Message Board Archives

Marlon on Sportsmax- Oct 24th 2014


Have a listen to Marlon in his own words.

Yardies please stand by to translate for the uninformed with the fluency of the Yardie lingo...lissenme!

In reply to powen001

thanks bro!

In reply to powen001

Youda!

_r

just back...safe guys..

"yuh kyaaan tek 75% of my money and give it to the first class players. You can give them a $3000 or a $4000. But you can't tek 35,000. Yuh kyaaan do dat!" -- Marlon Samuels.

Preach brother.

_r

Talk yu chat boss.
non of di PC bullshit
much respect Marlon
eye fi eye, dont back down

The interviewers were not the best (lots of important, unasked questions) but this was good stuff from Marlon. He destroyed Cameron and Wavell and fully supported the stance of the players on the money issue.

He also loves Clive Lloyd. And he has grown up and learned to love Viv.

_ryan

In reply to Admin

co signed.

Like I said...pleasantly surprised that he was so clear in his thoughts .

He got my vote in his stance here.


Downside- calling out Bravo to come on the Media...thats not necessary and wont help the cause he says he loves.

Apart from that...Good job Marlon..all thats required now is for Bravo to shut his mouth an stop sending letters.

In reply to Admin

The issue for most people is them abandoning the tour .. not the gripe ova their money

This is not a mere gripe over money. The WICB have no respect for the workers, no understanding of their role in cricket, and have shown themselves to be most unworthy in their function as guardians of the legacy. The WICB has only one honorable function to perform, which they will never perform of their own free will - the dissolution of that entity, totally and comprehensively. The destruction of that cancer is therefore left to others.

In reply to powen001

excuse my ignorance but who is ryan naraine whos posting the audio links??? is that admin???

In reply to powen001

Love him or hate him he is 100% correct in his stance on the whole issue! abandoning the tour should never have been an option!

This was handled poorly by all parties, he is 100% in that assertion!

He also alluded to the fact that Bravo basically doesn't care either way money isn't an issue for him or most of the senior internationals who have made a killing in 20/20 leagues around the world.

But West Indies cricket will suffer because of this, imagine no international cricket?

In reply to Admin



he destroyed Bravo and Pollard..but of course yuh agenda wouldnt allow yuh fi see dat..


summary of the interview:

"I dont like de MOU but we are here already...play di cricket..deal wid di money issue later"

In reply to FanAttick

As much you talk a lot of jackassery these days you are spot on with this.

Ryan is compromised. Cyah see straight.

In reply to powen001

Thanks!

In reply to Yamfoot

De Rien Yammie

In reply to Controversy

In reply to powen001

The one and only - best to use his account so he maintains control.

I m just the janitor
So your ignorance is excused

In reply to powen001

i vigorously agree with tick tock

In reply to FanAttick

spot on! play de cricket

In reply to jcveletta

Marlon is exactly right. Settle the contracts between now and SA.

Numbskulls Bravo and Pollard selfishly went for Armageddon, knowing full well they were unlikely to be on the Test tour. They didn't mind blowing up the tour for everyone else . They should be banned but big cat will be a pussy and let them slide.

"If Bravo was vigorously paying attention in meetings with Hinds .. we wouldn't be in this position "

SHOT!!!!!

In reply to Dre_Day



he made a vigorous duck in the match though

Seems like the people making the decisions to end the strike. Ended up being the ones who got their IPL monies still coming in.
We make rash decisions when we vex never thinking about the ramifications of our actions.

In reply to Admin

He also said not one of the players on tour has any problems giving money to the 1st class players...even Mr. Bravo doesn't have any problems with that....

Only just listened to this interview and I am at a loss as to what people on either side of the argument were so impressed with, Samuels came across as the same narrow, self-absorbed individual we see on the cricket field. Of course he is vehemently opposed to the MOU - what human being in the same position would not be. No news there. But with respect to his opposition to calling of the tour it was instructive that he obfuscated on the question of the percentage of meetings he attended and on his level of outspokenness.... fixating on his frustration at not getting Bravo to "talk to the public" (I don't know in what scenario it would have been appropriate for Bravo to go to the public when up to the 11th hour they were still waiting for Cameron to make an appearance in India). (Now because anything Bravo says can affect not just him, but the rest of the team, Bravo would be well advised to be guided by attorneys from here on). Most significantly when asked " did you say that the cricket is the most important thing [and that we should settle the MOU matter after the tour]..." Samuels acknowledged that he did not, going back to his refrain about Bravo not talking to the public.

Ultimately he did not directly reject Bravo's assertion that he was an active participant at the meeting and that he stated that he would go along with the team decision. I can understand, why in the interest of preservation of his career he is not keen to maintain that solidarity now he is back home, but I see nothing noble in this or worthy of praise, and it does not make him "his own man", merely humanly selfish.

What barbs he did manage to hurl at Bravo struck me as petty and irrelevant. So what if Bravo did not write the letter himself (big PMs and presidents don't write their own letters). The critical issue is: was what was written the consensus view of the team. Samuels has not disputed this. Further his evasive response to the early question about his contribution at meetings "if Bravo ha been more vocal at the WIPA meeting we might not have been in this mess" was unworthy. The minutes and Wavell's own letter indicate that Bravo said more than enough at the meeting to warrant Hinds coming back to the players with a draft of the MOU before finalizing. Bravo was explicit in saying that the senior players should be indemnified against any loss of income. Hinds was explicit in saying that he would come back to the players with what was ultimately proposed.

I will give Samuels some credits for what I assume is genuine praise for the team management, but even his rationale for disassociation from WIPA is unworthy. Guy was paying a penalty for match-fixing. It wasn't as if he was recovering from some injury. Having paid his penance he should have been grateful that while he was away from the game other players, through WIPA, were making sacrifices to help him financially make up for lost time.

My verdict: the guy is still a stylish asshole.

In reply to Logic

But Mr Logic Sir...

It appears that the same verdict was in place before you listened to the piece...based on your words.

He failed to move you...just shake you a little bit..though not stirred

In reply to Logic

In regards to his WIPA membership....He said that they did not help him to get legal representation, he had to get his own lawyer. That is valid, it was a work place dispute and if you are paying dues to your union and they can't eve do that, it's clear that you are on your own. So I think his comments towards WIPA are valid in his case.

He could have left out the jabs at Bravo and Pollard but we all know that's not Marlon.

In reply to anadayardi

. If he was seeking legal representation for a work place dispute then I stand corrected. I would agree that WIPA should be bound to come to his defense in that instance. But I had thought the reference to legal defense was with respect to defending himself against the charge or sanctions related to match fixing. That I would not classify as a work place dispute. I figure if an employee has been deemed to have performed an illegal act warranting termination of their contract their union should not take up members' money to defend them. That would be a misuse of funds.

In reply to Logic

You have to prove that he is guilty of these acts first....Right? Unless you think WIPA already determined that he was guilty before the trial so there was no need to represent or help a paying member.....?

And the incident took place while they were on tour right..? Therefore Work place dispute.

There is always two sides to every story! Good to hear another side. Listening unbiased and neutral does help. Just saying. Some people apparently have never been employed in places where there is a union, and are confused beyond help.