Jump to content

btron3000

Donator
  • Content Count

    6,089
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

About btron3000

  • Rank
    World Cup Winner

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Supported Teams

  • AL Team
    Wanderers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,708 profile views
  1. It’s like having one of those crazy owners of, like, the Romanian second division or something, that just sacks coaches for no reason (or the instability of Turkey, hey Popa!). Except that’s understandable because mad owners can do what they like. In this situation people are voted for and then are meant to appoint who they think is best on behalf of the football community.
  2. Surely the end game should have been to WIN THE ******* WORLD CUP!! Unless he did something horrendous, why would you jeopardise that?
  3. Soooo... anyyyyway... who wants to coach the team? I bet they have heaps of people rushing to be a part of this...
  4. It's unbelievable that they need another review to determine what happened AFTER the sacking has taken place! Surely if you're going to sack someone you'd gather all the info first?
  5. I like this one, plenty of questions to be answered! https://www.ftbl.com.au/news/the-questions-the-ffa-board-must-face-today-519098
  6. Scarev and Pryds, thanks for the insights! Couple of things: It's irrelevant what a clause in a contract says if the clause is illegal. For example, I can't give you a contract saying that you have to work 70 hours a week. Even if you agree to it and want the money, it's an illegal clause. Many employment contracts have a clause that says something like "the company may terminate you for any reason by giving 3 months notice..." To you and me that means that they can sack someone with no cause - "any reason". But to a lawyer, that means that they have to give you 3 months notice, and the "any reason" part means "regardless of the reason". It's weird lawyer talk, but that's what it means. The reason still has to be justified and legal. I would hazard a guess that is why the narrative has changed. One of the Board members came out and said "many coaches have clauses that allow termination for on-field performance" or something like that. They are trying to wedge the "any reason" clause into a "performance clause". If he had a proper performance clause, it would say "team must be number x in the world by x date" or something. Again, it's what they don't say. If they had a clause like that and he didn't hit it, they'd say so. But c'mon, is anyone in world football going to suggest the Matildas haven't hit their targets?? While I like that Mersiades is after them, she's not above being a rat. I read her book about the World Cup. Not once did she take any responsibiity for what happened. She had numerous chances to speak up and she barely did a thing. Then she took a payout. Then in her book she kept suggesting that the consultants that Lowy used were rats themselves but never actually came out and said it directly. It was so passive agressive. I could see why people working with her wouldn't like her. We need someone calling out the sham artists in FFA and FIFA, but she ain't above a little nasty game herself. Like implying certain people were briefed without actually saying who they were. He's hardly innocent. There are plenty of things that he could have done. He could have stood firm against any Board member that wanted the sacking. He could have lobbied other Board members. He could have explained that they'd have a media shitfight on their hands. And if he couldn't convince them, he could have refused to be the one that fronted the media and left it up to the person who wanted the sacking. He could have refused to pull the trigger himself. He even could have resigned. But once again he shows what a Yes Man he is. Spineless and weak. It's all self-interest for him, he doesn't care about what is right, or for the game. Before saying Gallop is not to blame, everyone on this board should ask themselves - regardless of who it was, if you didn't believe that someone should be sacked, would you do it? Now, add another part - would you front the media and deliver weasly words about why it happened? Now, add a further part - what if this was a coach who had given the team a genuine shot at winning the World Cup?? Gallop either believed Stajcic should be sacked, or he didn't have the balls to say NO to someone. He's no victim here.
  7. 100%. And he was only appointed CEO of the NRL because he was a Newscorp stooge and the ARL and Superleague were compromising. The ARL thought they were getting their game back, but they had to accept Gallop as CEO in the deal. The banned fans saga should have been the last straw. I mean, it took Bozza to tell him that he should talk to the fans! hahahaha "Mate, you better go talk to your main stakeholders, without them you haven't got a game". This is what you get when you employ puppets. Uncy Fwank didn't like it when big bad John O'Neill didn't agree with him, so first he got Ben Buckley, and now Gallop. Both absolute flatliners.
  8. For sure. For one, Gallop never acts quickly on anything unless he has been told to e.g. the sacking of Osiek. It's just not his style to go rushing into things. Second, no Board is "forced" to do anything. They got the results in December, and he was sacked a month later. That is plenty of time to get an understanding as to what happened, who knew, etc. etc., which is what they say the review is for. They are just covering their arses because it's blown up. If Gallop withheld info from them until January, they should have taken their time and asked the right questions then.
  9. Though this part: "It is understood the board and its new chairman, Chris Nikou, remained sure their decision to terminate the contract of Stajcic was the correct one for the Matildas but were dismayed they were forced to act in such a manner and so abruptly. Sources suggest the board believes many of the issues around the team's culture should have been flagged much earlier and rectified well before ending in the catastrophic events that tarnished the FFA's brand and damaged the image of Stajcic. suggests the Board - who it seems ultimately made the call - are innocent of any wrongdoing. LOL
  10. https://www.smh.com.au/sport/soccer/this-has-trashed-our-brand-gallop-faces-review-over-stajcic-axing-20190212-p50xam.html
  11. Yeah I generally find the thing to look for in these situations is more what they don't say. Stajcic never really expanded on what he thought was wrong with the methodology or process of the first survey, but that could have been as much down to the fact that no journalist asked him to expand on it. The FFA's comment about Stajcic admitting the team was dysfunctional "in the presence of the CEO and an FFA lawyer" speaks volumes. If they could have said "Alen Stajcic was given an opportuity to respond to the reason for his sacking" they would have. Even if they could have said that they met formally to go through the survey feedback, you'd think they would do that. But they didn't say that. It's got the smell of a massive stitch-up. The thing that gets me most now that I think about it, is that ONCE AGAIN the only time Gallop shows any guts whatsoever is when he's attacking someone within the football community. Where was his backbone when the fans had their details hung out to dry by the Tele? Where is his backbone when some AFL stooge puts the boot into football? Where is he when football is being hounded as being a hooligan's game when stats show more violence at other sports? Let's hope they finally punt this imposter.
  12. Yeah how can you get your own fan club if you’re not racing off to celebrate for 5 minutes with the RBB even though you’ve been called offside?
  13. They paid him out? Bizarre. If the FFA had some sort of proof, they should have either sacked him properly or, if it wasn’t clear it was a sackable issue but they wanted to pay him out to be rid of him, had him sign a confidentiality agreement. If he wasn’t going to sign one, and you don’t have certain proof he deserved to be sacked, you’re destined for a court (and PR) battle. This “he admitted it was disfuctional” is entirely dependent on context. If it was a normal conversation and he didn’t know sacking was on the cards, that doesn’t count as giving him an opportunity to respond to the reasons he’s being sacked. What a mess.
  14. Wow. About 1000 times better than anything Gallop has ever written or said. I know that doesn’t clear his name, and he was a bit unclear about what happened between the PFA report and Jan 18, but if the FFA haven’t given him a chance to defend himself they’re ****ed. If true, this has unfair dismissal written all over it, whether the FFA have a good reason to sack him or not. You can’t just march someone out without explaining your decision or allowing them a chance to respond.
  15. btron3000

    A-league 18/19 Round 18

    So... does anyone watch this so-called “A-League” anymore?
×