Search results

indeed, no one can deny the good he has done for the club and as you say a tough act to follow. But time for all of us to move on now

in fairness though as his union rep he is unlikely to say gus was bang to rights

bit surprised with the statement. Pointing to his record which we all accept was good rather than the case itself. Good record or not will not be defence against gross misconduct.

The club might not being saying much but Gus can talk, suspect we may hear his side soon which could force the club to respond. As said, no confidentiality clauses here

As said everyone has his price and if the money is spent on the squad then okay. The only thing that worries is the squad is still thin, some more additions soon would be good. Also if barnes goes does that mean only ulloa as fit forward.

Think he will be starter and probably it for lb signings. Calderon can play there as can el-abd at a push plus the latvian and with ffp I dont think more money will go in defensive areas. Better spent in midfield.

Seen him play a couple of times and he has ability. Think with ffp he could be first choice lb with cover provided by calderon, the latvian and at a push el-abd. If money is tight might be better spent in midfield.

Concerned about our prospects at the moment. Squad is weaker with loss of bridge, hammond, lopez and vicente and these need to be replaced and soon. Just being to wonder if ffp has bitten harder than first believed and we may run with what we have. And the poyet saga is still ongoing, 8 weeks...

According to dave in the argus article he was happy with terms of contract and felt garcia wanted him on board. With that in mind would seem an odd decision. We are very thin in midfield as it stands, 3 needed i think.

Shame and a little confusing to withdraw the offer. I, like everyone else, hope for better lined up but am concerned about ffp and compensation paid to tanno and charlie and possibly gus meaning we will run as we are. Hope I am wrong.

Remember same, I believe he meant 3 weeks for whole process, as I said most companies give 7 days for written appeal

Whole process should be about 3 weeks including hearing and decision. Normally have 7 days to appeal in writing and hearings follow thereafter. Should be over soon.

Everyone assumes we have some one else lined up etc but feeling pessimistic I wonder if, bar a left back, we will run with what we have got. The starting 11 would be okay but injuries etc would cause issues. Hope I am wrong and it is just the hangover from gus which is still having an impact...

I think 3 will be needed. Of the players lost only hammond and dave were regular starters so jfc and march will probably be around the squad in place of dicker and the dagger. Certainly in a 433 a midfield of crofts, bridcutt and orlandi is okay with ulloa, buckley and barnes/lualua beyond, but...

Left my feeling a little down this morning, had hoped to see him back. Like others I hope we have suitable replacement in mind since I feel we are a lb and couple of midfield players short. Barber email states budget in line with last year so with the departures etc there would seem to be room...

Mixed for me. Always look forward to the new season but have concerns that the squad is a little thin. Starting 11 looks good but as it stands injuries etc would cause issues. A couple of signings will soon put my concerns to bed.

The 3 weeks bloom indicated would be for the whole process including hearing and decision. 7 days is the normal period to be able to lodge your appeal in writing and then its about dates, meetings etc. So late this week, early next and it should be done internally. After that gus can go through...

wonder if that also means we wont hear about any signings until after the appeal is finished?

Absolutely this. Would hope to hear more once the gus issue is finished, has been 2 weeks since sacking and bloom said timescale was about 3 weeks so not to long.

You are right about nightmare. We have had a case recently where we ended up interviewing 30 people from one shift over a remark and it was split almost 50/50 over people who thought it funny and banter and stated that the accussed did not mean any offence and the others who said the opposite.