I think this:
http://www.exetercityfc.co.uk/news/arti ... 17549.aspx is interesting.
Firstly because it echoes what we put out the other day and secondly because the pair together present an argument that by allowing their managers to talk to Portsmouth both clubs are basically giving a statement about the strength of their current relationship with their manager and what they as clubs have to offer them, compared to Newport, whose refusal to let Edinburgh speak to Pompey indicates a fear that he might be persuaded to move. As our statement hinted, of the three the most negative impact of the Pompey issue is likely to come in Wales.
It is also worth noting the odds at the bookies have lengthened dramatically for Wilder since he spoke to them, from being a close second or joint (but never outright) favourite, out to a longish fourth favourite behind Barker, Awford and Tisdale. One would assume that shift is based on news filtering out from the Pompey camp.
It does all smack of the rumours which came out from the supporters forums down there very early on (and strengthened by the somewhat clumsy PR releases that followed), that Barker has been a shoo-in all along (having worked with CRO catlin at bury), but that Pompey were going to make a big thing of contacting other clubs and drawing up a shortlist of names to act as a smokescreen to cover up this fact. It seems Oxford and Exeter have both seen through this, tho perhaps not Newport).
Seems the bookies have also known, never letting Barker drift out beyond evens, but doing a good job of enticing money in on Wilder, and clearly the fans down there were never going to be duped either.
Who is to say that Barker will not be the right man for them anyway (particularly if Coppell can be brought in alongside to add his experience to whole operation behind the scenes) and I wonder whether they actually needed to go through this whole charade to convince supporters, rather than just get on with it, bigging up their new man and the benefits that Coppell will bring to the footballing operation. A more cynical view might be that it was necessary in order to provide cover for Barker 'leaving' Crawley to take the role without the need for compensation (to get round FA sanctions). A highly conspiratorial view, might even ask the question whether Crawley have indeed been complicit in this strategy and may somehow find themselves compensated in another fashion - but one would assume that a willingness to avoid comparisons with previous personnel at the club would mean that such activities would not be contemplated.
I sense the players will be on the receiving end of some comforting news prior to kick-off, although probably under sworn secrecy not to reveal anything until Barker's appointment is announced tomorrow.