Poyet to Sunderland

[symyjym]

Villa?

There's no law that he says he has to but you're right. Short will likely ask to see it and will ask for Poyet's side of it. No need and no point talking to TB or anyone at BHA, Short will trust his own judgement (though having screwed up so badly with PDC, who knows?)

Yeah I'm sure you're right about it not being law, but it would naturally be requested and would be hard to withold the request if you want to get off to an honest start.

What is fascinating though is that if the job does hinge on this and he doesn't get the appointment, it would be quite an insight to the currently disputed validity of the charges.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Yeah I'm sure you're right about it not being law, but it would naturally be requested and would be hard to withold the request if you want to get off to an honest start.

What is fascinating though is that if the job does hinge on this and he doesn't get the appointment, it would be quite an insight to the currently disputed validity of the charges.

You'd love it if he didn't get it, wouldn't you?

 

[sparkie]

But Poyet is (seemingly) challenging it in a court of law. He would have taken advice and feel he's got a strong case. The application of many aspects of employment law isn't black and white, there probably isn't a huge amount of evidence either way and there will be all sorts of allegations and counter allegations.

I simply can't see TB saying anything until a judgement has been made or the case dropped

Everything you have said has been right except I think there is an assumption too far in here.

Gus would have taken legal advice.

But that advice MAY not have been that he's got a STRONG case.

That would not stop him declaring to the world that he is going to take legal action.

In fact it is in his interest to do so as it then sends a message to clubs that interview him that his sacking was unjust. Job done for tricky interview questions.

 

[Creaky]

Yeah I'm sure you're right about it not being law, but it would naturally be requested and would be hard to withold the request if you want to get off to an honest start.

What is fascinating though is that if the job does hinge on this and he doesn't get the appointment, it would be quite an insight to the currently disputed validity of the charges.

Of course we don't know if the job hinges on Sunderland's opinion of the dispute between GP and BHAFC and if it does and he gets the job then what will that say about the validity of the charges?

 

[sparkie]

Of course we don't know if the job hinges on Sunderland's opinion of the dispute between GP and BHAFC and if it does and he gets the job then what will that say about the validity of the charges?

It would say very little either way I think.

We don't know the importance Sunderland attached to it.

We don't know if Gus is viewed as the best candidate or not for other reasons.

We don't know if Gus' stated intention to instigate legal action has had the possible required outcome and created enough 'doubt' about his sacking.

In short we have no idea.

 

[Rugrat]

Everything you have said has been right except I think there is an assumption too far in here.

Gus would have taken legal advice.

But that advice MAY not have been that he's got a STRONG case.

That would not stop him declaring to the world that he is going to take legal action.

In fact it is in his interest to do so as it then sends a message to clubs that interview him that his sacking was unjust. Job done for tricky interview questions.

Think I said somewhere earlier. If Poyet hasn't yet started proceedings, then if I were Short I might smell a rat. Conversely if he has then your logic is pretty well spot on. We don't know if he has or not but Short will no doubt want to see the evidence of Gus following through on his public statements.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Think I said somewhere earlier. If Poyet hasn't yet started proceedings, then if I were Short I might smell a rat. Conversely if he has then your logic is pretty well spot on. We don't know if he has or not but Short will no doubt want to see the evidence of Gus following through on his public statements.

Yes; before asking Gus to terminate any thought of proceedings so that he can focus 100% on avoiding relegation.

 

[maltaseagull]

I am not convinced that a football club is too concerned as to why a manager has been fired if they want him. Many of the current league managers have been fired. It's just that this time it was done differently.

 

[Rugrat]

Yes; before asking Gus to terminate any thought of proceedings so that he can focus 100% on avoiding relegation.

Agree that too

 

[Wardy]

I am not convinced that a football club is too concerned as to why a manager has been fired if they want him. Many of the current league managers have been fired. It's just that this time it was done differently.

It is the fact it was done differently that will make them interested. When a club sack a manager normally they announce it, pay him off, start looking for a new one. It is always a quick thing. This took ages, the assumption is that was for more than just bad results. Any chairman in his right mind would want to know what that was before making a decision on if to appoint them or not.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I am not convinced that a football club is too concerned as to why a manager has been fired if they want him. Many of the current league managers have been fired. It's just that this time it was done differently.

