Official Statement regarding Gus Poyet on Website NOW *merged*

[kevo]

What do people think about the investigations into the three all being conducted separately - are they accused of the same thing, or different things? If they have all behaved in unrelated ways that have warranted their suspension, it does make the whole thing seem like a witch hunt. As if someone decided we need to get rid of them, let's throw some mud and see if it will stick.

 

[Acker79]

Yep, saying it when he did, when he has just been out thought by a manager with less resources than he had it was completely inappropriate.

You mean, when asked by an interviewer at the end of a season? After a tight game which could have gone our way but for speroni tipping Barnes' shot onto the bar, followed by a goal line clearance, and then a £15m player getting away from a premier league, former international left back for the first time in the game, giving the team managed by a manager with much more experience than gus, including previous play off experience and success?

Seems one of the more appropriate times for a reporter to ask him about his future, and for him to answer the question.

 

[Max Paper]

Was still hoping things would resolve themselves this morning, now i'm on the fence. ONLY because I would like to hear both sides of the story before stabbing him in the back. It's a shame.

 

[Rookie]

But what good is it exactly going to do ? It just leaves you open for the club to have you up for ANOTHER contract breach.

This is all in the hands of the legal teams now and will almost certainly be ruled by money. Would suggest putting Gus on gardening leave, but then he is still here and it will be an elephant in the room scenario, that and are we going to be able to attract a manager when we would still have one suspended. Would be MUCH easier if Gus resigned, but then he misses out on a big payday.

Its just going to get messier

It has always been about money.

 

[ROSM]

Would people read the statement?

It says he elected not to attend for disputed legal reasons. This means he gave notice he wasn't going to attend. Just like he gave notice that last week's meeting wasn't convenient it would seem.

He is perfectly within his rights to choose not to attend for either reason. If he has given legal argument he can ask for that to be reflected. It could be late notice of information, not being provided with other information, not feeling that all avenues have been explored (including things that point to him as well as away from him), perhaps issues he has raised he doesn't feel have been given enough weight (any sleights or behaviour by others) and so on.

The club are within their rights to say they continue in his absence on Friday. Doesnt mean they are right on doing so - that would only be judged by a tribunal or court if it came to that. Just because you have a process mapped out, it doesn't mean that the process is foolproof. Given that he has been advised by the lma, I am sure they are aware of how this could and should be done.

But I wouldn't hang him based on this action or this statement. Anybody that is, likely has never been a party of an employment dispute in the past. Either representing the employee or company.

As said before, the club will manage what they say publicly and please don't assume it is both sides of the story. What is interesting is that most compromise agreements contain clauses preventing badmouthing by either side. Any club employee caught briefing against him after the event (or proven to have done so before the event) will be on thin ice in the same way he will be if he slags off the club or board.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

And for that alone he should apologise and I say this again as someone who was firmly in the Gus camp. If any of the speculated things that Gus is supposed to have done following that are true then it just reinforces my opinion and now showing contempt for the club AGAIN by not turning up (possibly twice) for hearings when he knows the effect it may have on our season has just cemented my views. I honestly can't see how anyone can defend him any more.

He's defensible because no-one here knows any facts. If his lawyers advised him not to turn up they'll have some pretty good reasons and he's not going to turn around and say, "actually guys i know i've spent loads of money on you guys but i'm going to ignore your advice"

 

[glasfryn]

Because there's got to be some balance here. It seems obvious we've got a massive falling out between two people appointed by TB to run the two different sides of the club. We hear jackshit from Barber except the occasional corporate release. I'm sure he's working hard to cut our expenditure, but there are clearly decisions made by him that people don't like. On the other side we've got Poyet who has transformed the football side, who released his frustrations at losing to Palace by alluding to the problems between him and Barber and their disagreements. Meanwhile Barber stays schtum and tells us nothing.

Because of this massive numbers of people are picking on Gus. It pisses me off, it really does. We know next to nothing about this suspension, but everyone is deciding Gus is at fault and backing the faceless guy in the office.

its the faceless, quiet one you have got to watch in my experience

 

[happygull]

On my ignore list as you are a ****

this

 

[Kosh]

Thi situation is akin to being trapped inside one massive paradox.

 

[Deadly Danson]

So I guess if you'd paid for legal advice you would just ignore it if that advice was to stay away ?

I absolutely take your point and if that's what he has been advised then that's what he should do. It just leaves a sour taste given the likely effect it may have on our season.

