BAYLISS OUT

[K-Man]

John McKay has basically came out and said he's backing Bayliss so that to me means the board are.

He missed half of the incident but has labelled himself the 'chief witness' (Whopper.) Surely the fans and stewards mean more than a biased mans opinion ?

A member of the board has came out and defended him while an 'official investigation' is underway. Not very professional at all.

[Hadrian]

No he isn't.

Re-read it.

Mackay says that although he missed the beginning of the incident, he witnessed the majority of it.

He added: “An incident happened on Saturday and I am a chief witness, and obviously the club will have to look at this. You can’t put evidence out there from a witness prior to an investigation otherwise it clouds everybody’s view.”

Last week, before the Trinity clash, club chairman Brian Keen insisted that Bayliss’s job is not currently on the line while also indicating his dissatisfaction at AFC’s points total.

And without pre-empting the investigation, Mackay indicated that there is no change to that stance.
(NWEM Website)

[dcarradus]

who does bayliss think he is bayliss out chant is hardly abuse the man cant handle abit of critism the mans lost it offering supporters fights now we have john mckay defending him i just cant see this board sacking bayliss he must of threatend them with his scouse mafia mates lol

[barrowaberdeen]

If Bayles seriously thinks he hasn't acted wrongly and violently in that tunnel, and John backs that up, then I despair, going
off the accounts from people there (sober).

Anyway, let's see what unfolds.

[Andy]

No he isn't.

Re-read it.

Mackay says that although he missed the beginning of the incident, he witnessed the majority of it.

He added: “An incident happened on Saturday and I am a chief witness, and obviously the club will have to look at this. You can’t put evidence out there from a witness prior to an investigation otherwise it clouds everybody’s view.”

Last week, before the Trinity clash, club chairman Brian Keen insisted that Bayliss’s job is not currently on the line while also indicating his dissatisfaction at AFC’s points total.

And without pre-empting the investigation, Mackay indicated that there is no change to that stance.
(NWEM Website)

However he does say:
And AFC director Mackay backed up his manager by saying: “As far as I’m concerned, Dave did not attempt to hit anybody.”

[Chris Benoit]

What a shame it wasn't recorded. Those two would have looked very foolish then.

[Bingo]

On a seperate point I will be very suprised if BBC Radio Cumbria isn't hit with a fine from Ofcom they take this thing very seriously after the first swearword the interviewer should have interupted and asked him not to swear again - if he then swore the interview should have veeb terminated straight away.

I am also suprised that the listen again hasn't been pulled.

I believe these interviews are as live but actually recorded and then edited quickly and played out (might be wrong) -

In terms of Bayliss he obviously have anger problems and I have had these too - I feel sorry for him but in a job like that he has to just let it go over him

Bayliss should be out anyway hes a bad manager with no man management skills so goodbye as far as I am concerned.

[Steelworks End]

I believe these interviews are as live but actually recorded and then edited quickly and played out (might be wrong)

That's what I thought - with someone's finger poised on the bleep button.

[Kieran]

There are so many reasons Bayliss should be sacked you wouldn't know where to start. The fact that the club appear ready to back him is an embarrassment of the highest order, and another reason why the sooner this BOD is gone the better.

Oh, and John McKay is a cretin. "Chief witness", I ask you.

[tictactoe]

Bearing in mind the dross we have had to watch and the general bad feeling the fans have, fans have a right imo to voice their displeasure as long as it is not in a malicious manner. If bayliss can't handle this he is definitely in the wrong job.

Regarding money owed to the directors, isn't there only the debt to st andrews engineering that is actually a legal debt so to speak, the money directors have put in out of their own money, well that's a risk they took and risk not getting it back.

[themaster]

I expected him to be gone by now.

Surely we cant be keeping him on ?

Only fools do the same things over and over and expect different results .......... We aren't being run by fools are we ?

[Spanner]

Regarding money owed to the directors, isn't there only the debt to st andrews engineering that is actually a legal debt so to speak, the money directors have put in out of their own money, well that's a risk they took and risk not getting it back.

