Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[The Large One]

Was it a climbdown ? You've been crowing from the rooftops on here and banging on and on about being "proved right" by Gus not taking the club to court over his sacking. But unless I've missed something, nothing was ever said publically as to his reasons for dropping it. He's in a new job now, so maybe he's moved on. Maybe a condition of Sunderland giving him the job was that he did NOT enter into a potentially long-running legal battle with BHAFC, which would be an unwelcome and distracting sideshow to his job of keeping Sunderland the Premier League. Maybe he came to a private settlement with TB.

This "he dropped it because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, I told you so I told you so I told you so" mantra you're peddling just looks like an assumption to me. How the hell would you know why Gus decided not to proceed ?

Steady, mate.

That's exactly what everyone else has been asking him, but because he's been challenged to back up his assertion, he's taken it to mean we think he's wrong.

He's going to demand an apology from you for that. He demanded it of me twice now.

 

[KZNSeagull]

OK, the 'defence team' comment was flippant, but I am well within my rights to take a contrary POV to the mighty LB and ROSM on their old mate DK's current actions. ROSM especially seems more than happy to throw insults my way, so can reasonably expect a suitable set of robust responses.

As an observer of this thread, can I just say that your constant willy-waving is getting a tad tiresome now. Particularly as it is not really clear what it is that you are crowing about.

 

[Easy 10]

Steady, mate.

That's exactly what everyone else has been asking him, but because he's been challenged to back up his assertion, he's taken it to mean we think he's wrong.

He's going to demand an apology from you for that. He demanded it of me twice now.

Crikey. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[B.W.]

Did anyone say GP was sacked because of a spat with PB? Lord Bracknell says he didn't. So who did?

LB was (probably deliberately) misdirecting in over-playing the PB/GP relationship thing in terms of GP's sacking. Another poster bought into it.

 

[B.W.]

Was it a climbdown ? You've been crowing from the rooftops on here and banging on and on about being "proved right" by Gus not taking the club to court over his sacking. But unless I've missed something, nothing was ever said publically as to his reasons for dropping it. He's in a new job now, so maybe he's moved on. Maybe a condition of Sunderland giving him the job was that he did NOT enter into a potentially long-running legal battle with BHAFC, which would be an unwelcome and distracting sideshow to his job of keeping Sunderland the Premier League. Maybe he came to a private settlement with TB.

This "he dropped it because he knew he didn't have a leg to stand on, I told you so I told you so I told you so" mantra you're peddling just looks like an assumption to me. How the hell would you know why Gus decided not to proceed ?

You are right in that I don't know for sure why Gus climbed down. But I think you'll find my explanation of his climb down a little more logical than your alternative suggestions. He was in the wrong, and he knew it.

 

[B.W.]

Steady, mate.

That's exactly what everyone else has been asking him, but because he's been challenged to back up his assertion, he's taken it to mean we think he's wrong.

He's going to demand an apology from you for that. He demanded it of me twice now.

Nobody else has asked.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

My reading of that is that DK doesn't like what DC said. The truth hurts perhaps?

He showed no animosity. His point was that people might like to take what DC said about not benefitting personally from the stadium with a pinch of salt.

 

[B.W.]

He showed no animosity. His point was that people might like to take what DC said about not benefitting personally from the stadium with a pinch of salt.

So yet another dig from the sidelines by DK.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

So yet another dig from the sidelines by DK.

It looked like a dig. He was suggesting that DC is seeing some benefit from his unpaid work at the Amex. Fair enough to point it out, and fair enough for DC to take the work. But so what ?

There is absolutely nothing to see here.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

He showed no animosity. His point was that people might like to take what DC said about not benefitting personally from the stadium with a pinch of salt.

Quite. Sorry TMP - I missed your posting.

 

[Dave the OAP]

It looked like a dig. He was suggesting that DC is seeing some benefit from his unpaid work at the Amex. Fair enough to point it out, and fair enough for DC to take the work. But so what ?

There is absolutely nothing to see here.

why are you bothering arguing with BW? he has an agenda and he is peddling the same argument over and over. Seemly he knows more that we do...so let him go on in his little conspiratorial world and eventually he will realise no-one really cares anymore.

The book is on my Christmas list though

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

why are you bothering arguing with BW? he has an agenda and he is peddling the same argument over and over. Seemly he knows more that we do...so let him go on in his little conspiratorial world and eventually he will realise no-one really cares anymore.

The book is on my Christmas list though

True my wise friend.

It was selling well last night as you would expect. DK is a notorious windbag - but he finished signing at just after 10.30pm last night, the evening started at 7pm. They have signed copies at City Books by the way.

