Is Gus to blame? : Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:41 pm  

Persuaded DH to spend to SC max. Powell appointed by DH. Brought in some big names. Team failed, marketing 'policy' went with it. (here goes GF)

Told by DH to cut overhead and reduce cost. Moves to a nice little set up. AK picks up cost for facilities and picks up revenues. DH picks up salaries so knows overall losses. Is that Gus's fault?

Introduced 2 tier approach with players in corporate lounge. Is that a bad thing? Wigan, Wire, Leeds do just that.

DH appointed TR, his mate as coach. Is that Gus's fault?

Is DH a difficult boss? Does Gus get 1 to 1 time with DH? Does he have a budget? Who knows?

Is his mistake getting to close to certain people who then turn on him on public forums? I can't imagine CEOs at big clubs connect with individual fans about club policy.

Any thoughts or is it all Gus's fault!

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:04 pm  

Kavanagh QC couldn't have mounted a more spirited defence.

Although his moral rectitude might have made him choke on it.

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:12 pm  

wire quin wrote:

Persuaded DH to spend to SC max. Powell appointed by DH. Brought in some big names. Team failed, marketing 'policy' went with it. (here goes GF)

Told by DH to cut overhead and reduce cost. Moves to a nice little set up. AK picks up cost for facilities and picks up revenues. DH picks up salaries so knows overall losses. Is that Gus's fault?

Introduced 2 tier approach with players in corporate lounge. Is that a bad thing? Wigan, Wire, Leeds do just that.

DH appointed TR, his mate as coach. Is that Gus's fault?

Is DH a difficult boss? Does Gus get 1 to 1 time with DH? Does he have a budget? Who knows?

Is his mistake getting to close to certain people who then turn on him on public forums? I can't imagine CEOs at big clubs connect with individual fans about club policy. Any thoughts or is it all Gus's fault!

Very true. I have noticed this as well. The constant referring/bullyling and incessant referring to that as well by the same people is tantamount to what football fans do.

It is quite obvious there is a personal vendetta here, and I feel sorry for them that they are in this position.
Still going to back the lads at home games at The Hive as I loved it yesterday and take things as a new slate now. Especially after seeing a few Barnet fans there as well getting into the game. Things are looking much brighter.

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:26 pm  

RLLDN wrote:

Very true. I have noticed this as well. The constant referring/bullyling and incessant referring to that as well by the same people is tantamount to what football fans do.

It is quite obvious there is a personal vendetta here, and I feel sorry for them that they are in this position.

I'm sure wire quin was playing devil's advocate & not really sticking up for Gus.

The bloke lost money at Surrey & as a test match venue that gig is a virtual licence to print the stuff.

He's a serial incompetent. End of story.

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Sun Feb 23, 2014 6:30 pm  

While i think the the judgement and tact of the ceo leaves something to be desired It is DH who pays the bills and makes the big calls as WQ says. Im sure Gus is in favour of marketing just like we are but for the past two years we havn't had a team to market as we have performed so badly. But its DH's money not ours, not Gus's.

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:47 pm  

Gus is to blame!

His track record when he joined was questioned and he has delivered NOTHING but disasters for the club, business and team.

David Hughes saying it was "HIS" fault that we have a crap team this year specifically dates back to October 2013....the clown of a CEO joined us on January 14th 2011.

He fired staff in that first 4 week period and has since gone on to hire his own "hand picked" (HIS WORDS, NOT MINE) Sales and Marketing staff.....only to fire them in 2012 as part of the "why the love has the name change not worked mid-season review".....he failed to deliver a shirt sponsor until there were 7 games left in 2012, refused to front up on the promised (and paid for) fans forums over last year and in short, has hidden behind every excuse I can think of to disguise his utter failings as a CEO.

Every member of staff I have spoken to from the club only has bad things to say about the bloke, which is pretty much the regard in which he was held at his previous role too.

David Hughes may well be a megalomaniacal idiot who is hard to deal with, but it is the CEO's job to defend the position of a company whilst growing it's revenues and opening new channels to market. If David Hughes wanted a yes man, then Paul Blanchard should have remained the clubs General Manager and not been promoted to the board for delivering no growth and when he left, a proper interview process should have taken place to find someone qualified to run the club and to turn around its fortunes.

Gus MacKay is not that man, so yes, by simply taking the job he is to blame, but everything he has touched since has turned to crap and for that, he is SINGLARLY to blame.

David Hughes statement is nothing more than a spin filled smokescreen. He needs MacKay to stay until AK makes a decision on 2015 and beyond.....because no sane (or qualified person) would step up now if Gus were to do the decent thing!

Before the "negativity police" jump on me, the question was asked, so if you don't like the answer, address your ire towards the asker!

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Tue Feb 25, 2014 9:35 pm  

Does anybody know to what extent, if any, Gus may have been instrumental in ensuring that we did go into administration and thus not getting into the pickle in which Bradford now find themselves?

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:28 pm  

BroncOnIon wrote:

Does anybody know to what extent, if any, Gus may have been instrumental in ensuring that we did go into administration and thus not getting into the pickle in which Bradford now find themselves?

David Hughes "wobbled"in late September/early October and as such, the "culling" started in earnest pretty much straight away, whilst negotiations with AK had pretty much hit an impasse by late November. I received regular updates from the negotiating table saying "we are working hard" and asking me and others to lay off with the negativity. THE BOARD, I was informed, would be making the decision with regard to the 2 deals that were on the table (27th November). It was obvious that these 2 offers were both unacceptable to one or both parties at the time.

That's when the club decided to issue a statement of intention to go into a CVA.

In a final attempt to make sure that SL XIX started with 14 teams, Blake Solly and the RFL made the "offer" of a Marketing Budget to go along with the rent and administration charges, as well as all the takings from match day and the shop for 2014 and AK finally accepted on December 13th. Personally, I feel he'd have been a fool not to!

2015's agreement still has a few variables in it which are conditional on the outcomes of some KPI's this year.

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:37 pm  

Thanks for that, though you don't indicate how significant Gus may have been. I know he's not on THE BOARD but he was probably doing plenty of donkey work on their behalf.

Couple of things - statement was of intention to go into administration, not CVA (though for all I know that might have meant the same thing). And what's a KPI?

Re: Is Gus to blame? : Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:45 pm  

BroncOnIon wrote:

Thanks for that, though you don't indicate how significant Gus may have been. I know he's not on THE BOARD but he was probably doing plenty of donkey work on their behalf.

Couple of things - statement was of intention to go into administration, not CVA (though for all I know that might have meant the same thing). And what's a KPI?

KPI= Key Performance Indicators.....Certain things must be of a level to show targets reached