Phil Gould: Bennett agreed to coach Roosters

[El Diablo]

Razor, what's your relationship with Beaussie?

do we really want to know

 

[Mr Saab]

No no no no...you said Hodges would not make the QLD team and he did

 

[JW]

do we really want to know

Touche.

I retract the question.

 

[Ghoulies]

My excuse regarding Hodges? The fact I'm biased against the Broncos because I wouldn't have Hodges in the test team? And would have another Bronco there in his place?

That's not what he's asking, chief.

 

[salivor]

Razor is the master of the squirm.

BTW, you went very quiet on the Warne issue little fella. We know your a virgin and the first time probably will hurt a little but once you start, trust me, saying your wrong will become much easier and even enjoyable for you.

 

[Ghoulies]

Will you admit you were wr wr wro wron wron wrong?

Well it took him more than a dozen or so pages to respond to the Johns/Lockyer captaincy poll lie, so I suspect it might take just as long here.

 

[Sea_Eagles_Rock]

Can you guys get back to the topic??? Razor is cooked.

For those that didn't see Sunday Roast, you really are approaching this issue without a full idea of what is supposed to have happened. That piece by Gould only opened up more inconsistencies in the whole affair. I dare say only Politis or Bennett do know all the facts about what happened. The one thing that seems certain, is Sticky was a pawn in this whole situation, and some level of contact did occur on the coaching of the Roosters between the two parties.

At the start of this I wouldn't have believed it to be possible...

 

[Paullyboy]

I love it how Broncos fans have decided to try and chance the topic by making a fool out of Razor in this thread.

At the end of the day - Bennett wanted out, and Mr "I dont sign contracts, my word is good" got shown up as the lying chump he is.

 

[Mr Saab]

Pauly, you are talking out of your asssssssssss.

 

[salivor]

I love it how Broncos fans have decided to try and chance the topic by making a fool out of Razor in this thread.

At the end of the day - Bennett wanted out, and Mr "I dont sign contracts, my word is good" got shown up as the lying chump he is.

Look it's razor Mach II.

Tell me, have you heard Bennett's side of the story on why he pulled out or are you prepared to crucify him on a rivals version of events?

 

[innsaneink]

Can you guys get back to the topic??? Razor is cooked.

For those that didn't see Sunday Roast, you really are approaching this issue without a full idea of what is supposed to have happened. That piece by Gould only opened up more inconsistencies in the whole affair. I dare say only Politis or Bennett do know all the facts about what happened. The one thing that seems certain, is Sticky was a pawn in this whole situation, and some level of contact did occur on the coaching of the Roosters between the two parties.

At the start of this I wouldn't have believed it to be possible...

I agree and anyone that thinks they know what theyre talking about is, imo...talkin out their assssssssss

 

[salivor]

Gould himself states in that article that Bennett didn't want this leaked, quite obviously to not cause distractions to the Broncos finals campaign. It's very easy to read between the lines as to why he got cold feet.

But not it's much easier to paint this into Bennett screwing over the Roosters purposely or him taking a swipe at Stuart despite Gould himself stating that Bennett insisted on Stuart being informed as early as possible so as to give him as much time as possible to find another coaching position, the actions of a cold-hearted man no doubt. As I said earlier in the thread, Bennett is his worst enemy for not speaking out to the media, he just opens himself up for trolls to speculate on his intentions.

 

[Ghoulies]

Look it's razor Mach II.

Tell me, have you heard Bennett's side of the story on why he pulled out or are you prepared to crucify him on a rivals version of events?

He doesn't need to, because like Razor, he's about as anti-Bronco as you get.

S_E_R is spot on. At the moment details are far too sketchy to make an informed judgment.

 

[Razor]

S_E_R is spot on. At the moment details are far too sketchy to make an informed judgment.

No they aren't. Bennett agrees to go there, but on the condition that both Stuart and Flannigan are told that they are unwanted next year ASAP. After the Roosters have let go of their current coaching staff, he then changes his mind and decides not to go. So he leaves the club without a coach for the next season. The Roosters then have substantial coaching contracts to pay out and find another coach.

 

[Mr Saab]

Is this fact because Gus Gould says so?

 

[Charlie124]

I might be missing something painfully obvious to everyone else here but how is this NOT a verbal contract ala. Steve Turner and the Titans??

If he said "yes im going to coach the roosters, but dont leak to the media yet" and then changed his mind after they dump their coach, surely he has made a verbal agreement....

Personally i think the Roosters are better off without him.

 

[salivor]

And why did they approach Bennett in the first place? They were always going to give Stuart the arse this year. Gould states in the article:

By the latter part of the season, however, Politis was concerned things did not look like improving. He always asked, "Why will things be any different next season?"

He interviewed many people, including the coaching staff, and was not satisfied with the level of confidence behind the responses.

He was worried that if performances did not improve in the early part of next season, and with Stuart coming off contract at the end of next year, the speculation about the coach's future would be very damaging to the club. Especially in the 100th-year celebrations, this should be avoided.

It was about two months ago that Politis first suggested the club may need a change of coach.

I'll state it again, has anyone heard Bennett's side of the story? The truth always lies somewhere in between the two sides. Currently we're only going on the word of Gould who doesn't even seem to have been that much in the loop when he was only made aware of Stuart's sacking 2 weeks after it happening and only told Bennett was the replacement 1 week after the event. Based on that I not only want to hear Bennett's side of the story but Politis' as well, the surface has been barely scratched but by all means continue to attack Bennett's character on very little information.

 

[salivor]

I might be missing something painfully obvious to everyone else here but how is this NOT a verbal contract ala. Steve Turner and the Titans??

If he said "yes im going to coach the roosters, but dont leak to the media yet" and then changed his mind after they dump their coach, surely he has made a verbal agreement....

Personally i think the Roosters are better off without him.

I'm guessing that it may be a little bit different considering that Bennett is signed with the Broncos through to 2009. That's the next piece of the puzzle, how was Bennett planing to get out of this to join the Roosters considering that Cullen has made it clear he wants him to remain at the Broncos.

 

[STSAE]

Wow - reading through the article, I also read that.

I thought Phil Gould WASNT involved in the Stuart sacking? Talk about screwing over your 'mate'. :lol:

Gus Gould, this really confirms what a piece of sh*t you are in my mind.

Are you blind?? Just didnt read the article?? Just showing your pure HATRED??

I will re-print the bit you missed, from the article you posted.

That was our last conversation about the matter.
Two weeks later, a rival Sunday paper reported that Stuart was about to be sacked and Brad Fittler and myself would be taking over as coaches. I went on radio the next day declaring this was a load of rubbish. I then put in a call to Stuart asking him to meet with me to discuss the situation, thinking at this time his job was still safe.
An hour later, I got a call from Politis telling me he'd sacked Stuart two weeks previously.

 

[Razor]

Is this fact because Gus Gould says so?

There is a thing called litigation. Fairfax and 9 wouldn't allow it to be published/aired through their media if it wasn't true.