Exiled in Texas

Let's be honest....there is a huge difference between saying "we don't want you....go" and "this is huge offer, one that we think is too good to turn down, and so we are going to accept it" This was a situation where plans changed. I don't think NUFC wanted to sell Andy, and I think that he was happy to stay. But that was when the bids were around 15-20-25M. Once they hit 30 and 35 the situation changed for NUFC, and once the wages went to 80K then I think it changed for Andy too. This turned into a situation that was too good for both Andy and the club (looking longer term than we are - and future investment opportunities)

Finally, someone gets the jape

Bluf - understand where you're coming from. The Massey comments were unprofessional, but the Jackson comments were an HR nightmare (sexual bullying it was reported as). I think we're just opposite sides of the line of what's acceptable. Perhaps, it's the fact that I've been working in Corporate America for the last 20 years, that I just can't see how any of this can be defendable, especially when it's been released into the public domain, and the company is now being judged publically. Compare this issue (exact details released into public domain through news outlets), with the Carrol/Taylor fight (details kept in house with only vague hearsay in the press). The companies were able to deal with the issues differently because they did not have the public media scrutiny. Edit - And I'm not disputing that there might be a hidden agenda from Sky - but ffs if Gray didn't provide the rope, knot it and put his head in to loop for Sky.

Where did I defend his comments exactly? Probably in the bits of your post (copied just above) where you reckon that the comments made at work, on company time, while at work are private an no concern of the employer. The bit where you said that "nothing that was said was that f***ing bad". Sounds like you're supporting comments like they said. Also where you reckon that Sky are the scum not Gray/Keys, and that the comments are acceptable because other people might have similar thoughts. Sorry, I just don't think that makes it right or acceptable. So yeah, it still looks like you defend his comments as acceptable behaviour.

JAjajajajajajajajajaja

Warren Barton (current Fox Soccer talking head in US)

Agree....the timing is.....interesting. It might be a case of the studio crew knowing but not the management, and then management asking the producers about this type of behaviour. I doubt it was already cut and edited into evidence and placed in a file marked "Gray - Possible Termination Evidence. But who knows. From a show perspective, I couldn't care less if he is there or not as I don't get his show in the US. From a referee perspective, his comments on Massey were very bad form. Especially as to reach that level (and it would be an awful lot of games completed to reach that high), she will have proved that she is 10X the referee that he is - I reckon he would be crucified if he tried to referee a U18 Boys club game or even a Sunday League game. From a human perspective - he just showed his true colors colours, and showed that he is a neanderthal. On the whole - glad he is gone - especially as his appology consisted of "I never meant those comments to be broadcast", with the sub-text that it's OK to say that if it's not broadcast. What a dinosaur!!

Supply and demand. LFC were desperate, and Ajax knew it.

Bluf - I don't understand how you can defend someone for making a lewd suggestion to a colleague to "Tuck the mic in" and holding his belt buckle to point to his male area. At work, to a colleague, in front of other colleagues. And you think that's acceptable behaviour? Guaranteed, that in the corporate world that I work in, he would be in front of HR within the hour of having that reported. And if a video clip of that was shown in the local news media they would be out of the door within the day. For Sky to retain him following that, would condone such behaviour at a corporate level and open them up to further harassment lawsuits. I agree that their may be additional hidden motivations (phone tapping law suit, potential salary dump, corporate image etc) but I don't see how Gray can get anything out of his dismissal over the Charlotte Jackson comment, unless he can prove that comments like that were an accepted and common place activity within the working environment.

They said it at work....while they were getting paid to represent the company, and it was captured on company equipment. This wasn't said in a bar while out with friends. This was not a private coversation. They are media broadcasters, who said in appropriate things while at work. I think that you guys are totally dinosaur to think that they have any chance of winning. Unless Sky want to pay him off to hush him up, they should have an easy case. Oh, and I don't think that he was fired for the Sian Massy comment, but for the Charlott Jackson comment.

LOL, I'll say this.......oh, forget it!!!

