Gus on talksport Friday @ 7

[B.W.]

Your evidence for this ...?

You clearly have not been playing attention to what Bloom has done for our club. Ungrateful.

 

[B.W.]

I agree entirely that it's foolish to rush to adjudicate Gus to be guilty, and to slag him off accordingly.

However. All of the EVIDENCE of the last few months, to me strongly suggests that the club was in the right, had a very strong position, and that whatever Gus did, he was caught bang to rights.

I would love to know the full picture, but until anything comes up which makes me think otherwise I'm firmly in Team Board.


Add to this the fact that I am more than a little enamoured with our new Head Coach, I've got very little interest in what GP has to say for himself. Of course if he happens to tell all I'll be interested, but I suspect that he will release a carefully considered version of the truth, if anything at all.

This.

The fact that some on here can't see who is in the right (the club), and who is in the wrong (Gus), EVEN BASED ON WHAT INFO IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN shows their inherent Gus bias IMHO.

 

[B.W.]

What evidence do we have so far against Gus?, obviously ignoring all rumours, theories etc

I don't remember seeing anything that I would count as evidence in my book, from either Gus or the club. It's all been internal.

We know Gus refused to do his job with the retained list (breach of contract). We know he repeatedly flirted with other clubs. We know he constantly moaned about his budget. We know that he said he has to put himself first. We know he wanted out well-before the end of the season. Of course, the real reason for the charge of gross misconduct is NOT in the public domain, and nor should it be.

 

[Sheebo]

Regardless (and yes we still know v v v little) of what happened I cannot believe people think calling one of our greatest ever managers a **** is acceptable. The same impatient fans who moan and can't take a defeat I expect. Grow up.

PS - Yes i do wish Gus would shhhh and am getting bored of more Gus threads!

 

[B.W.]

None of that is evidence, and most of it is plain daft.

Some of it IS evidence.

Daft = Gus' BS on his sacking day, and some swallowing his nonsense whole.

 

[keaton]

We know Gus refused to do his job with the retained list (breach of contract). We know he repeatedly flirted with other clubs. We know he constantly moaned about his budget. We know that he said he has to put himself first. We know he wanted out well-before the end of the season. Of course, the real reason for the charge of gross misconduct is NOT in the public domain, and nor should it be.

Moaning about budgets? Most managers complain about budgets.
Do WE know that he refused to deal with retained? And if so do we know why?
Flirting with other clubs and putting himself first is nothing. 99% of the people in football put themselves first. Also i'd say our getting Oscar is pretty suspicious.
We know the club claim he wanted to leave in March, again why?

 

[The Large One]

I know enough.

I know what Gus did.

In that case, you are betraying a confidence by saying that someone high up in the club has made available some material which needs to remain strictly confidential. Imagine is Gus' lawyers got wind of the fact that this confidentiality is being breached. However if, as you claim, that information is in the public domain, why not post it?

I suspect that real point is that you were told one or two things, and despite not being one of the club's nor Gus' representatives, nor were you at the hearings, nor being party to sensitive material, you've deluded yourself into being your own little judge, jury and executioner.

This.

The fact that some on here can't see who is in the right (the club), and who is in the wrong (Gus), EVEN BASED ON WHAT INFO IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN shows their inherent Gus bias IMHO.

I think you're the last person to lecture anyone on bias.

The majority of people are looking for evidence before deciding who is culpable. In other words, they're sitting on the fence - as am I.

You on the other hand, have damned Gus, based on what you have convinced yourself is 'enough'. Anyone who challenges your Walter Mitty stance has a 'pro-Gus bias', as if that means anything. Stop embarrassing yourself, and get some perspective.

 

[The Large One]

Some of it IS evidence.

As WS says, if you think that's evidence for dismissing him, I hope I'd never sit anywhere near you on a jury.

 

[B.W.]

Well apart from non attendance not being on legal grounds but as was accused, due to the club not following their own internal procedures?

