Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:24 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

She just proved the point the rest of us were making by using the Longy example. If she'd been watching Rugby more than 5 minutes she'd also know Wigan tolerated characters like Hanley many years before because just like Longy at Saints he was special.

You all may have been trying to make that point but I wasn't. My point was on the behaviour issue and the fact that Moore was brought up as another example shows that talent isn't always the reason why a club will keep one person on but not another. Moore was a good player but not of the kind of talent Longy was yet he was given lots of chances.

You accuse me of being naive but I am not denying your point. I have been making another one that nobody can actually address because they choose not to.

In all areas of life people find themselves on the receiving end of treatment from someone who for no particular reason (or maybe a particular reason but not one that justifies negative action) doesn't like them. Their faces don't fit. Given that there has been no hint of bad behaviour surrounding Gaskell and given that while not a world beater on the pitch he wasn't letting us down and given that we desperately needed a fit specialist halfback who could provide us with a kicking game (and goal kicking to boot), the conclusion I have come to is that someone at Saints did not like Gaskell. His face did not fit. That is a perfectly legitimate conclusion to come to. That sort of thing happens in workplaces the world over. I really don't see what the big deal is with coming to that conclusion.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You all may have been trying to make that point but I wasn't. My point was on the behaviour issue and the fact that Moore was brought up as another example shows that talent isn't always the reason why a club will keep one person on but not another. Moore was a good player but not of the kind of talent Longy was yet he was given lots of chances.

You accuse me of being naive but I am not denying your point. I have been making another one that nobody can actually address because they choose not to.

In all areas of life people find themselves on the receiving end of treatment from someone who for no particular reason (or maybe a particular reason but not one that justifies negative action) doesn't like them. Their faces don't fit. Given that there has been no hint of bad behaviour surrounding Gaskell and given that while not a world beater on the pitch he wasn't letting us down and given that we desperately needed a fit specialist halfback who could provide us with a kicking game (and goal kicking to boot), the conclusion I have come to is that someone at Saints did not like Gaskell. His face did not fit. That is a perfectly legitimate conclusion to come to. That sort of thing happens in workplaces the world over. I really don't see what the big deal is with coming to that conclusion.

Really ? I have to disagree with that, he has been poor for a while now when he's played .

The conclusion you have come too is the one you always come too and that is it's all Mike Rush's fault. It's a silly conclusion given Rush brought him through the ranks and would have had many many opportunities to fire him off years ago without anyone batting an eyelid.

Gaskell has been given his chances on the field and has simply not lived upto his potential so far. It would be a far more reasonable conclusion to come too given the complete lack of evidence to say maybe he didnt live upto certain standards expected by the club and this combined with his lack of progress on the field led to him being shown the door.

You may disagree with this reasonable explanation and choose to carry on prattling on (having a dig in every thread) here and Redvee about your conspiracy theory's , but I'll bet the majority of sane knowledgeable people would think you were a little obsessed or extremely naive if you honestly believe Mike Rush or anyone else associated with the club would throw away the massive investment in time and money we have put into developing Gaskell just because they didnt bl00dy like him.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:01 pm  

My last word on Gaskell. He stated in the press prior to our game with Salford I will show Saints just what they are missing! I went to the game sat in the main stand and he just reminded me of Steve Tyrer. A Salford fan who I had never met before quoted this to me "he is an improvement on Howarth I suppose but he seems a bit timid for a big lad he is never there to put his body on the line" I will leave it at that.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:48 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I doubt it would get to tribunal. If an employee refuses to do the work for which they are contracted then disciplinary proceedings begin. If the employee continues to be in breach of their contract in this way then dismissal would be both inevitable and justified.

And you think he'd keep that stance up to the tribunal?

No idea about Ellis but Moore's form was fine when he was binned.

Then his off field antics got too much for the club.

I'm just joining in the speculation. It's ok for everyone else to do that, why not me?

You don't speculate though, you make statements and have continually beaten the same drum in regard to Gaskell's situation, never wavering from that opinion. There's nothing wrong with you speculating, never said there was, just as there is nothing wrong with me asking why you have that opinion.

