Raconteur Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 37 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said: If we win on Sunday, I'm not opposed to him sticking around for a few games if we're in decent form. Picking up wins and staying up in objective number one. The new owners need to get a decent structure in place with the right man. That might take time. Lose on Sunday and his position is untenable though. You could even argue that if we fail to win. I don't want us to panic and appoint some chump. Its easy to sit there and say 'anyone is better than Bruce' but we're in trouble here and we've got a poor squad. We might still appoint someone who is default better than Bruce but still not good enough to get us going. Lampard might be in that category. This is about where I am, pretty zen about Sunday. If we win, great. I can definitely put up with his mates saying “Give Bruce half a billion” - because the three points are valuable and he becomes sackable again the next time we drop points. If we lose, great. Boo Bruce until your throat bleeds and tell Yasir and Amanda exactly what you think. Brucie cries in the press conference and gets pedalled Monday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 53 minutes ago, pinkeye said: May cost less to carry on paying his salary for life and peddling him out of the club, I mean seriously .... the state of him.... he is hardly going to live to a very old age! https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peddle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 It depends why they're keeping him really. If they're doing it to get a structure in place, great and understandable. If they're doing it to save a couple of million, not for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 I doubt its the amount he might be owed. Probably trying to find other ways to not pay him off i.e. zero performance/gross negligence or other reasons instead, and there must be many of them. How about his whole managerial record for starters. Just get rid of the idiot FFS, whatever the cost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happinesstan Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 3 hours ago, STM said: I want it clear how we feel about Bruce on the terraces but I don't want it to dampen the carnival. Postpone the carnival Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 I think it’s quite clear at this point they don’t see value in replacing him without a replacement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 3 minutes ago, r0cafella said: I think it’s quite clear at this point they don’t see value in replacing him without a replacement. I thought it was until the stuff about his rolling contract and compensation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 26 minutes ago, r0cafella said: I’m assuming because it’s a rolling 3 year contract the minimum term is always 3 years hence the large payout. Generally rolling contracts would be 1 months notice. Jesus christ!!! It can't be that straight forward? Even by Ashley/Charnley standards that is poor. I refuse to believe that it is intentional. The intent from Newcastle side has to have been that a new 3 year term is to be automatically renewed after a 3 year period has been completed, but rather that Charnley have put forward or accepted bad wording to the contract that is not clear and open for opportunistic interpretation which is now the dispute....surely? Purely speculation from my side, but is it fair to assume that Newcastle ownership feels we have a case for terminating the contract and paying out compensation for remainder of this season, while Bruce feels he has a case for demanding that they compensate for a full term, and that we have offered him a compromise to get it settled sooner rather than later? This certainly alters my view and feeling towards the new owners as to why he isn't gone yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Sounds like it was just Ashley and Bruce setting a trap for the new owners, so Bruce would take the job in the knowledge he would get a massive pay off after the takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaKa Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 1 minute ago, Conjo said: Jesus christ!!! It can't be that straight forward? Even by Ashley/Charnley standards that is poor. I refuse to believe that it is intentional. The intent from Newcastle side has to have been that a new 3 year term is to be automatically renewed after a 3 year period has been completed, but rather that Charnley have put forward or accepted bad wording to the contract that is not clear and open for opportunistic interpretation which is now the dispute....surely? Purely speculation from my side, but is it fair to assume that Newcastle ownership feels we have a case for terminating the contract and paying out compensation for remainder of this season, while Bruce feels he has a case for demanding that they compensate for a full term, and that we have offered him a compromise to get it settled sooner rather than later? This certainly alters my view and feeling towards the new owners as to why he isn't gone yet. I think it is that straight forward. You have to remember that this is Ashley we are talking about, think he wanted to give the guy the typical 6 year or 8 year contracts he usually does, but knew the fans would have been enraged right from the outset. And so he was sneaky about it. Once he has someone that he knows is a complete patsy he's happy to keep them around forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 26 minutes ago, RUHRLYASLEEVESUP said: Unai Emery May be making an appearance at today’s press conference ? no chance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bintang Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 38 minutes ago, KaKa said: I actually respect them for not just handing it over to the fat mess. They're looking at the position the club is in at the bottom of the table and how much the fans and players dislike him and are thinking 'why should we just give this idiot £8 million?!'