I'll say it again.... Gray was fired for the "tuck the Mic in here" comment. Simple case of Sexual Harassment of a fellow employee. That put Sky in a very tight situation. Keys resigned. Who knows why. Did he jump/was he pushed? Mutual agreement not to release any other clips, thereby preserving his "broadcaster reputation" and an opportunity to get back in front of the camera? Probably. Hardly sounds like a witch hunt (or soft s**** world) to me.

Get Warren Barton out of the Fox Soccer studio and onto a plane from LAX back to London. I really like his punditry on Fox Soccer's Soccer Sunday. He did allow himself a small smirk when covering the 5-1 Demolition Derby, but other than that he is really unbiased and a very well spoken studio-head. He knows the game, can break down a game/a play/a move and is not chummy with any of the current pros that prevents him from being open and up front about the games.

I think Gray was fired for the "tuck the Mic in here" comment. Simple case of Sexual Harassment of a fellow employee. That put Sky in a very tight situation. Keys resigned. Who knows why. Did he jump/was he pushed? Mutual agreement not to release any other clips, thereby preserving his "broadcaster reputation" and an opportunity to get back in front of the camera? Probably. Hardly sounds like a witch hunt to me.

I'd love to see what his grounds for unfair dismissal are......unprofessional "sexist" comments about a certified professional while at work? No, not me. Sexual harassment of a colleague? Just a joke, I wouldn't really have let her tuck in the mic!! The only thing Gray could argue is that Sky condoned and encouraged the atmosphere at work that allowed for these comments to flourish unchecked. Good luck proving that. He's just looking to see if he can get a bit of hush money, or at least put up a token fight about getting sacked to help him get a new gig in a few years time once this has been forgotten about.

Sacked for the Charlotte Jackson comment that he made in December that "just came to light" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/8281445/Andy-Gray-sacked-by-Sky-Sports-following-unacceptable-behaviour-towards-Charlotte-Jackson.html

Gray forgot that he was at work and not out on a training field with the players. When at work he has an obligation to his employeers to behave in a professional manner that reflects the values of the employer. Although he works worked in football, he is a broadcaster not a football player and his employer has different standards for that position than a football club has with its players.

The "Offside" comments regarding Massey is inappropriate, it's neanderthal in this day and age. The Charlotte Jackson comment about the mic is Sexual Harassment. No doubt about it. Jackson could have opened a very big law (and expensive) suit against Sky regarding harasment. Easy decision in the end - especially when it involves one of your own employees being harassed.

He was asking whether Gray would like to have sex with her. The first part is unprofessional, and border-line sexual harassment. The second part is clearly sexual harassment.

It will come down to a business decision for Sky. Which is better for them, for their rating, for their share price, for their stock holders.

It's all about whether SKY want to be associated with people who hold unpopular views like that.....or rather, whether SKY want to be "seen" to be associated with these people. When push comes to shove, sky will do what suits them best and suits their business. Whether that's standing by Keys and Gray while the appologise and everything dies down, or whether they take the moral high road and dump them at the side of the road.

Fair play to SKY. They have taken a stand that the behaviour of two employees, who represent the company, we behaving in a manner that they feel reflects poorly on the company. Take football out of the picture and you have two spokespeople for a company making derogatory comments about another companies employee (contractor) and being recorded doing so. You don't think another company wouldn't consider disciplinary action given the press coverage? Sometimes I think these pundits forget that they are at work and have obligations to their employeers.

Which is why all our referees are as fast as Usain Bolt! Referees rarely sprint flat out, most of the time they just jog and use a fast transition into the next area of play http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4215/carrollhihi.jpg (Appologies for the barstool in the photo)

Easy fix for that....make all the pundits certify as a referee and complete a dozen games or so as referee/assistant referee in a U16+ Boys league. They'd soon know the LOTG and also have a whole new perspective on the role of the referee.

Surely if a deal for player can be put together in 48 hours, then something similar could happen to sell a football club. How hard can it be to sell a player or a club? [/satire]