Search results

I can't figure out who "they" is either. It shirley can't be BHA - we're done. We've got him out with no compo, what more could we want? I suppose it could just be the LMA - "c'mon Gus, we fancy a fight; why don't you let us support you in taking them to Court?". Unlikely, but possible...

Interesting; thanks for posting the link. So, the Metro believes that RDM and Zola were both preferred over GP, but neither were even interested in talking to SAFC. Our Gus' position? "Premier league? Hell, yes!" Plus ca change...

This has to be true. BHA have absolutely no obligation to say anything about Gus' dismissal to anyone. It's in the public domain that he was dismissed for gross misconduct, that's really all that needs to be confirmed if Short talks to TB/PB. I would be astonished if any other tack was adopted.

Oh? Based on? Just curious - no dissent implied. You'll have much better antennae than me re things SAFC....

Actually, I agree with you (!). BHA have stated many times that confidentiality and professionalism lie at the centre of how they dealt with the Gus situation. Whether one believes that was their motivation or not (I do), it would be hypocritical to now change that stance. This, added to the...

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

Did you miss the announcement?

6: Much, much, MUCH more difficult to keep them up this season. This would be the killer, surely? If it were a straight choice between Fulham and SAFC, I would think that anyone without previous close ties to Sunderland would take the Fulham job, wouldn't they?

Hmmm...interesting thought. Both sides would possibly want that, and it would give GP another couple of weeks to see if Fulham came knocking. Somehow, I doubt it, but it would make sense.

I can't see a written reference being asked for. These days, pretty much any employer will simply say " we can conform that X was employed by us between the dates of Y and Z" and that's it, since anything else could be used by either the ex-employee or new employer if the new working...

Really? I must have missed that. Can you point me to where the club have confirmed it? (I'm not messing about!) I know it's received wisdom on here, but I didn't know the club have confirmed it.

Refusing to do your job is generally viewed pretty poorly by employers in my experience. I have no idea whether the example that is commonly cited (retained list) is accurate or not.

That's quite possibly true, but whoever that person is won't have been involved in the negotiations with Gus and his advisers. It's quite possible for someone employed at the club to have seen the twitter comments but not have known the negotiation timescales, still less any deadlines that may...

The most likely scenario to me is that there was a deadline imposed by the club, they didn't know about the TV appearance, the deadline was reached and they went to press shortly after the deadline.

5/4 on Betfair.