Barrow AFC.net

Has he been sacked yet?

Must be some kind of technical problem with the website, as I can't see the announcement of his dismissal.

NOT YET

Was it Bayles who got in a fight over a car parking space when he went to attend his Anger Management course or am I getting him mixed up with someone else?

John Little has hit the nail on the head, they won't get rid of Bayliss because he is probably owed a lot of money. Dire state for a football club to be in

John Mackay was there and reading between the lines
He's backing Baylis

Whatever happened after the match in no way justifies his language on the radio. If John McKay thinks it does then he should go as well.

Gross misconduct and a sackable offence in most jobs (and no compo).

We've been playing rubbish football since shezza left. Thats not the fans fault.

Gates have been falling away for the same period of time. Thats not the fans fault.

Bayliss loses the plot offers to fight the world and swears on radio. Whatever the provacation thats not the fans fault either.

He can't do the job, he can't manage players who clearly don't play for him just get rid now.

Wintergreen wrote:Was it Bayles who got in a fight over a car parking space when he went to attend his Anger Management course or am I getting him mixed up with someone else?

I seem to recall you are correct. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/bayliss-i- ... ath=2.1998

If so, we have a manager who has already attended anger management therapy and goes on radio and says he will take on any fan that wants to fight him and he he will give them his address.

Nice!

Barrowabc wrote:John Mackay was there and reading between the lines
He's backing Baylis

Also quoted as saying the Board may stick with Bayliss

Barrowabc wrote:John Mackay was there and reading between the lines
He's backing Baylis

You may be right in regard to the incident but IMO the much more serious matter was the way he brought the club into disrepute with his radio outburst.

The more I listen to it the worse it gets as he goes off on his foul-mouth rant and then says he has children himself. Bizarre.

Barrow Bluebirds wrote:

Barrowabc wrote:John Mackay was there and reading between the lines
He's backing Baylis

Also quoted as saying the Board may stick with Bayliss

If they do I hope the membership call an EGM and put forward a motion of no confidence in the BOD, I'm sure if they all resign or are kicked off one or two would step in at least temporarily to run the club.

this way the BOD who have put money in may well have to wave bye bye to it. Yes they can still chase the loans but they won't be in a power position to negotiate like they are now.

DaveP wrote:this way the BOD who have put money in may well have to wave bye bye to it. Yes they can still chase the loans but they won't be in a power position to negotiate like they are now.

I think it's fair to say they pretty much have the club over a barrel to do with as they please right now, through a number of reasons...

Quoted from the Evening Mail

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

"And withouth pre-empting the investigation, MacKay indicated that there is no change to that stance"

What a joke of a club we have become.

Ste Story wrote:

DaveP wrote:this way the BOD who have put money in may well have to wave bye bye to it. Yes they can still chase the loans but they won't be in a power position to negotiate like they are now.

I think it's fair to say they pretty much have the club over a barrel to do with as they please right now, through a number of reasons...

I know what you mean Ste but my point is that the membership can remove them at which point they become creditors and not individuals running the club and making decisions. Yes they can pursue their loans like any other creditor but are they really likely to liquidate the club and risk losing a lot of money especially when a sale proposal may be in the offing.

They act like they are untouchable but they can be removed at the behest of the membership just as easily as they were put there in the first place, perhaps they should be reminded of the fact they are acting on behalf of the membership. If we really believe they can do what they want and are unchallengeable you may as well change the constitution and give them the club right now.