And it being the lma not the pfa?

Him not actually defending himself on tv - his accusations havnt been given to him on tv so how can he have been defending himself?

Its your opinion and you are entitled to that. But its not correct to state that as fact

There you go again. The club DID follow its own procedures. If you recall, the LMA backed-off once threatened by the club to stay accurate or face the legal consequences.

Gus' post-sacking BS in the media HAS ONLY BEEN about defending himself. He clearly doesn't like being tagged with gross misconduct (who would) and has been trying to paint a rosy picture of himself ever since (FAIL).

 

[albionite]

Moaning about budgets? Most managers complain about budgets.
Do WE know that he refused to deal with retained? And if so do we know why?
Flirting with other clubs and putting himself first is nothing. 99% of the people in football put themselves first. Also i'd say our getting Oscar is pretty suspicious.
We know the club claim he wanted to leave in March, again why?

The club knew he wanted to leave in December. March was when Gus phoned up Bloom and said he wanted to go.

 

[The Large One]

There you go again. The club DID follow its own procedures. If you recall, the LMA backed-off once threatened by the club to stay accurate or face the legal consequences.

Gus' post-sacking BS in the media HAS ONLY BEEN about defending himself. He clearly doesn't like being tagged with gross misconduct (who would) and has been trying to paint a rosy picture of himself ever since (FAIL).

Now you're re-writing history.

 

[keaton]

The club knew he wanted to leave in December. March was when Gus phoned up Bloom and said he wanted to go.

How did the club know he wanted to leave? Do you know why?

 

[B.W.]

I really hope you never have done jury service ( or never have to ) if that's how you consider "evidence".

Interesting that both you and TLO pick-up on the club 'not coming clean'. Believe me, it is in Gus' interests that they keep quiet on the detail.

 

[ROSM]

There you go again. The club DID follow its own procedures. If you recall, the LMA backed-off once threatened by the club to stay accurate or face the legal consequences.

Gus' post-sacking BS in the media HAS ONLY BEENo about defending himself. He clearly doesn't like being tagged with gross misconduct (who would) and has been trying to paint a rosy picture of himself ever since (FAIL).

You carry on thinking that.

All I will say is that there a few people who have been offered outside by the club (metaphorically) who have decided to not defend the point but concentrate on the bigger picture despite being 100% sure of their accuracy.

 

[ROSM]

The club knew he wanted to leave in December. March was when Gus phoned up Bloom and said he wanted to go.

I'm sure they club knew that poyet wanted to leave much earlier than march (perhaps maybe last July) but it was in march that he said he would resign at the end of the season.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

If it's definitely true, why not post it?

It would be totally pointless to.

The followers of Saint Gus require internet links to verify everything, and if you don't have them then your words mean nothing, and indeed just mean you have an agenda.

Personnal conversations with people who would know are not admissible evidence in the court of NSC

 

[itszamora]

Interesting that both you and TLO pick-up on the club 'not coming clean'. Believe me, it is in Gus' interests that they keep quiet on the detail.

Oooh, look at me! I know SO MUCH MORE than all of you and despite alluding to it over and over and over again, I'm not going to actually tell you anything!

 

[glasfryn]

I know what Gus did.

Are you sure?

there you go again
I am ITK and you lot are not
if you know something then post it or shut up


just a small question
do you work for the club?

 

[itszamora]

It would be totally pointless to.

The followers of Saint Gus require internet links to verify everything, and if you don't have them then your words mean nothing, and indeed are just mean you have an agenda.

Personnal conversations with people who would know are not admissible evidence in the court of NSC

More likely that those supposedly in the know don't actually know any more than the rest of us, and are just using their prejudices to fill in the gaps.

 

[albionite]

How did the club know he wanted to leave? Do you know why?

Sorry no idea on that one, didn't think to ask. Just what I was told. A fair few whispers around that time even from Naylor that he wanted out to back that up.