Gus after Ulloa?

[keaton]

I have a source. Do I really have to explain to you again why I can't share the details?

So if someone else said they had an impeccable source who they couldn't name or explain in any way what they said but who claimed it was actually all the clubs fault and someone in the club had been spreading anti-lies Gus you would believe them?
Even if there posts where erratic and bit confused most of the time?
Because that's what you are demanding from others

 

[B.W.]

yes you do and not just to me
otherwise stop the bile
you are like one of those drunks who keeps coming up to you in a pub sure he knows you and keeps on repeating himself
go away

Sorry, I'm not going anywhere. Oh, and please feel free to hunt out my earlier post explaining why I can't divulge the details. If you understood ANY of the situation, then you could easily work out why the details MUST remain confidential.

 

[keaton]

. But don't get so angry just because someone disagrees with your personality assessment of Gus. .

Such self-awareness

 

[glasfryn]

No, there is no 'must assume I'm talking bollox'. You just chose to do so. As I've said before, take it or leave it. You've chosen to leave it. That's fine, but you should maybe consider that I (and the club BTW) might be right in saying the gross misconduct charge (which remains and will remain uncontested) is justified. And your hero is not quite as heroic as you seem to think he is. Or just carry on with your self-delusion. But don't get so angry just because someone disagrees with your personality assessment of Gus. On the plus side, we are fully aligned with Gus as a manager, and his undoubted achievements at the club. It's sad you seem incapable of separating his achievements from his undoubtedly flawed personality.

my hero ........you really are an idiot
I would not TRUST him as far as I could throw him
nor would I TRUST anyone else involved in that fiasco including yourself
but there is this word that neither you or some others understand ...............FAIRNESS

 

[B.W.]

Certainly they are positives but could well be 'in spite of' the way GP was dismissed rather than 'because of'.

In most media reports when GP's history is mentioned it often includes phrases such as, "controversial dismissal', "sacked live on TV" etc. - never seen a single report that says anything like, "rightly dismissed" - have you

This is a much more reasonable debate, despite the Gus-praising clones predicting otherwise.

In response. I've seen all sorts, such as "left under a cloud", "dismissed for gross misconduct", as well as the ones you are quoting. As I said, I think this is now old news, and neither the club nor Gus has / will suffer longer-term.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is a much more reasonable debate, despite the Gus-praising clones predicting otherwise.

In response. I've seen all sorts, such as "left under a cloud", "dismissed for gross misconduct", as well as the ones you are quoting. As I said, I think this is now old news, and neither the club nor Gus has / will suffer longer-term.

You defeat your own debate by labelling those who look at the situation with different views. Gus-praising clones!
I liked Gus as our manager and was very disappointed by the final match and the aftermath.

My own viewpoint is that it was all about money. Gus wanted to leave in March and his resignation was turned down. We still continued to play extremely well so it didn't affect the team although there were rumours about whether he did or didn't talk to Reading. According to Tanno, he didn't.

There was a clause in the contract that if either one parted the ways then compensation was paid to the other. The club didn't want to sack him and pay him £2.5 million so used certain actions to make sure he was dismissed under employment law. Gus wanted to leave but also wanted to get his compensation. We know for a fact that he refused to handle the retained list. That is a breach of contract in itself so therefore can be used as gross misconduct. Tanno & Charlie were also accused of this.
In the end the club got rid of Gus and saved themselves £2.5 million.

 

[B.W.]

So if someone else said they had an impeccable source who they couldn't name or explain in any way what they said but who claimed it was actually all the clubs fault and someone in the club had been spreading anti-lies Gus you would believe them?
Even if there posts where erratic and bit confused most of the time?
Because that's what you are demanding from others

I'll ignore the 'erratic and confused' bit which, again, is just opinionated bile.

As I said before, take it or leave it. I'm not demanding anything! However, the facts in the public domain are fully aligned with what I am claiming: that is, the gross misconduct charge is valid. In this context, I would certainly doubt the claim by your 'someone else'.

 

[B.W.]

Such self-awareness

Eh!? I haven't lost it like your buddy.

 

[glasfryn]

You defeat your own debate by labelling those who look at the situation with different views. Gus-praising clones!
I liked Gus as our manager and was very disappointed by the final match and the aftermath.

My own viewpoint is that it was all about money. Gus wanted to leave in March and his resignation was turned down. We still continued to play extremely well so it didn't affect the team although there were rumours about whether he did or didn't talk to Reading. According to Tanno, he didn't.

