The buck stops here!

Post a reply

Smilies
:goodpost: :lol: :rofl: :goal: :scarf: :keepie: :clap: :bow: :engflag: :-P :) :-D :nod: ;-) :-/ :( :'( :Z :@ :| :oops: :yellow: :red: :O :whistle: (*) (8) (D)

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The buck stops here!

Re: The buck stops here!

by Gulliball » 07 Jun 2011, 10:49

I know it wouldn't be enforceable, but that's why it would be a gentlemans agreement rather than a clause, like when a players moves clubs and doesn't play against the team that just sold him. Man Utd did something like that the other year with a goalkeeper I seem to remember. I was just speculating anyway, I have no idea what we can (or did) do.

Re: The buck stops here!

by divingbboy » 07 Jun 2011, 10:45

Gulliball wrote:It would be tricky to put into a contract, but we could have tried to arrange a gentlemans agreement with BRFC and Buckle, for example, in return for letting him go (and possibly reduced compensation), he agreed not to sign Stanley, Branston and Oastler, and not pursue any contracted TUFC players. Maybe I'm into the realms of fantasy, but I imagine Buckle would still have been running out the door into his bigger salary and bigger budget even without being able to bring a few players with him. His budget is still big enough to attract Gill, Cureton and many other players who are well beyond the reach of TUFC. I wonder if we gave it a try?
I'm pretty sure that such an arrangement would be against League rules. It would almost certainly be unenforceable against Buckle, as being in restraint of trade. I think the better course, if it was possible, would have been to put Buckle on a short period of gardening leave while tufc sorts out the manager situation.

Re: The buck stops here!

by Gulliball » 07 Jun 2011, 10:37

It would be tricky to put into a contract, but we could have tried to arrange a gentlemans agreement with BRFC and Buckle, for example, in return for letting him go (and possibly reduced compensation), he agreed not to sign Stanley, Branston and Oastler, and not pursue any contracted TUFC players. Maybe I'm into the realms of fantasy, but I imagine Buckle would still have been running out the door into his bigger salary and bigger budget even without being able to bring a few players with him. His budget is still big enough to attract Gill, Cureton and many other players who are well beyond the reach of TUFC. I wonder if we gave it a try?

Re: The buck stops here!

by divingbboy » 07 Jun 2011, 10:29

OK, one point that keeps bugging me, and possibly I'm being incrediby naive, so please don't bite my head off...............Buckle was still under contract to tufc, and while it would not have been appropriate for the board to stand in the way of Buckle's career ambitions (and, frankly, who wants to continue to employ a manager that wants to be elsewhere), could they have not ensured an orderly transition, with Buckle leaving as a new manager came in through the door? Agree for him to go, subject to the proviso that he goes on gardening leave for a few weeks while a new manager is brought in. Would have been a lot harder, if not impossible for brfc to go after tufc players with Buckle on gardening leave.

Re: The buck stops here!

by Fonda » 07 Jun 2011, 10:18

I fear the simple problem with the people in charge of our club at the current time is they are too nice. I'm surprised that having been successful in their previous business ventures, there is an inability to be ruthless. They seem too keen to please everyone (apart form the fans at times), and as a result we're seen as something of a soft touch. Unfortunately, others in football don't have similar scruples, and are taking advantage. We need to toughen up.

The buck stops here!

by SteveDeckchair » 07 Jun 2011, 08:37

Why did our board afford Mr Paul Buckle the honour of keeping quiet over his signing for Bristol Rovers? He has shown no class or honour in return! They knew he was a ruthless operator, so why not hang him out to dry?

I believe it is because they are culpable and it would highlight some serious oversights on their part. Enough is enough, time for the board to start fulfilling their obligations to the club and the fans. I don't believe this has always been the case so far.

They and the club have egg on their faces for the goings on over the last few weeks and while I would have expected this under Bateson, I never imagined our club would be going through this under the consortium. Some of them need to take a long hard look at themselves and ask whether they are doing everything possible to move this club forwards. I personally don't think some if them are.

Very very angry. :devil:

Rant over. o:)

Top