Not really the case. The directors' loans are just the same as money owed to suppliers etc, they are more at risk than a secured loan but we can still end up up the swanny because of them. Here's a possible sequence of events that could plausibly happen in the coming months:

1. A Director loses his position on the BoD (be that by his choice or forced on him by his fellow Directors or the members)
2. The deposed Director demands repayment of his loan to the club
3. The club can't pay.
4. The deposed Director imposes a winding-up order on the club
5. The club is forced into liquidation and ceases trading
6. The liquidator sells off the club's assets (including the ground)
7. The proceeds are used to pay off the creditors, starting with the mortgage (first charge on the ground), then debenture holders (second charge iirc), then St Andrews Engineering (third charge). Anything left over is used to pay (or part-pay if there's not enough) the unsecured creditors (including the Directors loans). Anything left over after that would I think be available to a phoenix club, though that would presumably be peanuts (or nowt) now the BoD have run up so much debt over the last few years.

There. That's cheered you up hasn't it?

[John Very Little]

Echo what KHayman says about the comments in the Mail from John Mackay, none of which he should have made, has he not heard of the phrase 'no comment'?
He's a chief witness when he never witnessed or heard/seen all of the events,
He's already made a judgement without hearing the full story from all of those involved,
He's commented while there's an investigation ongoing,
Does he think that Bayliss offering fans out into the car park is acceptable (one of the bits he didn't hear as he wasn't by that incident at the time)?
He may not have seen Bayliss actually attempt to hit fans because another Barrow fan stopped Bayliss hand to prevent him hitting fans?

Irrespective he goes public with his comments and opinions anyway which is completely wrong.
I really hope all those who witnessed all of the after match incidents get their observations into the board because it seems like the chief witness who never saw everything has already made his mind up and will present this story to his fellow board members. If the board back Bayliss on the basis of what Mackay says then it really will be a disgrace.

I think this incident is the final straw for Bayliss as so much damage has been done there is really only one course of action and sadly that's for him to leave. Prolonging it any further will cause even more problems the board don't need.

[John Very Little]

On a seperate point I will be very suprised if BBC Radio Cumbria isn't hit with a fine from Ofcom they take this thing very seriously after the first swearword the interviewer should have interupted and asked him not to swear again - if he then swore the interview should have veeb terminated straight away.
I am also suprised that the listen again hasn't been pulled.
I believe these interviews are as live but actually recorded and then edited quickly and played out (might be wrong).

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is about Radio Cumbria is not being even handed.
They were prepared to let Bayliss put his side of the story yet they rang Chris and when they realised he was the one involved in the after match situation they quickly make their excuses and hang up.

Why didn't they let Chris put his side of the story and record it before putting it on the air in case there was any Bayliss type language? Instead they bottled it because they don't want Chris to have his side of the story because that would upset the club?

[ruins]

I'm so confused by all these threads, I've read the same one several times.

I think an overall view as I can see it is people here are saying "boycott" and "don't boycott" with " Bayliss out" and "give him a chance and 5 more games" but if you put it all into perspective and look at the facts?

Bayliss trying to hit someone or someone filming him or someone calling him a name is it? It's about the fact a man in a position of Dave Bayliss has completely gone against the conduct of his role as manager both in his actions towards the supporters (whatever the so called abuse) and his comments on the radio.

His performance as manager and moreso in man management has been poor.

To expect more people to turn up tomorrow is unacceptable. To stand behind any individual who has done what he has done would not be accepted in any other profession. You would be suspended or out on gardening leave. Inevitably then fired. I assume mr Sheridan would confirm.

The victims here are the fans and players mis managed by a poor manager in Bayliss. I have read we are a family club and that's been shot down deservedly so.

So as victims do the fans turn up in the numbers tomorrow night? Why would you? It's the club you love, you meet your mates for a pint and yet stand or sit watching a man who says he cares for the club?

I agree the attention should be on the performance of the team and supporting them but the actions of the man in charge have been so wrong that it is not feasible for him to take barrow afc forward into the future.