Poyet to Sunderland

[ROKERITE]

Why? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just curious what you think PDC's done well?

There are players at our club who have seen off three or four managers now. Di Canio dared to challenge their cushy, unprofessional lifestyles. His (much mocked) rules may have been over the top in some instances but, as someone posted a link to on here the other day, Sunderland is apparently notorious for its drinking culture and lax behaviour. Paolo is a thoroughly dedicated and motivated man and, unsurprisingly, was disgusted at what he found here.
It is frightening that our owner has sided with the players against the man who was trying to instil a new professional culture at the club. As for what PDC's done well, in fairness he hasn't the time to do much more than begin to dig the foundations. We had two great wins but I'm a believer in the longer term. I'd hoped Short was too.

 

[B.W.]

If TB is confident that the club was justified in dismissing GP then there is no reason why the club should be anything but open and honest with the Sunderland board - not to do so could only imply lack of confidence.

No. It would imply maintaining the confidentiality the situation demands.

 

[Rugrat]

There are players at our club who have seen off three or four managers now. Di Canio dared to challenge their cushy, unprofessional lifestyles. His (much mocked) rules may have been over the top in some instances but, as someone posted a link to on here the other day, Sunderland is apparently notorious for its drinking culture and lax behaviour. Paolo is a thoroughly dedicated and motivated man and, unsurprisingly, was disgusted at what he found here.
It is frightening that our owner has sided with the players against the man who was trying to instil a new professional culture at the club. As for what PDC's done well, in fairness he hasn't the time to do much more than begin to dig the foundations. We had two great wins but I'm a believer in the longer term. I'd hoped Short was too.

If you're right, and no reason to believe you aren't then maybe it was the way PDC went about it. You can't just bust in and try to demolish the whole thing, you need to weed out the bad shit and take it one step at a time ... that just isn't his way though. Short may not have had any alternative, the players almost going on strike if this fella stayed. I've got some sympathy but PDC does seem to be a one trick pony and maybe the experience will show him that the blunt instrument approach needs to be re thought

 

[B.W.]

It would be ironic if Sunderland passed on Poyet because of concerns about his temperament, given the fact 6 months ago they were willing to employ possibly the most unstable man ever to manage in British football history.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Mellotron]

There are players at our club who have seen off three or four managers now. Di Canio dared to challenge their cushy, unprofessional lifestyles. His (much mocked) rules may have been over the top in some instances but, as someone posted a link to on here the other day, Sunderland is apparently notorious for its drinking culture and lax behaviour. Paolo is a thoroughly dedicated and motivated man and, unsurprisingly, was disgusted at what he found here.
It is frightening that our owner has sided with the players against the man who was trying to instil a new professional culture at the club. As for what PDC's done well, in fairness he hasn't the time to do much more than begin to dig the foundations. We had two great wins but I'm a believer in the longer term. I'd hoped Short was too.

So.......nothing, then? Were his tactics great? Was he instilling a new football philosophy?

 

[B.W.]

Until such time as (a)the threat of legal action against the club is ended or a court case is settled and (b)GP has a new employer then the events surrounding him are of intrinsic interest to both the club and those fans concerned for the club.

Spot on there, my 'fellow-obsessive'!

 

[Goldstone1976]

No. It would imply maintaining the confidentiality the situation demands.

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 fact that the club's solicitors will, imo, be advising TB to say nothing to SAFC (or any one else) about the circumstances surrounding Gus' departure makes it almost certain that TB will simply confirm that Gus was dismissed for gross misconduct and nothing else.

The only situation where TB may be persuaded to say more is if he and Short know each other personally and he trusts Short not to feed anything back to Gus or, worse, it leaks to the press either directly from Short or via any SAFC Board members that Short tells. Sounds too risky, doesn't it?

 

[B.W.]

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.

Spot on. This is gonna get interesting. Although a man who appointed PDC doesn't exactly show good judgement IMHO. Once bitten, twice shy, maybe?