 

[hybrid_x]

we should have people at the club who can deal with people - not go running to lawyers.....this should have been sorted weeks ago.

i feel civil war between the fans soon, anger at the club unless we know what went on, and a poor season.

cheers poyet you turd....and maybe barber (who comes across well in all this, but behind the scenes...who knows).

 

[kevtherev]

The man has got zero class and behaves like a spoilt child time and time again. If he has got any leg to stand on at all then he would have jumped at the chance to defend his corner, he has had a month to prepare. This just proves he has no regard for anyone bar himself, all it's achieving is delaying our preparations for next season....That would also have an effect on the players who were suppose to look upto him. He is indirectly effecting there working lives as well....But that doesn't matter because he doesn't give a shite about anyone bar himself...It's always been me. me, me. Look at me!!!! Thankfully we won't have to for much longer.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

"Having a pop" overstates it. If the club expect him to get to the premier league, he has to have a budget to compete, there's only so far you can go getting cheaper players, and poorer players who you improve a bit. If the club have high expectations for him to achieve (that is,premier league football, two years after league one football), they can't look solely at themselves, they have to look at the division they're in, I.e. so what if it's the biggest budget in brighton's history, it needs to be big enough to match the other teams pushing for promotion (until we have an academy regularly producing quality players)

Come on Acker, you are one of the more sensible ones. There are few (if any) employers who would accept an employee washing their dirty linen in public. As much as he is/has been a great manager his conduct post Palace was unacceptable and worthy of disciplinary action.

 

[Chicken Runner61]

Not sure its a case of messing the club up its about looking after No 1. There is a lot of money on the line, he will be paying lawyers to look after his best interests. He may well want to stay (not going to happen is it) but has been advised to do things properly and cover his own back.

No-one on here (unless you happen to work in certain legal firms) knows why he didn't attend.

I agree but by drawing it out he probably will be released fro free - Didn't the same sort of thing happen to Norwich with Villa

 

[glasfryn]

we should have people at the club who can deal with people - not go running to lawyers.....this should have been sorted weeks ago.

i feel civil war between the fans soon, anger at the club unless we know what went on, and a poor season.

cheers poyet you turd....and maybe barber (who comes across well in all this, but behind the scenes...who knows).

there is an idea sack the pair of them and then we the fans and supporters can get on with the season ahead

 

[Chicken Runner61]

we should have people at the club who can deal with people - not go running to lawyers.....this should have been sorted weeks ago.

i feel civil war between the fans soon, anger at the club unless we know what went on, and a poor season.

cheers poyet you turd....and maybe barber (who comes across well in all this, but behind the scenes...who knows).

Tony Soprano is dead mate

 

[Marxo]

Mummy, please make it stop!

 

[The Large One]

Would people read the statement?

It says he elected not to attend for disputed legal reasons. This means he gave notice he wasn't going to attend. Just like he gave notice that last week's meeting wasn't convenient it would seem.

He is perfectly within his rights to choose not to attend for either reason. If he has given legal argument he can ask for that to be reflected. It could be late notice of information, not being provided with other information, not feeling that all avenues have been explored (including things that point to him as well as away from him), perhaps issues he has raised he doesn't feel have been given enough weight (any sleights or behaviour by others) and so on.

The club are within their rights to say they continue in his absence on Friday. Doesnt mean they are right on doing so - that would only be judged by a tribunal or court if it came to that. Just because you have a process mapped out, it doesn't mean that the process is foolproof. Given that he has been advised by the lma, I am sure they are aware of how this could and should be done.

But I wouldn't hang him based on this action or this statement. Anybody that is, likely has never been a party of an employment dispute in the past. Either representing the employee or company.

As said before, the club will manage what they say publicly and please don't assume it is both sides of the story. What is interesting is that most compromise agreements contain clauses preventing badmouthing by either side. Any club employee caught briefing against him after the event (or proven to have done so before the event) will be on thin ice in the same way he will be if he slags off the club or board.

Exactly.

So we're back to the point I was making earlier. If anyone knew what the legal dispute was, it might clarify things.

 

[beardy gull]

Yep, saying it when he did, when he has just been out thought by a manager with less resources than he had it was completely inappropriate. And again, I say this as someone who has loved being on the Gus bus but I've rung the bell and want to get off.

Whislt I agree with you about the timing and I'm firmly in the time to get off the bus camp I don't agree that he necessarily had less resources. A number of national newspaper stated we had the 4th lowest budget in the division. Were Palace one of the 3 with lower budgets? No one knows. We certainly didn't have a loan player deemed to be worth £10m+.

 

[Wilko 1901]

And this Thursday!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02yy59k

Make it stop