Gus on talksport Friday @ 7

[B.W.]

but nobody has ever answered the question WHY
even Gus has not said why he apparently done these things,its only people like yourself and a few others that seem to actually care that others question why was there a row and these pro club, pro Tony statements can only add to peoples questions.
as I have said before TRUST nobody.

I did TRUST them all of them less and less
now I don't TRUST any of them

Well, I trust people based on what they have said and done. Hence my trust of Tony and, to a lesser extent, the board. And my mistrust of Gus.

 

[keaton]

Of course you can ( unless you're an employee of the club or one of Gus' advisors ) unless of course what you claim is factually untrue. You can't be sued for telling the truth ! Which leads us nicely to pointing out that you must be a liar.

You can be libelled for telling the truth

 

[B.W.]

View attachment 46522

B.W.
would you like me to buy you a shovel to dig yourself out of this large hole you have dug yourself into

Why? I like it down here were truth hurts the Gus lovers!

 

[itszamora]

You can be libelled for telling the truth

Not "for" telling the truth. Sometimes people have (wrongly) been sued for libel and lost when telling the truth, such as the Times (I think) over Lance Armstrong a few years ago. But telling the truth about someone isn't a reason to sue them. The party doing the suing would have to allege that whatever is said is false.

 

[The Large One]

Why? I like it down here were truth hurts the Gus lovers!

Whose truth? What 'Gus lovers'?

Get some perspective.

 

[ROSM]

Not "for" telling the truth. Sometimes people have (wrongly) been sued for libel and lost when telling the truth, such as the Times (I think) over Lance Armstrong a few years ago. But telling the truth about someone isn't a reason to sue them. The party doing the suing would have to allege that whatever is said is false.

They have to prove that a right minded individual will think worse of them on the basis of the comments made.

Innuendo such as 'i know something you don't which when you know will prove to you that he is a shit and you will want to hang him as a shape shifting be-elzebub' is potentially enough to sue if there isn't such a piece of information

 

[MattBackHome]

I going to take a stab in the dark here but, if you think that is "evidence" then I'm guessing you're not a barrister.

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.

 

[itszamora]

They have to prove that a right minded individual will think worse of them on the basis of the comments made.

Innuendo such as 'i know something you don't which when you know will prove to you that he is a shit and you will want to hang him as a shape shifting be-elzebub' is potentially enough to sue if there isn't such a piece of information

This is all balanced against whether something's actually true though, right? Because otherwise pretty much anyone saying anything negative about anyone could be leaving themselves open to libel action.

 

[B.W.]

Refusing to acknowledge your guilt. That sounds familiar.



The unpalatable stuff in the public domain would have nothing to do with his hearing, or it wouldn't be in the public domain. Therefore, they're irrelevant to the point being made.



You are biased, as you are basing your supposition on the say of one person. You then accuse others who challenge your bias as being biased. Do you see where this is going?

You have no idea what info I have on all this. Just because I'm just not going around claiming I know 'enough', it doesn't follow that you have info that I don't. I just choose to retain perspective, and not listen to just one person. Corroboration of what you're told adds perspective.



Insults? Like being called a presumptuous clown?



Taking sides? I thought you said you weren't biased.

Get some perspective.

Seriously TLO, I support the club, including the actions taken by the board in both appointing AND sacking Gus.

I have perspective. Yours, it seems, is skewed by Gus' success as a manager (undeniable), whereas mine is based on what I know about his misconduct.

Let's agree to differ.

If I called you a deluded clown in the heat of battle I apologize - sorry.

Let's see if, as your name suggests, you are big enough to reciprocate, and apologize too.

 

[London Irish]

I did enjoy ‘This Life’ in the 90’s

Well, we agree on that at least

 

[The Large One]

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.

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.

 

[B.W.]

Evidence of what?

Gus' lies.
The LMA's inaccuracies.

 

[B.W.]

No, that's arrogant presumption of guilt your part, based on your ongoing bias.

Why should the LMA make a statement? Perhaps there is no statement to make ahead of a possible court case.

We'll see.

 

[MattBackHome]

Well, we agree on that at least

I actually rewatched it a couple of years ago (my wife missed it the first time out) and it's still really good. Dated though - it's like a 90's time capsule.

 

[B.W.]

Of course you can ( unless you're an employee of the club or one of Gus' advisors ) unless of course what you claim is factually untrue. You can't be sued for telling the truth ! Which leads us nicely to pointing out that you must be a liar.

And what position would that leave my source in? No, I can't.

 

[B.W.]

Whose truth? What 'Gus lovers'?

Get some perspective.

The record's stuck in annoying misguided groove!

 

[The Large One]

Seriously TLO, I support the club, including the actions taken by the board in both appointing AND sacking Gus.

I have perspective. Yours, it seems, is skewed by Gus' success as a manager (undeniable), whereas mine is based on what I know about his misconduct

My perspective is not skewed by Gus' success. It's open four-square in waiting for information which is accepted on by both parties to be in the public domain for me to make a moral judgement. And even then, that is irrelevant to the whole case. Personally, I suspect that will never happen.

As I've said before, it could be that Gus is guilty as charged, and I'm quite prepared for that to be the case. Until we know all the facts, no-one can make that call. What concerns me is that the information has appeared to be made available, even in a private capacity, for an outsider to make a public pronouncement that he has 'enough' information to form his own judgement. If that is the case, I would find that very unprofessional, and quite worrying.

Let's agree to differ.

If I called you a deluded clown in the heat of battle I apologize - sorry.

Let's see if, as your name suggests, you are big enough to reciprocate, and apologize too.

If you're offended at being referred to as Walter Mitty and lacking in perspective, I apologise.

 

[The Large One]

Gus' lies.
The LMA's inaccuracies.

So you know the LMA's case?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

And what position would that leave my source in? No, I can't.

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.

 

[keaton]

Gus' lies.
The LMA's inaccuracies.

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?