 

[Easy 10]

You are right in that I don't know for sure why Gus climbed down. But I think you'll find my explanation of his climb down a little more logical than your alternative suggestions. He was in the wrong, and he knew it.

Well, you're not offering an explanation of his climbdown - you've drawn your own conclusions and made an assumption. Except you seem to be presenting your assumption as bona-fide FACT, and then claiming credit for telling us all something which you don't actually know to be true.

Whats the point ?

 

[ROSM]

No 'snide dig' ROSM; bit over-sensitive are we? You are part of the 'old guard'. Is that something you are ashamed of now? You shouldn't be. As I've said elsewhere, FFA and Dick have my undying gratitude, but the DK Argus extracts say 'bitter' tit's e, and many others it seems.
.

Snide dig? Yes it most certainly was

Am I being over sensitive? Quite possibly yes, but frankly I've put up with so many Ill founded and innaccurate comments from you and a few others that I now am taking the view that I will challenge back and if you cant defend your comment then others can draw their own conclusion of you.

Am I ashamed of my time working on the return home and the new stadium? No, but I do have some regrets both personally and professionally. I think itmay have nagatively impacted me in both time and visibility terms and may have closed some opportunties to me.

But its the last point that really did annoy me. You accused me of hankering after a knight return ans defending him then make exactly the same point I made elsewhere on this thread that the extracts in isolation do make him sound bitter.

However when reading the whole book I might add, they don't.

So you clearly hadn't read what i had said but still felt the need to have a snide dig at me.

 

[Creaky]

You are right in that I don't know for sure why Gus climbed down. But I think you'll find my explanation of his climb down a little more logical than your alternative suggestions. He was in the wrong, and he knew it.

Wouldn't an equally logical explanation be that dropping any claim was a condition of GP taking the Sunderland job.

Just because one party, (ie GP), breaches a contract doesn't mean that the other, (BHAFC), can't still enforce their side of the contract - on that basis the club could have gone after Sunderland for settlement of the outstanding part of GP's contract with them. It seems logical that any claim by GP would trigger a counter-claim from the club.

I'm not saying that a mutual agreement to settle the dispute without any financial element was due to the above but it as valid a suggestion as any other.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I'm sure Gus felt he had enough on his plate at Sunderland without pursuing a long-distance claim against Albion. And I agree that Sunderland would want him giving his full attention to keeping them up.

 

[Giraffe]

Dick Knight should forever go down as an Albion legend, no doubt about it. But he is coming across like a bitter ex wife, who saved someone from the brink of despair 15 years ago. Nursed them back to some sort of health and got them back on their feet. The marriage ended with a little bad blood, but she could see he had out grown her and fell for someone else, who he could go onto bigger and better things with....Now years later she see him with a lovely house, fast cars and flash holidays and is jealous beyond belief, because she somehow thinks she deserves more than a Christmas card and a polite hello, despite having years of nothing but praise and respect from everyone.

Perfect analogy. Although perhaps you should add that she is now selling her wears at a £1 a go.

 

[drew]

Did anyone say GP was sacked because of a spat with PB? Lord Bracknell says he didn't. So who did?

LB implied that was the case when going on about the breakdown of the relationship made it inevitable GP would leave.

Wouldn't an equally logical explanation be that dropping any claim was a condition of GP taking the Sunderland job.

Just because one party, (ie GP), breaches a contract doesn't mean that the other, (BHAFC), can't still enforce their side of the contract - on that basis the club could have gone after Sunderland for settlement of the outstanding part of GP's contract with them. It seems logical that any claim by GP would trigger a counter-claim from the club.

I'm not saying that a mutual agreement to settle the dispute without any financial element was due to the above but it as valid a suggestion as any other.

How do you arrive at that? If you cancel a contract you can't then demand compensation under the terms of that contract because it no longer exists!

 

[Creaky]

LB implied that was the case when going on about the breakdown of the relationship made it inevitable GP would leave.



How do you arrive at that? If you cancel a contract you can't then demand compensation under the terms of that contract because it no longer exists!

How was the contract cancelled? The club claimed that GP breached the contract by way of gross misconduct and sacked him - that doesn't cancel the obligations of GP nor the rights BHAFC held under the terms of the contract in place - if it did then there would be no point in having a contract in the first place.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

LB implied that was the case when going on about the breakdown of the relationship made it inevitable GP would leave.

I think you'll find that what was meant that GP would leave because of the relationship at a mutually agreed time - probably the end of the season. That isn't being sacked - that's leaving. The club stepped in before that and sacked him - for a completely different reason. Nowhere did LB say the two were connected.