So lets break this down
Can now at least assume his tweet was about AVB with some poor back-tracking afterwards?
You WANT to assume his tweet was a pop at management from which he back tracked.
Your first point on the matter is looking for internal conflict at the club
Something about respect being earnt and not given by default, blah, blah - probably got told he's not fit enough for this team and threw a hissy
Trying to suppose reasoning behind the conflict you want to assume in your first point
Stop putting words in my mouth, fella - simply offered my take on his actions. Where did you make the last bit from?
Of course AVB would say that - do you honesly expect him to slate a player in the public media and say he's too brick for his team? I don't know what's happened between those 2 internally but that tweet was rather telling for me and that is my personal interpretation. Isn't Hudd a Chelsea fan and even went to watch their CL games last season?
Trying to justify why AVB supporting Huddlestone publically is meaningless, to support your prior assumptions
Confirmation of what your personal interpretation is
And my favourite, trying to support your angle with a fragile link between Huddlestone and Chelsea, no doubt insinuating something about AVBs failure there
Reasonable doubt, fella - the proof is in the pudding
- Hudd tweets before the game (round about the time the squad is announced on Friday)
- Doesn't make the bench
- Shipped out on loan
- Back tracks, etc.
Let's wait for Hudd's press conference, shall we.
You have a timeline. An incorrect one in fact, as step 3 hasnt yet occured, and if it were to - it wouldnt be BEFORE he has back tracked now would it? "The proof is in the pudding" proof of what exactly? Because it certainly isnt your assumptions further up.
Not in every instance, no (like in Austria for example) - the evidence is hardly circumstantial here
What evidence? Proving what? As with before it is most certainly not supportive of issues with Huddlestone and AVB. It is circumstancial at best...
The timeline is iron-clad, I'm afraid - The jury can't be tricked!
...something it seems you cannot accept
You cannot alter time-based events - the facts are there to be seen
There is a point at which series of random 'coincident' become a sequence of events which are easily placed on a rather basic timeline producing what is rather obvious. Only if you are looking for it though
NOT. AT. ALL.
A timeline is, guess what, just a timeline. As we have already discovered, yours is even incorrect. Which is an aside, all through you still pursue this as evidence of your assumptions. Assumptions that lean to fractures between player and management. Revealing that that is what you are looking for.
I look for explanations - and ones which are built on consequential series of events which were factual reality
In other words, you make up what you want to believe
As I said - you can never see something you're choosing not to find
And again, you WANT to see something and...hey presto! It appears. Good for you - but it does nothing to back up your assumptions. It is paper thin on ACTUAL MEANINGFUL EVIDENCE.