A piece in the Guardian this morning by Louise Taylor indicates that the Sunderland Chairman is looking in to the circumstances of GP's dismissal from BHAFC. It actually uses the expression "detailed inquiries", and then goes on to say "The identity of their new manager may well hinge on Short's reading of the situation".

 

[sparkie]

I hope we don't view whether Gus is appointed by Sunderland or not, as an accurate test of whether his sacking was justified or not.

The interview process may be stringent, but it is not a court or a tribunal where both sides present a case.

 

[Monkey Man]

A piece in the Guardian this morning by Louise Taylor indicates that the Sunderland Chairman is looking in to the circumstances of GP's dismissal from BHAFC. It actually uses the expression "detailed inquiries", and then goes on to say "The identity of their new manager may well hinge on Short's reading of the situation".

To be honest it's little more than a statement of the obvious. I doubt the journalist has any actual insight into what conversations are taking place ... but it's a safe statement to make in the absence of anything tangible and fills a paragraph. Whoever Gus's next employer happens to be, they are guaranteed to ask questions about the circumstances that led to him leaving his previous role so publicly and so acrimoniously.

 

[Rugrat]

I hope we don't view whether Gus is appointed by Sunderland or not, as an accurate test of whether his sacking was justified or not.

The interview process may be stringent, but it is not a court or a tribunal where both sides present a case.

Yes, he'll likely only get one side of the story (I know this has been argued to death btw) and have to use his business nous to figure the rest. After making such a balls up with PDC and having watched Sunderland fans on Sky yesterday saying they don't want Poyet as they see him as a different sort of PDC, pressure is on Short to get it right.

But it looks like he's got limited options and it will be interesting to see if Meulensteen comes into the frame, otherwise Gus gets the job, if he wants it, imo

 

[Stat Brother]

I hope we don't view whether Gus is appointed by Sunderland or not, as an accurate test of whether his sacking was justified or not.

The interview process may be stringent, but it is not a court or a tribunal where both sides present a case.

Every other conceivable option has been scrutinized so why not?

WHY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING ON?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

To be honest it's little more than a statement of the obvious. I doubt the journalist has any actual insight into what conversations are taking place ... but it's a safe statement to make in the absence of anything tangible and fills a paragraph. Whoever Gus's next employer happens to be, they are guaranteed to ask questions about the circumstances that led to him leaving his previous role so publicly and so acrimoniously.

It just made me wonder whether there would be a quiet chat off the record with Tony Bloom or someone else at the centre of it, or whether that would be totally out of the question. And then, what the nature of that quiet chat would be - "It was great most of the time and we really regret how it ended" or "don't touch it with a bargepole." Would it actually be in the club's interests to see him settled somewhere else? I guess it would.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I hope it happens just to see Charlie on match of the day.

 

[BensGrandad]

Wonder if he will go for a 'safe' bet like Pullis or McLaren if they are classed as safe.

 

[ROKERITE]

Eighteen months ago I would have been dancing with delight if Gus came here. My opinion of him is a lot lower now but he's still the man I want to be given the Sunderland job.
What none of you realise, and this goes for most of the country, is how divisive Di Canio's sacking has been. Many Sunderland supporters don't think Short made a stupid choice when he appointed Paolo, we believe Short made a massive mistake when he sacked him on Sunday. I've been a Sunderland supporter for over fifty years and I've rarely felt as excited by and behind a manager as I was Paolo Di Canio. I'm very angry and bitterly disappointed that our feckless, pampered, unprofessional players have got their way and seen him off.
Di Canio will get another job someday, (though he'll have to take a team into the Premier League if he's ever to manage there again) and when he does I expect him to be very successful, providing he's working for an owner with patience and a backbone.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Yes, he'll likely only get one side of the story (I know this has been argued to death btw) and have to use his business nous to figure the rest. After making such a balls up with PDC and having watched Sunderland fans on Sky yesterday saying they don't want Poyet as they see him as a different sort of PDC, pressure is on Short to get it right.

But it looks like he's got limited options and it will be interesting to see if Meulensteen comes into the frame, otherwise Gus gets the job, if he wants it, imo

According to my paper this morning, Meulensteen is coming in to the frame.

If Gus doesn't get it because of his dismissal, presumably it would make him all the more determined to carry on with the legal proceedings.