

The apology letter was given to Sean because the club believe at least part of his sequence of events.

 

If people want to read the full letter that Ayre gave to Sean then that is up to him to post it on his blog but in all fairness there is nothing to see other then what the media have printed.

 

Personally i can't see how Chang can remain in the job after his employers have found him guilty of misconduct but i don't think it will be a sacking but more of an amicable departure in that he feels he needs to return to the US for personal reasons.

 

The proof needed to sack him is in the texts, emails, phone calls and the meeting, all logged and put together make a pretty damning case.

[Flake]

Every minute detail of this sham has been made available to the public. It's just plain wrong to suddenly pick and choose which sections of the letter he makes public at this stage, it should be all of it or none of it.

 

Have you seen the letter? Can you confirm that the part I highlighted earlier is complete? The Guardian have an article on this and they have a simple full stop in there report where as Sporting Intelligence (who have been his chosen media outlet from day one) have left it looking like the sentence has more to it.

 

Just wanted to correct an inaccuracy.

 

Sporting Intelligence were not the chosen media outlet from day one. They came on board fairly late.

 

There were two media outlets involved initially, one local, one national.

 

They both let Sean down to various degrees.

 

Anyway, you would barely allow for any truth in what Sean initially posted, in spite of it containing verifiable emails and there being some corroboration from a local media outlet.

 

Why the very fuck would seeing the entire letter make any difference to you? You'd simply deny the veracity of anything you disliked.

 

For the record, the letter states pretty much what has been in the press, without any specification of context that might somehow mitigate Chang's behaviour.

 

Interestingly it did call out a couple of sock puppets on TLW for cunts though.

 

:thumbup:

[Major Tom]

People were just unwilling to take one side when it was one man's word against another. You took your mate's side, Flake, as did Coop. Other people (the people you are rather lamely calling 'cunts') had no allegience either way so waited for the full story - or for a fuller version anyway - to emerge.

 

I am pleased for Sean in that he has his apology, but pity he went public to get it. I couldn't give two fucks what happens to Chang, though. If he's not fit for purpose I hope he leaves LFC. But I am in no position to judge that.

[zigackly]

I had been following Chang on Twitter for about a year before he was hired by LFC. At the time he was an online editor for Sports Illustrated (a big sports magazine in the US), and occasionally wrote some interesting stuff about LFC and transfer targets. He always claimed to have great "sources" at LFC (he was in New York at the time). Seemed like a load of horseshit, and it probably was.

 

He was also incredibly rude and borderline inappropriate to people on Twitter, in a way that seemed really unbefitting of someone at his level in the media. So I was completely bewildered to see him get hired as CD by Liverpool, and am not surprised in the least that he's done something inappropriate like this.

 

Seems like a cocksure egghead who's conned his way to some good gigs, but he was always was bound to make a mess of things. I hate to see it, because it's put LFC in a bad light.

 

This is an excellent summary of my feelings on Chang. I was against his appointment from the outset, for exactly the same reasons.

[coop]

People were just unwilling to take one side when it was one man's word against another. You took your mate's side, Flake, as did Coop. Other people (the people you are rather lamely calling 'cunts') had no allegience either way so waited for the full story - or for a fuller version anyway - to emerge.

 

I am pleased for Sean in that he has his apology, but pity he went public to get it. I couldn't give two fucks what happens to Chang, though. If he's not fit for purpose I hope he leaves LFC. But I am in no position to judge that.

 

Would you have known this had Sean not gone public to help expose the sort of person Chang is.

[Major Tom]

Would you have known this had Sean not gone public to help expose the sort of person Chang is.

 

I know little of Chang or PR. I am in no position to judge him or his role at LFC.

 

Saying that, this episode doesn't show him in the greatest light but I imagine most people at the top of the PR tree are cunts. It seems to me - from a great distance! - PR requires quite ruthless and cynical characteristics.

 

But, if Chang is no good at his role, I hope he is swiftly removed from LFC. If he's good, keep him on.

