Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Jim Solbakken

It’s another nail in the coffin for Ole, when your doing a poor job and there is this kind of story it’s only going to end one way.

The way Solbakken has protected Sarr and fact Ole is still so close to Solbakken means this is all very much ongoing.
 
Negative publicity to the maximum here. The shareholders and sponsors are going to hate this type of attention and association. Contrary to popular belief, not all publicity is good publicity.
 
Roboc7 said:
It’s another nail in the coffin for Ole, when your doing a poor job and there is this kind of story it’s only going to end one way.

The way Solbakken has protected Sarr and fact Ole is still so close to Solbakken means this is all very much ongoing.
Click to expand...

Alabaster Codify7 said:
Negative publicity to the maximum here. The shareholders and sponsors are going to hate this type of attention and association. Contrary to popular belief, not all publicity is good publicity.
Click to expand...

Paul_Scholes18 said:
Strange it is coming now. Even if most might be true. Just to help Chelsea beat us ;). Since they are not going to fire him anyway.
Click to expand...

Shocking
 
Hard to say what he could have done differently: As I understand it, this woman took issue with the fact that Ole stated publicly that he "trusted" the player (or words to that effect), which she then interpreted as an attack on her own credibility - understandable from her perspective but legally the man hadn't been convicted of anything.

Seems like a poor choice of words, certainly - and I believe the club issued an apology of some kind for the language used.

As for the case in itself - what's Ole supposed to do? Ignore "innocent until proven guilty" because he, personally, smells a rat and wants to take a stand? I'm not sure you can realistically expect a football manager to do that - it would've been remarkable: the club does not instruct the manager to bench the player pending the outcome of the trial, the player has not been convicted of any previous crime, but the manager decides to bench him because he thinks, or suspects, that he's a rapist?

What happened later (the Solbakken business) is neither here nor there, formally speaking: it happened after Ole had left the club. Solbakken has a well known relationship with Ole, certainly - but Ole isn't accountable for what Solbakken says and does.

I dunno - unpleasant shit, no doubt. But to what extent Ole has anything to genuinely answer for here remains unclear to me.
 
Paul_Scholes18 said:
Strange it is coming now. Even if most might be true. Just to help Chelsea beat us ;). Since they are not going to fire him anyway.
Click to expand...

A journo saw how much clicks and comments the tweet by that mike guy about this story got and jumped on the bandwagon for the paper he works for.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Hard to say what he could have done differently: As I understand it, this woman took issue with the fact that Ole stated publicly that he "trusted" the player (or words to that effect), which she then interpreted as an attack on her own credibility - understandable from her perspective but legally the man hadn't been convicted of anything.

Seems like a poor choice of words, certainly - and I believe the club issued an apology of some kind for the language used.

As for the case in itself - what's Ole supposed to do? Ignore "innocent until proven guilty" because he, personally, smells a rat and wants to take a stand? I'm not sure you can realistically expect a football manager to do that - it would've been remarkable: the club does not instruct the manager to bench the player pending the outcome of the trial, the player has not been convicted of any previous crime, but the manager decides to bench him because he thinks, or suspects, that he's a rapist?

What happened later (the Solbakken business) is neither here nor there, formally speaking: it happened after Ole had left the club. Solbakken has a well known relationship with Ole, certainly - but Ole isn't accountable for what Solbakken says and does.

I dunno - unpleasant shit, no doubt. But to what extent Ole has anything to genuinely answer for here remains unclear to me.
Click to expand...

Ole doesn't have the power to jail people, so innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. That's purely a legal principle, outside of the law people have to draw their own conclusions. The Untouchables would've probably been a boring movie if Al Capone was depicted only as a tax dodger rather than the mafioso that he was. Sarr was deemed by the court to most likely have raped the woman, they just couldn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and Ole of course knew that this was only one of the several accusations against him as well.

As for what Ole could have done, I think he had a lot of options. He could've kept playing Sarr but without offering public support. He could have benched him. He could have kept playing him without making him the captain.

And now, knowing full well that Sarr is on the run, and that he is only on the run because his former club and his current friend helped him flee, he could avoid saying shit like how this whole situation is tough for everyone involved. At best that's an extremely tone deaf thing to say, especially since one of the cases Sarr is on the run for is a rape he did while Solskjær and Molde supported him publicly while on trial for a different rape.
 
Was the Ronaldo rape case discussed much here?

Most interestingly the fact he admitted to raping the woman and is still walking free.
 


If this interview were to transpire, then it would be quite a scoop.
 
You can't demand that if a player is charged he is thereby suspended. The ways that can be exploited are pretty obvious. It's mainly a matter of how you conduct yourself in how you talk about it, being wary and sensitive to the nature of the alleged crimes.

If he really made him captain whilst this was going on then that's pretty stupid. Hopefully Ole didn't dish out his (presumably, just "cultural reboot" PR) line "fantastic human being" when he selected him.

Shame that they didn't manage to get Solbakken on that pod. No doubt would have had other interesting things to inquire about.
 
TMDaines said:
Almost as if armchair vigilantes aren’t always exhaustively informed about things.
Click to expand...

I agree. One example is you buying something that is clearly not true.