Nice try at avoiding answering the question though. So I'l rephrase it, why do you speculate that it was all to do with Rush not liking Gaskell, rather than anything else, given that there are numerous rumours about it?

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:51 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

You all may have been trying to make that point but I wasn't. My point was on the behaviour issue and the fact that Moore was brought up as another example shows that talent isn't always the reason why a club will keep one person on but not another. Moore was a good player but not of the kind of talent Longy was yet he was given lots of chances.

You accuse me of being naive but I am not denying your point. I have been making another one that nobody can actually address because they choose not to.

In all areas of life people find themselves on the receiving end of treatment from someone who for no particular reason (or maybe a particular reason but not one that justifies negative action) doesn't like them. Their faces don't fit. Given that there has been no hint of bad behaviour surrounding Gaskell and given that while not a world beater on the pitch he wasn't letting us down and given that we desperately needed a fit specialist halfback who could provide us with a kicking game (and goal kicking to boot), the conclusion I have come to is that someone at Saints did not like Gaskell. His face did not fit. That is a perfectly legitimate conclusion to come to. That sort of thing happens in workplaces the world over. I really don't see what the big deal is with coming to that conclusion.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you.

I am advised by someone who I consider to be reliable that it was to do with bad blood between him and Rush; and as we all know there can only be one winner in that.

Certainly on the field, he was better than HiHo, Wello and Wilkin this season in the HB role.
Whilst I wish him good luck, whether he makes it big time is more unlikely than likely, but I doubt and hope he isn't another player who comes back to haunt us.

Having said that he is probably one of a minority of Salford players who will be kept on by Nobby next season.

I am still puzzled as to why this discussion has developed into unpleasantness.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:52 pm  

I've deleted some of the more mindless bickering posts with no discussion of actual issues on the thread. Pack it in.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:57 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

I am advised by someone who I consider to be reliable that it was to do with bad blood between him and Rush; and as we all know there can only be one winner in that.

See, I accept that could be a reason for Rush not picking him last year when he was the coach, but this year Rush is CEO and will have far more on his plate than a junior player being in the team/squad. Especially given the situation we were/are in and that his contract was up at the end of the year when we just didn't need to offer him a new contract.

That as a sole reason to bin him this year just doesn't make sense. Plenty of players and CEOs don't get on but they don't bin them to the detriment of the team as a whole on a whim.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:58 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

I've deleted some of the more mindless bickering posts with no discussion of actual issues on the thread. Pack it in.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:01 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

See, I accept that could be a reason for Rush not picking him last year when he was the coach, but this year Rush is CEO and will have far more on his plate than a junior player being in the team/squad. Especially given the situation we were/are in and that his contract was up at the end of the year when we just didn't need to offer him a new contract.

That as a sole reason to bin him this year just doesn't make sense. Plenty of players and CEOs don't get on but they don't bin them to the detriment of the team as a whole on a whim.

Which is exactly my point. If it was all a historical thing we would have got shut last year too and maybe even tried to get a small fee.

Re: O'Brien : Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:04 pm  

Billinge_Lump wrote:

See, I accept that could be a reason for Rush not picking him last year when he was the coach, but this year Rush is CEO and will have far more on his plate than a junior player being in the team/squad. Especially given the situation we were/are in and that his contract was up at the end of the year when we just didn't need to offer him a new contract.

That as a sole reason to bin him this year just doesn't make sense. Plenty of players and CEOs don't get on but they don't bin them to the detriment of the team as a whole on a whim.

I think the bad blood has been going on for some time before he got made CEO (a position I find baffling to be awarded tor him),
I can only guess (or speculate) that Rush would have told Brown that unless Gaskell proved he was was indispensable in Brown's view then he (Rush) would advise him (Brown) to get shut etc etc.
It is no secret the Gaskell and Brown did not get on.

I agree with you that there could have other unknown factors, but Gaskell was by far the worst player in the squad and better than much of what has replaced him in his role.