Francesc "Tito" Vilanova

[JamDav1982]

And how do you translate that, then? It is the victim card being played. He was alone, pep didn't visit him, he expected more from pep, he would'd done differently if he was pep, etc.

No it wasnt he was giving his opinion on it and did not come across at all as trying to grab sympathy.

Pep was the one moaning about how badly he had been treated.

 

[mobster_1930]

It all started with this idiot :

http://int.soccerway.com/news/2013/...a-better-than-guardiola-at-barcelona/n227915/

I don't blame Pep for starting this, he had to get this out of his chest and to let it be known publicly , Tito is obviously Rosell's puppet and probably at best a mediocre manager as all things stand , but you can't blame him for answering back to Pep (Pep shouldn't mention Tito in his "rant"). All things said, I'm willing to give Tito another chance, he can prove many people wrong next season.

 

[JamDav1982]

It all started with this idiot :

http://int.soccerway.com/news/2013/...a-better-than-guardiola-at-barcelona/n227915/

I don't blame Pep for starting this, he had to get this out of his chest and to let it be known publicly , Tito is obviously Rosell's puppet and probably at best a mediocre manager as all things stand , but you can't blame him for answering back to Pep (Pep shouldn't mention Tito in his "rant"). All things said, I'm willing to give Tito another chance, he can prove many people wrong next season.

Any evidence for 'Tito being Rosells puppet'?

 

[mobster_1930]

Many. See what Pep says about meeting with Neymar's father. Not a word about Tito in their conversation was mentioned.

 

[Flavia]

No it wasnt he was giving his opinion on it and did not come across at all as trying to grab sympathy.

Pep was the one moaning about how badly he had been treated.

Opinion on what? Pep didn't say he was there for Tito, or that he did visit him. He did the opposite. The opinion Tito had on this was if the board had or not used his illness to attack Pep, or if he thinks Pep was wrong on his statements.

All of this "I needed Pep and he wasn't there for me" is just playing the victim card to hit Pep back. And it worked, as it's all over the papers. Pep the bad, heartless friend, and Tito the poor sick man, alone in ny. Rosell must be proud.

 

[JamDav1982]

Opinion on what? Pep didn't say he was there for Tito, or that he did visit him. He did the opposite. The opinion Tito had on this was if the board had or not used his illness to attack Pep, or if he thinks Pep was wrong on his statements.

All of this "I needed Pep and he wasn't there for me" is just playing the victim card to hit Pep back. And it worked, as it's all over the papers. Pep the bad friend, Tito the poor sick man, alone in ny. Rosell must be proud.

It reads as Tito being annoyed at Pep for bringing his ilness out into the public as an issue and trying to gain sympathy over it.

He seems agitated by that rather than thinking people should be feeling sorry for him.

It is his opinion on a situation that Pep brought into the public domain and tried to earn points from.

 

[JamDav1982]

Many. See what Pep says about meeting with Neymar's father. Not a word about Tito in their conversation was mentioned.

How does that make Tito 'Rosells puppet'?

 

[Cruijffista]

And how do you translate that, then? It is the victim card being played. He was alone, pep didn't visit him, he expected more from pep, he would'd done differently if he was pep, etc.

Pep made it an issue publicly.

I'm glad it was Tito to hit back and not Rosell.

 

[rixxer]

A better response would've been one he gave, that he doesn't think the board used him to attack Pep. And nothing more. The "I was alone and needed him and he wasn't there for me" is playing the victim to hit Pep back. I understand why he did it, but I'd much rather he had not done it. And that's it for me, I won't go on a pointless quote war with you about it.

I agree totally. Pep should not have said what he said and Tito should have been more restrained in his response and just waived it. Neither Pep or Tito are saints or devils, they have their weaknesses and strengths, they clearly have their reasons for those words, but sad thing is that all this hurts the club and creates kind of bad air which have been characteristic of Madrid in recent years. And for that I blame Pep a bit... why on earth was this show necessary couple a days ago? And also Tito, remind you that longer this continues the longer the club suffers.

 

[Flavia]

Pep made it an issue publicly.

I'm glad it was Tito to hit back and not Rosell.

Pep didn't attack Tito, but Rosell. As I said before, Tito should've not contributed to make all this drama even bigger, but he chose to go along with all that, by playing the victim. It would be much better for Barça, as I really don't care about their personal relationship. A simple "I don't agree with Pep's statement, the board didn't use my illness to attack him" would had been enough.

I agree totally. Pep should not have said what he said and Tito should have been more restrained in his response and just waived it. Neither Pep or Tito are saints or devils, they have their weaknesses and strengths, they clearly have their reasons for those words, but sad thing is that all this hurts the club and creates kind of bad air which have been characteristic of Madrid in recent years. And for that I blame Pep a bit... why on earth was this show necessary couple a days ago? And also Tito, remind you that longer this continues the longer the club suffers.

Exactly.

 

[JamDav1982]

Pep didn't attack Tito, but Rosell. As I said before, Tito should've not contributed to make all this drama even bigger, but he chose to go along with all that, by playing the victim. It would be much better for Barça, as I really don't care about their personal relationship. A simple "I don't agree with Pep's statement, the board didn't use my illness to attack him" would had been enough.



Exactly.

He didnt play the victim at all and is not looking for sympathy his words about shaming Pep for trying to make out he was being harrased on the other side of the world and using Tito's ilness to do that.

 

[Aryagorn]

I agree totally. Pep should not have said what he said and Tito should have been more restrained in his response and just waived it. Neither Pep or Tito are saints or devils, they have their weaknesses and strengths, they clearly have their reasons for those words, but sad thing is that all this hurts the club and creates kind of bad air which have been characteristic of Madrid in recent years. And for that I blame Pep a bit... why on earth was this show necessary couple a days ago? And also Tito, remind you that longer this continues the longer the club suffers.

Especially when he was being a sneaky bastard and was stealing Thiago away from the club!!

 

[Flavia]

Especially when he was being a sneaky bastard and was stealing Thiago away from the club!!

Do you really believe that? Thiago went because he wanted to, Pep didn't steal him. If not Bayern, he would go to man utd. This one is on Tito, Zubi and Thiago himself.

 

[JamDav1982]

Do you really believe that? Thiago went because he wanted to, Pep didn't steal him. If not Bayern, he would go to man utd. This one is on Tito, Zubi and Thiago himself.

He was not snaky in trying to sign him, but using the time of press conference to announce it to have a go at the club for no apparent reason.... other than trying to show he owes Barcelona nothing.

It was a clear plan and set up.

 

[coura]

Guardiola started this circus with lies and deserves to be treated like a douchebag. I despise him.
Long live to tito and barcelona.