 

[ROKERITE]

If you're right, and no reason to believe you aren't then maybe it was the way PDC went about it. You can't just bust in and try to demolish the whole thing, you need to weed out the bad shit and take it one step at a time ... that just isn't his way though. Short may not have had any alternative, the players almost going on strike if this fella stayed. I've got some sympathy but PDC does seem to be a one trick pony and maybe the experience will show him that the blunt instrument approach needs to be re thought

Well I'm sure Paolo will have learned lessons from his bruising at Sunderland. He is a highly intelligent fellow as well as a complicated and controversial one. I look forward to seeing how he does in his next job.
Anyway, I'm delighted Oscar Garcia seems to be getting the hang of things and will be delighted if he can take you over the line that Gus didn't.
Here's hoping Poyet's Sunderland are playing B&HA in The Premier League next season, though it'll take a lot of getting balls in correct holes to get there!

 

[BensGrandad]

It is worth noting that PDC got the sack for daring to try to change the attitude and culture of the players. I am sure that Gus would do the same as he is equally such a professional man in his approach to the standards required of his players. They will either do it his way or be shipped out so no change there.

 

[Bakero]

That's a very sweeping assumption to make - if one can make a "sweeping" assumption.

I've seen a lot of 'swooping' assumptions on here.

 

[B.W.]

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.

Spot on. This is gonna get interesting. Although a man who appointed PDC doesn't exactly show good judgement IMHO. Once bitten, twice shy, maybe?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Well I'm sure Paolo will have learned lessons from his bruising at Sunderland. He is a highly intelligent fellow as well as a complicated and controversial one. I look forward to seeing how he does in his next job.

He strikes me as being quite stubborn, I'm not sure he's going to learn quickly.

** I only pop on to this thread every 10 pages or so, just to see how things are going. No progress I see.

 

[B.W.]

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.

Too right!

 

[B.W.]

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.

Brilliant post again. Nice one.

 

[symyjym]

Spot on. This is gonna get interesting. Although a man who appointed PDC doesn't exactly show good judgement IMHO. Once bitten, twice shy, maybe?

I don't know, you can’t really compare them, Gus with was committed to 3 1/2 seasons with us, and for all intent and purposes he did the job he was paid to do.

We did beat the Black Cats bitter rivals twice and we beat them once, so if you just look at what he accomplished on the pitch and the length of time he was here, the job swings his way.

It looks as if it just depends on how they view the reasons for his dismissal and if he can charm them with his version and how they judge the seriousness of the gross misconducts.

What happened here has probably been the best lesson of his life and we may see a more watered down version of Gus in a new job.

 

[Icy Gull]

What happened here has probably been the best lesson of his life and we may see a more watered down version of Gus in a new job.

This bit intrigues me. I'm not convinced, to use an old cliché, a leopard can change it's spots. Everyone can see he needs to be more circumspect in interviews. The ironic thing is that if he had said the right things after the playoff semi final, he may already have the Premier League job he so craves.

 

[B.W.]

He was highly regarded for his work as a coach at manu, but there's a long list of those who were successful side men to Ferguson but have failed when venturing out on their own. There's nothing in his record to suggest he'll make a good manager. History is littered with excellent coaches who were terrible managers.
Mind, in this new age and set up at Sunderland it isn't clear what is required in Paolo's replacement, other than that he does what the players want. The term head coach rather than manager is being used, so who knows?
I suppose some of it is just gut instinct, unreliable but hey, I'm a football supporter.

If it's true Sunderland want a Head Coach, then I really can't see Gus being your man. He will want full control (and that is not me being anti-Gus, just that he likes a 'project' that he is fully in control of; no judgement from me about whether that is a good or bad thing).

 

[B.W.]

That's a very sweeping assumption to make - if one can make a "sweeping" assumption.

It was meant to be light-hearted.

 

[B.W.]

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 fact that the club's solicitors will, imo, be advising TB to say nothing to SAFC (or any one else) about the circumstances surrounding Gus' departure makes it almost certain that TB will simply confirm that Gus was dismissed for gross misconduct and nothing else.

The only situation where TB may be persuaded to say more is if he and Short know each other personally and he trusts Short not to feed anything back to Gus or, worse, it leaks to the press either directly from Short or via any SAFC Board members that Short tells. Sounds too risky, doesn't it?

It certainly does. TB will keep quiet. Can Short get to the details some other way? Can't see how, unless Gus talks it through (he will be asked to) but, then Mr Short will only be hearing one side of the story. Hmmm.