Fat Buddha CBEYou keep going.Fat Buddha CBEOh yeh lovely taking the piss out of someone with cancerEverything I've read suggests it was a Garry Cook decision. He was being touted round with Rooney's' agent as a 'dream team' boardroom by Chris Kirchner when he tried to buy Derby and Preston, so the personal link to Rooney, and the fact that it was a coronation rather than a proper process stunk at the time, and has proved to stink even worse 3 months later.
Who else at the club wanted Eustace out?
Point us in the direction of everything you have read. Don’t include internet half wiits. Authoritative sources please. As for Onahuas mom. So what. Have you never took the piss out of someone that’s getting on your nerves?
Sharrap
Nice stuff.
Isn’t stopping you is it. Another of our supporters attacking our own club.
newblueThe club has nothing to do with it, we are talking about common decency.Isn’t stopping you is it. Another of our supporters attacking our own club.
It comes to something when “mocking someone with cancer is bad” is a controversial opinion, but it’s the usual suspects so don’t worry about it 👍
The ‘usual suspects’ 😁.
Tell us why you were linking a child on the internet. Some high horse you have to saddle your moral values to.
BoybluenewblueThe club has nothing to do with it, we are talking about common decency.Isn’t stopping you is it. Another of our supporters attacking our own club.
You want him sacked?
Iain_GavinExactly mate.It comes to something when “mocking someone with cancer is bad” is a controversial opinion, but it’s the usual suspects so don’t worry about it 👍
Do you think we should sack him? You and Bob keep bringing it up, so it seems you feel very strongly that he’s not the sort of person who should be CEO at our club.
This is a report on what happened at the time after he had resigned. You and Bob going to say he should resign from us?
[amp.theguardian.com]
I think I must be missing something here? You say this is a report describing what happened after he resigned, implying, unless I’m misunderstanding you, that City imploded as a result.
It isn’t - it describes NOTHING after he resigned, and they clearly haven’t (imploded).
For clarity I think he is probably as good a CEO as we could get our hands on, and, to answer your question, I would therefore prefer that he remains.
I also think that some events in the past, and his decision-making and communications around our change of manager have cast some doubts over his overall character/competency.
I think, on the whole, we count him as a “net asset”, move on, and hope that mistakes have been learned from
I think that’s the point some of the other posters are making.
I’m not sure I understand yours?
newblueBased on what he did, he should not be a CEO.Do you think we should sack him? You and Bob keep bringing it up, so it seems you feel very strongly that he’s not the sort of person who should be CEO at our club.
This is a report on what happened at the time after he had resigned. You and Bob going to say he should resign from us?
[amp.theguardian.com]
I think I must be missing something here? You say this is a report describing what happened after he resigned, implying, unless I’m misunderstanding you, that City imploded as a result.
It isn’t - it describes NOTHING after he resigned, and they clearly haven’t (imploded).
For clarity I think he is probably as good a CEO as we could get our hands on, and, to answer your question, I would therefore prefer that he remains.
I also think that some events in the past, and his decision-making and communications around our change of manager have cast some doubts over his overall character/competency.
I think, on the whole, we count him as a “net asset”, move on, and hope that mistakes have been learned from
I think that’s the point some of the other posters are making.
I’m not sure I understand yours?
Maybe he meant that Cook has already resigned over that. Do they think he should resign again over it?
Nice rant btw 👍
I think you haven’t read my post. I said it was a report from the time after he had announced his resignation from Man City. It details what happened and what the comments of the club were at the time. I don’t understand what you don’t understand, to be frank. So we know what he did then. I think as it happens, it’s rather more nuanced than ‘taking the piss out out of a person with cancer’. He comes out of it badly but to my mind more to do with the cover up and misleading statement afterwards. Which he acknowledges in his resignation.
My response is to people that have called him a crook in the past and who keep raising this matter in their posts. I ask if they think his past behaviour disqualifies him from this position, as they keep raising it, presumably as ‘a matter of concern’. I don’t see the point in keep raising it unless it is to
undermine. Again I don’t understand what you find difficult to understand about the point that I am making.
What do you think is the point that they are trying to make by raising these matters repeatedly? That’s what I find confusing. If they don’t support the senior management of the club on grounds of fitness for the position say so, instead of (to my mind) feigning and expressing outrage at behaviour we know about. Though of course if you support the club (as you indeed say you do) you are dubbed as a bunch of baying seals with North Korean type devotion. This from a bloke who stirs the crap by linking a child (possibly) on the internet, but doesn’t have the balls to acknowledge that is what he is actually doing.
It’s feckin tedious.
BoybluenewblueBased on what he did, he should not be a CEO.Do you think we should sack him? You and Bob keep bringing it up, so it seems you feel very strongly that he’s not the sort of person who should be CEO at our club.
This is a report on what happened at the time after he had resigned. You and Bob going to say he should resign from us?
[amp.theguardian.com]
You calling on him to resign then?
QBBC2I think I must be missing something here? You say this is a report describing what happened after he resigned, implying, unless I’m misunderstanding you, that City imploded as a result.
It isn’t - it describes NOTHING after he resigned, and they clearly haven’t (imploded).
For clarity I think he is probably as good a CEO as we could get our hands on, and, to answer your question, I would therefore prefer that he remains.
I also think that some events in the past, and his decision-making and communications around our change of manager have cast some doubts over his overall character/competency.
I think, on the whole, we count him as a “net asset”, move on, and hope that mistakes have been learned from
I think that’s the point some of the other posters are making.
I’m not sure I understand yours?
Maybe he meant that Cook has already resigned over that. Do they think he should resign again over it?
Nice rant btw 👍
He’s lost his job once over it, I don’t think one mistake should hang over someone for the rest of their career. I do think, unlike some on this thread, that mocking someone dying of cancer is effing grim, and that, alongside his willingness to work for Saudi and Abu Dhabi sportswashing programmes doesn’t suggest he’s someone with strong personal morals
But the game is full of people with sketchy morals - some of which we’ve cheered from the touchline. The Rooney debacle aside, he’s doing a stellar job as CEO, and long may that continue
He’s a gaffer. Gaffer gaffer see what I did there? Oh well.