Jump to content

Steve Bruce (now unemployed)


Recommended Posts

If true this cements for me why he is worse than Pardew.
 

We knew what Pardew was from day one, he owned it and didn’t surprise us at any point. He made me want my team to lose but he at least got the message and fucked off when he had the chance
 

Bruce on the other hand is only here because ‘he is one of us’. He knew what he was walking into, knew what the fans felt about the owner and knew that better people had tried and failed to change the situation.

 

He isn’t a fan, he never was a fan and is now holding the club he ‘loved since he was a boy’ to ransom. I’m sick of hearing about his dad and I’m sick of him having a go at the fan base. A true fan would never have come near this shit show, he’s now proved he isn’t a fan by not leaving when he has the chance.

 

He shouldn’t be anywhere near Sunday and he shouldn’t even be allowed to talk about ‘his’ club once he finally leaves.

 

_Iij5So_SkYyl2fkfk7g0XpxV7RoCA_nKRLlwPqg

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mofo said:

 

Aye, plus they are businessmen/women we may have a lot of cash but they will not want to waste a single penny! They will strategically calculate all costs and to be honest as a club that’s exactly what we need.

 

Yes, absolutely. I imagine we were all set to sack Bruce and then word of the large payoff got back to PIF and they were like 'Hell No!'.

 

I imagine they have been looking into if there are any ways to bring that number down, unless it is absolutely necessary as there is no way out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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
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!!! :lol: 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
1 minute ago, Conjo said:

 

Jesus christ!!! :lol: 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
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
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
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
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
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
  • HUGZ changed the title to Steve Bruce - Peddled
  • Rich changed the title to Steve Bruce (now unemployed)
  • HUGZ locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...