There would be no problem at all with Molde not playing Sarr. Solbakken saying otherwise is him being an idiot or a liar, and it's the second option. Solbakken and Molde also purposefully got him released from his contract to avoid the trial, and Solbakken's claim that Sarr actually was going to show up is highly suspect given that he exclusively has chosen clubs with no extradition treaty and is wanted by Interpol for, and this might come as a shock, failure to show up. As an aside, it's worth mentioning what sort of witness that didn't show and therefore got the trial delayed; his teammate. Once again a friend helping out a friend.

Solbakken also claims to not have been involved with Sarr's club changes, and being his agent. That may or not be true, and it's probably not, but he sure was quick with congratulating the signing with Yenisey Krasnoyarsk publicly, knowing that it would make it impossible to get him to stand trial. He was also the contact between Sarr and the state's attorney through the whole thing, including when he signed for Damac FC in Saudi Arabia, and was involved enough with Sarr to inform that he wasn't going to show up to trial and claimed to know what Sarr knew about the case.

There are also witnesses saying that Sarr told Damac's representatives to contact Solbakken, and unless this witness (another agent) for some reason chose to fake text messages this is clearly true.

Solbakken backed out of the podcast he said he was going to do, and then released a PR statement. "Almost as if armchair vigilantes aren’t always exhaustively informed about things.", good grief.
 
Last edited:
Soph said:
I agree. One example is you buying something that is clearly not true.

There would be no problem at all with Molde not playing Sarr. Solbakken saying otherwise is him being an idiot or a liar, and it's the second option. Solbakken and Molde also purposefully got him released from his contract to avoid the trial, and Solbakken's claim that Sarr actually was going to show up is highly suspect given that he exclusively has chosen clubs with no extradition treaty and is wanted by Interpol for, and this might come as a shock, failure to show up. As an aside, it's worth mentioning what sort of witness that didn't show and therefore got the trial delayed; his teammate. Once again a friend helping out a friend.

Solbakken also claims to not have been involved with Sarr's club changes, and being his agent. That may or not be true, and it's probably not, but he sure was quick with congratulating the signing with Yenisey Krasnoyarsk publicly, knowing that it would make it impossible to get him to stand trial. He was also the contact between Sarr and the state's attorney through the whole thing, including when he signed for Damac FC in Saudi Arabia, and was involved enough with Sarr to inform that he wasn't going to show up to trial and claimed to know what Sarr knew about the case.

There are also witnesses saying that Sarr told Damac's representatives to contact Solbakken, and unless this witness (another agent) for some reason chose to fake text messages this is clearly true.

Solbakken backed out of the podcast he said he was going to do, and then released a PR statement. "Almost as if armchair vigilantes aren’t always exhaustively informed about things.", good grief.
Click to expand...

Any sources for your claims?
 
ReddBalls said:
Any sources for your claims?
Click to expand...

I assume you don't want sources for factually and easily verifiable claims about trial dates, transfer dates, when he was released from Molde, Norway's extradition treaties and Interpol's reach.

Solbakken congratulated Sarr for signing with Yenisey on Instagram. The fact that it was Sarr's buddy that didn't show up to witness against him is confirmed by the state's attorney here. Solbakken's claim that Sarr was going to show up for the trial meeting that was delayed is solely based on Sarr's word, and Sarr also promised to show for the next trial meeting. That was of course a lie, he never did, so there's no reason to believe that he planned to show in the first place either.

Solbakken's contact with the state's attorney is shown several places, but for a clear statement see here.

The claim that Solbakken was Sarr's representative for the Saudi Arabia deal is sourced in this article from Josimar, and a screenshot of Solbakken texting with Kalidou Ousmane about the deal can be found here and here.
 
Soph said:
I assume you don't want sources for factually and easily verifiable claims about trial dates, transfer dates, when he was released from Molde, Norway's extradition treaties and Interpol's reach.

Solbakken congratulated Sarr for signing with Yenisey on Instagram. The fact that it was Sarr's buddy that didn't show up to witness against him is confirmed by the state's attorney here. Solbakken's claim that Sarr was going to show up for the trial meeting that was delayed is solely based on Sarr's word, and Sarr also promised to show for the next trial meeting. That was of course a lie, he never did, so there's no reason to believe that he planned to show in the first place either.

Solbakken's contact with the state's attorney is shown several places, but for a clear statement see here.

The claim that Solbakken was Sarr's representative for the Saudi Arabia deal is sourced in this article from Josimar, and a screenshot of Solbakken texting with Kalidou Ousmane about the deal can be found here and here.
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 


Just some random find on twitter. Is this relationship between agent and manager normal? Or is there something else going on?

Sorry for bumping old thread by the way, I ran out of place to post my daily Ole out stuff
 
lawliet354 said:


Just some random find on twitter. Is this relationship between agent and manager normal? Or is there something else going on?

This is just another way of saying ole out by the way
Click to expand...

:lol: white text belying your true intentions
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Random find on twitter? Did the name of the twitter account go completely over your head?
Click to expand...

Well I just searched "Ole" on twitter (my daily activities now hoping for some good news), found the thread there and then searched "Jim Solbakken" here and found this thread, so I posted it. The twitter for sure are biased heavily but the content of the thread itself is what I'm interested in because it really is something I didn't know before

I have zero idea of what claims are true or false in the thread, maybe by posting here, someone more knowledgeable in Norwegian football can chip in or something
 
Somebody on here the other day was arguing with me because I was saying that some of the comments/protests etc were a personal attack on Ole...

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.