[Flake]

People were just unwilling to take one side when it was one man's word against another. You took your mate's side, Flake, as did Coop. Other people (the people you are rather lamely calling 'cunts') had no allegience either way so waited for the full story - or for a fuller version anyway - to emerge.

 

I am pleased for Sean in that he has his apology, but pity he went public to get it. I couldn't give two fucks what happens to Chang, though. If he's not fit for purpose I hope he leaves LFC. But I am in no position to judge that.

 

I don't do loyalty above honour. If I'd have thought Sean was being a dick I'd have cut him the fuck loose regardless that he posts on my forum.

 

It also wasn't at any point one man's word against another. There was evidence clearly presented.

 

And what are the odds Sean isn't the only person Chang has threatened? Short, I can tell you.

 

And one more thing, if you read my post correctly, only a sock puppet could take offence at my statement, if as you say they are "other people" with no allegiance then they have no reason to feel slighted.

 

So as you can see, it wasn't lame at all. It was a thing of beauty.

[coop]

I know very little about PR but i do know that rule number one is don't become the story yourself.

 

Chang has failed massively with this.

 

At the moment Suarez is the victim of a media witch hunt but where is Chang during all this, too busy threatening various fans.

[Major Tom]

I know very little about PR but i do know that rule number one is don't become the story yourself.

 

Chang has failed massively with this.

 

At the moment Suarez is the victim of a media witch hunt but where is Chang during all this, too busy threatening various fans.

 

The best PR guru in the world would struggle to change the narrative about Suarez; it's been building for quite a while. To hang it all on Chang is a little disingenuous in my view.

 

Agree with your first point, though. That Chang became the story is a bit laughable.

[silverlining]

People were just unwilling to take one side when it was one man's word against another. You took your mate's side, Flake, as did Coop. Other people (the people you are rather lamely calling 'cunts') had no allegience either way so waited for the full story - or for a fuller version anyway - to emerge.

 

I am pleased for Sean in that he has his apology, but pity he went public to get it. I couldn't give two fucks what happens to Chang, though. If he's not fit for purpose I hope he leaves LFC. But I am in no position to judge that.

 

Everyone apart from you was right.

 

The End.

[Major Tom]

Everyone apart from you was right.

 

 

Of course I was right.

 

Many rep points today, sl?

[Coro]

 

And one more thing, if you read my post correctly, only a sock puppet could take offence at my statement, if as you say they are "other people" with no allegiance then they have no reason to feel slighted.

 

Apologies for Major Tom, he's a bit dim.

[BillyBob]

I'm sure No2/BillyBob agrees now that Chang is indeed a wrong'un and should be sacked if he doesn't have the backbone to resign.

 

As I look down from my penthouse on Everton Road, and see the moms pushing their buggies along the sidewalk, I hope and pray all this is done and dusted by Thanksgiving.

 

I will indeed accept that now we have an apology issued on behalf of the club that Chang did in some way act out of order.

 

Should he be sacked? I would imagine he would be if his behaviour is deemed unacceptable.

 

I only know that Chang was fooled by Sean with the whole mole thing, I imagine that Chang thought he was acting with the best interests of the club at heart. He clearly went about it the wrong way and it caused problems because Sean decided to go public.

 

I would have expected Chang to be gone by now given the apology, but obviously Ayre or the management feel that it is not a sackable offence! They have access to more info than I have, so for the time being I will trust their judgement given the fact that I know very little about the investigation.

 

It's okay just saying he should be sacked cos he made an error of judgement, but there is more to it than that...and errors of judgement shouldn't automatically be sackable offences!

 

I actually want to know if Chang did threaten Sean with the dogshit and family threats that we were all led to believe was the truth, does anyone know if this actually happened?

 

The ST threat is supposedly true, but that alone has not led to Chang getting binned for some reason, why? I don't know the answer but obviously it was not a severe enough issue for sacking him!

 

I suppose it came down to one man's word over another with regards to the more serious threats, and cos it couldn't be proved then it would be unjust to go down the same route that the FA went down with Suarez/Evra and believe one person over another without any corroborating evidence! I would hope that most people would agree with this!