to all the gus poyet lovers on here

[One Teddy Maybank]

I would think that the public statement on tanno alone could be an interesting legal matter. An employment relationship is based on mutual trust.

Being publicly suspended and having employees of the employer undertaking private briefings could be seen to have broken that trust and made it impossible to continue working there.

But other than 'no comment', the Club would find themselves in an impossible position on that basis when questioned on Poyet's post game comments. Effectively as soon as Gus commented post-Palace he had started the ball rolling and betrayed the Trust you refer to. I would feel that within the contract of any BHA employee, there would be a statement regarding acting in the best interests of the club at all times (ambassadorial or alike).

But if there is an issue the LMA would have commented, its not like they've been quiet in the past.

Tanno as you say is interesting, but the club may have saved themselves by saying there is no case to answer post investigation. I don't know.

Charlie as I say, I really don't know enough.

 

[Hungry Joe]

But other than 'no comment', the Club would find themselves in an impossible position on that basis when questioned on Poyet's post game comments. Effectively as soon as Gus commented post-Palace he had started the ball rolling and betrayed the Trust you refer to. I would feel that within the contract of any BHA employee, there would be a statement regarding acting in the best interests of the club at all times (ambassadorial or alike).

This is an interesting and important point I think. In virtually all contracts there is an open reference to 'behaviour likely to bring your employer into disrepute'. This is often used in cases whereby employees publically discuss or say things that should be, at the very least, discussed and cleared by the employer first. It's similar to me going to down the pub after a bad day and mouthing off to anyone who'll listen how my employer lacks any ambition in the marketplace because they won't commit to funding my ideas for progress. I'd be suspended and then out of a job pretty quickly in those circumstances. Which is why I was surprised when the club stated that the action didn't refer to his post Palace comments.

 

[ROSM]

Probably because his post match comments were not, if you view them in a legal rather than as a passionate fan way, that bad. Its the same as you saying, I don't know if my current employer can give me the opportunity to develop myself to my full potential.

And mutual trust us on both sides. None of us know the detail of any behaviour or perceived slights that led Gus to feel the way he did and therefore behave the way he did. I have successfully defended colleagues whose behaviour has been questioned by reflecting back on the culture and actions of others that led them to behave in such a way.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Fair points ROSM. Hard to look dispassionately at this as a fan.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Probably because his post match comments were not, if you view them in a legal rather than as a passionate fan way, that bad.

They were not the best, but with Poyet (I am struggling to write Gus these days) it is part and parcel of his personality. I would have preferred him to say "Well done Palace, best team won on the night, good luck next season and we will come back after the summer stronger and better prepared to try to join you" but I was not overly upset myself with what he said. It was not a surprise to me that they were not the cause of the suspension.

 

[GreersElbow]

Hijack the thread with discussion about pie.

 

[B.W.]

So it appears Poyet is going to be a pundit on the Confederations Cup on Sunday. Don't know if that means he will be in Brazil?

In the studio, i.e. No

 

[B.W.]

They were not the best, but with Poyet (I am struggling to write Gus these days) it is part and parcel of his personality. I would have preferred him to say "Well done Palace, best team won on the night, good luck next season and we will come back after the summer stronger and better prepared to try to join you" but I was not overly upset myself with what he said. It was not a surprise to me that they were not the cause of the suspension.

Correction: his public statements contributed to Gus' downfall, just will never be admitted publicly by club.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Probably because his post match comments were not, if you view them in a legal rather than as a passionate fan way, that bad. Its the same as you saying, I don't know if my current employer can give me the opportunity to develop myself to my full potential.

And mutual trust us on both sides. None of us know the detail of any behaviour or perceived slights that led Gus to feel the way he did and therefore behave the way he did. I have successfully defended colleagues whose behaviour has been questioned by reflecting back on the culture and actions of others that led them to behave in such a way.

All of which is fair comment until we consider his comments regarding budget during the season, the 'I can always play golf' comment, the ill-judged Suarez comments etc....

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

They were not the best, but with Poyet (I am struggling to write Gus these days) it is part and parcel of his personality. I would have preferred him to say "Well done Palace, best team won on the night, good luck next season and we will come back after the summer stronger and better prepared to try to join you" but I was not overly upset myself with what he said. It was not a surprise to me that they were not the cause of the suspension.

I was furious with what he said, you are clearly calmer than me. The words you've used above are perfect and exactly how he should have reacted.