There was a clause in the contract that if either one parted the ways then compensation was paid to the other. The club didn't want to sack him and pay him £2.5 million so used certain actions to make sure he was dismissed under employment law. Gus wanted to leave but also wanted to get his compensation. We know for a fact that he refused to handle the retained list. That is a breach of contract in itself so therefore can be used as gross misconduct. Tanno & Charlie were also accused of this.
In the end the club got rid of Gus and saved themselves £2.5 million.

the most plausible statement about that time
is it not always about money
cue BW saying it wasn't but can't actually say exactly what or why

 

[PoG]

Wow you lot are boring.

 

[B.W.]

my hero ........you really are an idiot
I would not TRUST him as far as I could throw him
nor would I TRUST anyone else involved in that fiasco including yourself
but there is this word that neither you or some others understand ...............FAIRNESS

To be fair, you have always said you don't trust either side. Strangely, this fairness you talk of manifests itself in you CONSTANTLY backing-up one party (Gus) over the other (the club).

 

[glasfryn]

To be fair, you have always said you don't trust either side. Strangely, this fairness you talk of manifests itself in you CONSTANTLY backing-up one party (Gus) over the other (the club).

as opposed to you who constantly do the reverse
FAIRNESS

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

Have any Sunderland fans begun to ask what exactly it is that Tanno does yet? And did we get that £100 black BHA puffa jacket back off him before he left?

 

[B.W.]

You defeat your own debate by labelling those who look at the situation with different views. Gus-praising clones!
I liked Gus as our manager and was very disappointed by the final match and the aftermath.

My own viewpoint is that it was all about money. Gus wanted to leave in March and his resignation was turned down. We still continued to play extremely well so it didn't affect the team although there were rumours about whether he did or didn't talk to Reading. According to Tanno, he didn't.

There was a clause in the contract that if either one parted the ways then compensation was paid to the other. The club didn't want to sack him and pay him £2.5 million so used certain actions to make sure he was dismissed under employment law. Gus wanted to leave but also wanted to get his compensation. We know for a fact that he refused to handle the retained list. That is a breach of contract in itself so therefore can be used as gross misconduct. Tanno & Charlie were also accused of this.
In the end the club got rid of Gus and saved themselves £2.5 million.

Good assessment of the situation there. However, I feel I need to point out that there was no need for the club to trump up the gross misconduct charge (not saying you said that, just that this point is relevant).

I think my 'clones' comment is relatively mild compared to the pelters that are unjustifiably coming my way.

 

[B.W.]

the most plausible statement about that time
is it not always about money
cue BW saying it wasn't but can't actually say exactly what or why

I'm not saying it was or it wasn't!

 

[B.W.]

as opposed to you who constantly do the reverse
FAIRNESS

My fairness manifests itself in recognising Gus' achievements on the pitch, whilst also noting his personality flaws, evidenced by what he said in the media when our manager.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Good assessment of the situation there. However, I feel I need to point out that there was no need for the club to trump up the gross misconduct charge (not saying you said that, just that this point is relevant).

I think my 'clones' comment is relatively mild compared to the pelters that are unjustifiably coming my way.

I've always said this but somehow you've managed to label me as a Gus lover etc. There have been other 'pelters' as you call them. You also moan whenever anyone has tried to put forward their point of view (as I have done in the past) but you always want the last word.

This is the first time that you've acknowledged that I might have a point. As I said, we do know about one misconduct charge which in itself is enough to dismiss someone without compensation.

 

[B.W.]

I've always said this but somehow you've managed to label me as a Gus lover etc. There have been other 'pelters' as you call them. You also moan whenever anyone has tried to put forward their point of view (as I have done in the past) but you always want the last word.

This is the first time that you've acknowledged that I might have a point. As I said, we do know about one misconduct charge which in itself is enough to dismiss someone without compensation.

Well, my sincere apologies for my prior labelling TB.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Well, my sincere apologies for my prior labelling TB.

Thank you.

 

[keaton]

I'll ignore the 'erratic and confused' bit which, again, is just opinionated bile.

As I said before, take it or leave it. I'm not demanding anything! However, the facts in the public domain are fully aligned with what I am claiming: that is, the gross misconduct charge is valid. In this context, I would certainly doubt the claim by your 'someone else'.

I don't think many people are arguing that the gross misconduct was made up.

The issues are anyone who suggests that:they have no reason to believe you; the club could have handled things better; or questions the board in anyway gets called a Gus lover by you