. It's absolutely disgusting really. Spot on. Handing over the cash instantly also sends the wrong message to other clubs who will no doubt try to have our pants down over transfer fees in the future, given that we are loaded now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hhtoon Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Sounds like it was just Ashley and Bruce setting a trap for the new owners, so Bruce would take the job in the knowledge he would get a massive pay off after the takeover. Nah, anyone coming in would have clocked it and negotiated against the purchase price. Don't believe the 70% Vs 100% personally, also think the 8m is suspect - they'll be some clauses in there. The 3 years will have been to protect Ashley form losing his human shield as much as anything. It's been a week and he's insignificant really. Anyone who's going to let him ruin our 1st game under new owners need to calm down. It's how we get a bad rep. Imo of course etc etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Just now, Hhtoon said: Nah, anyone coming in would have clocked it and negotiated against the purchase price. Don't believe the 70% Vs 100% personally, also think the 8m is suspect - they'll be some clauses in there. The 3 years will have been to protect Ashley form losing his human shield as much as anything. It's been a week and he's insignificant really. Anyone who's going to let him ruin our 1st game under new owners need to calm down. It's how we get a bad rep. Imo of course etc etc You might be right, I don't see why that amount would really bother them. Except as a point of principle and/or the amount means they have to run it past PIF more fully or something. Who knows, we'll see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Sounds like it was just Ashley and Bruce setting a trap for the new owners, so Bruce would take the job in the knowledge he would get a massive pay off after the takeover. But at the time there was no guarantee the takeover would go through. I also don't get what incentive there would be for Ashley in this? He's sacked managers in the past so would have to think about a scenario where the takeover didn't go through, so surely he would want to limit compensation as much as possible...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejeck Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 11 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Sounds like it was just Ashley and Bruce setting a trap for the new owners, so Bruce would take the job in the knowledge he would get a massive pay off after the takeover. Did the same with Charnley, he was bumped from £200k to £600k per year, presumably to increase whatever payoff he might get. Ashley is a lot of things, but he clearly looks after those who sacrifice themselves to cover his arse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likelylad Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Would be interested to see the conversations between the new lot and Penfold regarding his contract etc. The consortium will be looking at all things commercially and thinking wtf is this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackyboy Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Maybe they are exploring the possibility of sacking him with minimal compensation because he's a wanker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 Least with Charnley you can just take away his already non existant power before you decide to sack him and make him do some other work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishops Finger Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 1 hour ago, xLiaaamx said: Gardening leave doesn't work. His contract is indefinite for life. It's a big garden Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 (edited) 51 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Sounds like it was just Ashley and Bruce setting a trap for the new owners, so Bruce would take the job in the knowledge he would get a massive pay off after the takeover. When Bruce was appointed it don't think there was the likely prospect a takeover on the horizon. I think it's probably more of a case of desperation, him being the only manager they'd found willing to take the job on the basis of being a yes man with no say in transfers. Edited October 15, 2021 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mouldy_uk Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 15 minutes ago, xLiaaamx said: Least with Charnley you can just take away his already non existant power before you decide to sack him and make him do some other work. ‘Lee we have a task for you….’ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 (edited) Can someone please explain to me how this three year rolling nonsense works? Surely it can't be a case of a deadline has passed for stopping the rollover and he's now under contract forever unless paid off? When I first read it I assumed it meant that if the rollover is triggered, he'd get another three years by default. Also, does this mean Ashley's triggered something as a final fuck you? Because why would the rollover be in place already when he's still got most of the final season to go on the initial agreed three years? What am I missing? Edited October 15, 2021 by wormy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 6 minutes ago, wormy said: Can someone please explain to me how this three year rolling nonsense works? Surely it can't be a case of a deadline has passed for stopping the rollover and he's now under contract forever unless paid off? When I first read it I assumed it meant that if the rollover is triggered, he'd get another three years by default. Also, does this mean Ashley's triggered something as a final fuck you? Because why would the rollover be in place already when he's still got most of the final season to go on the initial agreed three years? What am I missing? his contract stipulates that unless either party serve notice by XXX then his contract will be extended by 12 months Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nortoon Posted October 15, 2021 Share Posted October 15, 2021 But surely we are not paying him 8m a year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts