Gus on talksport Friday @ 7

[The Large One]

The record's stuck in annoying misguided groove!

How is asking a question misguided?

It's an interrogative statement used to determine knowledge and facts, not a statement of truth, intent or opinion.

 

[Acker79]

Sadly I have not been asked to perform jury service, nor have I been called to the bar. I did enjoy ‘This Life’ in the 90’s. And I also like ‘A Few Good Men’ and Hancock’s bit about Magna Carta – luckily there isn’t a trial going on and so we don’t need to be lawyers to have a view on proceedings!

So when I say ‘evidence’, I don’t mean something that proves guilt; I mean stuff that’s happened that causes me to have an opinion of what went down in Chinatown.

By club statements I do mean all club statements. They have been considered, measured, controlled and reasonable, and at times when the world and his dog were flapping around for them to either sack him or tell everyone what was going on.

I think it’s telling that the LMA hasn’t spoken up for Gus in ages. I also think that if he were not guilty (of whatever it is he’s been accused of) that Gus, being typically Gus, would be more forthright about his independence. When he has broken his silence his words have suggested, to me, that he is trying to win the favour of the media and to improve his chances of a Prem job next. These are not admissions of guilt, nor are they definitive (and to be honest it makes sense that he should take this approach) – but they suggest, again to me, that he was caught doing something he shouldn’t have been doing.

I’m not presuming that he’s guilty. I’m just saying that all of the events so far, including statements, recorded words, MOTD interview responses etc suggest that the club was in the right and have dealt with this in an appropriate way.

All their statements were "considered, measured, controlled and reasonable"?

Why did they release the statement about Gus refusing to attend the initial meeting on disputed legal grounds? There is no requirement to release that statement - they should have the letter/email informing him of the date, his reply claiming a right to delay, their response informing him they disagree. The only thing that statement does is turn Gus into the bad guy.
Why release the statement confirming his firing while he is on TV? Even if they felt they needed the deadline to be 8pm on a sunday evening rather than 7pm or 11pm, there is, again, no requirement to release the statement. They are under no obligation to make the public statement as far as I am aware, all it does is embarrass Gus. They didn't know he was on TV? I don't believe that.
A statement claiming he knew his sacking was pending? I remember some people on here who were adamant Gus knew he was fired and lying on TV, then when the club released that statement started to believe Gus, based on the word 'pending', a statement that will undermine any efforts to make him look bad by using the TV footage of him being sacked (for whatever means the earlier poster suggested they would use it).

Why have the LMA not made any further statements? The first statement ended with "The LMA will not be making any further statement at this stage." [here]. Saying the club scared them away with legal threats is like when someone walks away from a fight and the guy who has just taken a pasting saying "yeah, you better run".

They then were not too scared to speak up again after the club made it's final decision [here], again ending with " Gus will now reflect on the outcome and discuss options with the legal team. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to make any further comment at this time”.". What exactly are they supposed to say? What statements have the club released regarding Gus since they fired him (and upheld the decision)?

 

[B.W.]

So you know the LMA's case?

I know the LMA made a statement the club disagreed with. The club threatened legal action. The LMA backed-off.

 

[MattBackHome]

Why should they make a statement? That's merely you wanting a tidbit of information for your own salacious needs. Legal cases takes ages.

If anyone is going to make a statement, it should be Gus. And even then, with the possibility of this going to court, he would have to be very careful what he says.

Not at all! I find LMA statements hugely dull at the best of times. And I'm not at all desirous of tidbits - see my support for the achingly dull Club statements over the same period. I'm happy for the story to come out when it's good and ready, and I've got NSC to meet all my salacious needs. And I reckon the LMA would have made another statement if he'd been innocent of whatever it is.

I suspect we won't agree on that (though I hope you don't mistake me for someone desperate for juicy details?)

But even without the LMA stuff, I feel that the rest of the stuff I've talked about points towards his being caught bang to rights. I don't think that's anti GP bias, simply because I LOVED him as a manager. I think I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but bias is one of those things that's hard to see from a first person perspective.

 

[B.W.]

You can post the facts without identifying your source - there are plenty of people involved in the process that would know the facts so it's hardly unique knowledge. So yet again I call you out as being a liar.

There is no way I am going to, in TLO's words, betray the confidence of my source, by sharing the 'dirty laundry' in a public forum. Even if that means you think I'm a liar. I'm not.

 

[B.W.]

So in a court of law the Club would try and prove that the sacking of Gus for Gross Misconduct was correct and as evidence they'd enter a video of him on tv afterwards denying he'd done anything and evidence that the LMA got some stuff wrong. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

LoL! I never said that would be the whole case! Don't twist my words.

 

[B.W.]

How is asking a question misguided?

It's an interrogative statement used to determine knowledge and facts, not a statement of truth, intent or opinion.

You keep saying, over and over and over, that I need to get perspective. As I say, your record is well and truly stuck.

 

[glasfryn]

You keep saying, over and over and over, that I need to get perspective. As I say, your record is well and truly stuck.

then I think its about time you stopped with "I know something you don't"
we get you are in the know
you know someone at the club
you know why Gus was sacked

yes .......we get it
so unless you have something else to tell us why are you still here saying the same things over and over again

 

[B.W.]

then I think its about time you stopped with "I know something you don't"
we get you are in the know
you know someone at the club
you know why Gus was sacked

yes .......we get it
so unless you have something else to tell us why are you still here saying the same things over and over again

Good point. I'm off. There's no convincing some people anyway. Enjoy Gus' BS those who care to listen.

 

[glasfryn]

Good point. I'm off. There's no convincing some people anyway. Enjoy Gus' BS those who care to listen.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

So in a court of law the Club would try and prove that the sacking of Gus for Gross Misconduct was correct and as evidence they'd enter a video of him on tv afterwards denying he'd done anything and evidence that the LMA got some stuff wrong. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

Don't forget, they'd also use the video evidence of that time Gus downplayed ("moaned about") our budget a little bit (which, of course, was clearly Gus SLAGGING off the board, and not an obvious attempt to try and play down the expectations of the fans or make future negotiations easier by claiming we were in a worse situation that we actually were).

That's some MEATY evidence.

 

[The Large One]

Not at all! I find LMA statements hugely dull at the best of times. And I'm not at all desirous of tidbits - see my support for the achingly dull Club statements over the same period. I'm happy for the story to come out when it's good and ready, and I've got NSC to meet all my salacious needs. And I reckon the LMA would have made another statement if he'd been innocent of whatever it is.

At no point should silence be inferred as guilt. A statement, should one be necessary, will come out in due course, not necessarily within your 'three weeks'.

But even without the LMA stuff, I feel that the rest of the stuff I've talked about points towards his being caught bang to rights. I don't think that's anti GP bias, simply because I LOVED him as a manager. I think I'm trying to be as objective as possible, but bias is one of those things that's hard to see from a first person perspective.

I'd say your objectivity is slightly lacking because, although what you saying isn't untrue, it's also largely irrelevant. These were your perceptions of what makes a person guilty.

 

[albionite]

I care to listen. Only problem is I don't think I will believe a word he says

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Enjoy Gus' BS those who care to listen.

I'd love you to point me in the direction of his statements on why he was dismissed, or his "BS" as you put it. Clearly you have read something that none of us have ever seen published. I don't remember him ever explaining fully why he was dismissed, but I must have missed it.

 

[somerset]

So in a court of law the Club would try and prove that the sacking of Gus for Gross Misconduct was correct ......

Incorrect,..... the onus will be on Gus and his 'team' to prove the club was wrong.... he is taking the club to court don't forget, the floor will be his then the club will respond to his presented evidence, if there is any of course.

 

[MattBackHome]

what you saying isn't untrue, it's also largely irrelevant

Story of my life.

 

[The Large One]

I know the LMA made a statement the club disagreed with. The club threatened legal action. The LMA backed-off.

No they didn't.

Again - re-writing history.

 

[keaton]

LoL! I never said that would be the whole case! Don't twist my words.

I'm sure it wouldn't. The judge would say ' this is not evidence' and not allow it. My ( and a few others) issues are that nothing that we have heard is evidence.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

nothing that we have heard is evidence.

For all the words written in this thread, it basically comes down to this. Amazing how people can make a judement when absolutely no evidence has been provided.

Actually, I forget. This is NSC. That's relatively normal.

 

[Mellotron]

I'll repeat - the IMPORTANT INFO (which we will never find out about, probably) is what caused all this in the first place. Why did Gus feel it was unworkable with Barber? That's the key bit of context that is missing.