Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**My view of this board**

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Great post.
    It's not just about repetitive threads, but more so for me the insults and ridiclulous accusations thrown around.
    Admittedly, I made an accusation recently about a certain fan whom I don't know regarding a recent interview on SSN which I admitted was wrong and out of order. In fairness, it was not so much to criticise him, but to strengthen my argument on why it's more so unfair to blame Pete and this site for Sousa's sacking.

    I'm sick of reading posts on why Pete should be blamed when it's ok for other sites to have the same post. What bugs me more is that these words came from Sousa's own mouth and makes him souley responsible for his own demise.

    People need to get a grip and realise there is a problem laying deep within the club. A problem that fans cannot and will not get a chance to change whilst we are all so divided.

    Sad times indeed.
    Your mum would love me...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BennyBoyRs View Post
      Great post.
      It's not just about repetitive threads, but more so for me the insults and ridiclulous accusations thrown around.
      Admittedly, I made an accusation recently about a certain fan whom I don't know regarding a recent interview on SSN which I admitted was wrong and out of order. In fairness, it was not so much to criticise him, but to strengthen my argument on why it's more so unfair to blame Pete and this site for Sousa's sacking.

      I'm sick of reading posts on why Pete should be blamed when it's ok for other sites to have the same post. What bugs me more is that these words came from Sousa's own mouth and makes him souley responsible for his own demise.

      People need to get a grip and realise there is a problem laying deep within the club. A problem that fans cannot and will not get a chance to change whilst we are all so divided.

      Sad times indeed.
      Very right you are indeed!

      Someone posted that Sousa asked for he's own P45, he clearly did and only he is to be be blamed here, not the poster who had posted, he didn't know what was going to happen and the same goes for all us fans.

      That's post was Pro Sousa, which most people forget.

      Comment


      • #18
        this club never changes, i remember when venables announced he was staying on as qpr boss on the pitch,so we went and brought our season tickets, next thing he was at spurs, this is our club why shouldnt we know whats going on? wozza only asked questions that most qpr fans would have asked given the chance,he didnt need to answer!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MYU View Post
          Very right you are indeed!

          Someone posted that Sousa asked for he's own P45, he clearly did and only he is to be be blamed here, not the poster who had posted, he didn't know what was going to happen and the same goes for all us fans.

          That's post was Pro Sousa, which most people forget.
          Interesting.

          If I was happily married, and some young lady posted on here to say I'd wined and dined her last week, stayed with her for the night and was the best lover she'd ever had, would that be a pro-Bernie or an anti-Bernie post?

          Comment


          • #20
            Too many chefs spoil the broth

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Bernie's barnet View Post
              Then you haven't been reading my posts, but let's spell it out for you.

              An employee of the club has been sacked for releasing sensitive information without authority to do so. FACT.

              An administrator on this board has been making statements which if true constitute sensitive information which could only have come from within the club. FACT

              Pete himself has made a specific statement which if correct constitutes sensitive information which could only have come from within the club. FACT.

              The club cannot legally pick and choose who they sack for releasing sensitive information without authority. Releasing sensitive information without authority is either a sackable offence or it isn't. Anything else constitues discrimation.

              So, I don't think it is unreasonable for me as a fan to know whether my club is practising discriminatory policies or not. That's why I have asked Pete to clarify:

              - are the statements being made by both himself and his administrator correct or not;

              - if they are correct, has the information contained therein been provided from within the club, and was that information released with or without authority;

              - if they are not correct, what was the purpose of making these statements and why were they allowed to remain on the board. Remember, we're not talking about a poster, but the owner of the site and one of his administrators. The owner having already assured us that he has not been running an anti-Sousa smear campaign, and that he had no prior knowledge that a decision had been taken to sack Sousa.

              Furthermore, the statements made by Pete's administrator suggest that a decision had already been made to sack Sousa, not because Sousa had breached club confidentiality, but because (surprise surprise) he had fallen out with Briatore. Now if Briatore simply decides he wants to sack Sousa, Sousa would have been entitled to payment in full for the remainder of his contract. If he is sacked for breach of contract, he loses that right.

              So it's clear that the club stands to profit by sacking Sousa for breach of contract rather than because his face doesn't fit. Which begs the question; are the club really bothered about sensitive information being released without authority, or are they simply using it as an excuse to get rid of an employee they no longer want as cheaply as possible?

              Whether discrimination or sharp practice, the business ethics of the club's owners are called into question. Simply because of statements made on this board by Pete and his administrator.

              I hope the above is objective enough and well thought out enough for all parties using this board to support me in my quest to get the answers I've been looking for from Pete.
              Answer Forthcoming.???
              I might not agree with what you say,
              but i will defend your right to say it.

              Comment


              • #22
                of course not.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Bernie's barnet View Post
                  Then you haven't been reading my posts, but let's spell it out for you.

                  An employee of the club has been sacked for releasing sensitive information without authority to do so. FACT.

                  An administrator on this board has been making statements which if true constitute sensitive information which could only have come from within the club. FACT

                  Pete himself has made a specific statement which if correct constitutes sensitive information which could only have come from within the club. FACT.

                  The club cannot legally pick and choose who they sack for releasing sensitive information without authority. Releasing sensitive information without authority is either a sackable offence or it isn't. Anything else constitues discrimation.

                  So, I don't think it is unreasonable for me as a fan to know whether my club is practising discriminatory policies or not. That's why I have asked Pete to clarify:

                  - are the statements being made by both himself and his administrator correct or not;

                  - if they are correct, has the information contained therein been provided from within the club, and was that information released with or without authority;

                  - if they are not correct, what was the purpose of making these statements and why were they allowed to remain on the board. Remember, we're not talking about a poster, but the owner of the site and one of his administrators. The owner having already assured us that he has not been running an anti-Sousa smear campaign, and that he had no prior knowledge that a decision had been taken to sack Sousa.

                  Furthermore, the statements made by Pete's administrator suggest that a decision had already been made to sack Sousa, not because Sousa had breached club confidentiality, but because (surprise surprise) he had fallen out with Briatore. Now if Briatore simply decides he wants to sack Sousa, Sousa would have been entitled to payment in full for the remainder of his contract. If he is sacked for breach of contract, he loses that right.

                  So it's clear that the club stands to profit by sacking Sousa for breach of contract rather than because his face doesn't fit. Which begs the question; are the club really bothered about sensitive information being released without authority, or are they simply using it as an excuse to get rid of an employee they no longer want as cheaply as possible?

                  Whether discrimination or sharp practice, the business ethics of the club's owners are called into question. Simply because of statements made on this board by Pete and his administrator.

                  I hope the above is objective enough and well thought out enough for all parties using this board to support me in my quest to get the answers I've been looking for from Pete.
                  Thanks for the detailed response.

                  Firstly, and I could well be wrong on this, but your second FACT, was in all probability a personally held opinion. Assuming that to be the case, then why would Pete feel the need to tell anyone that they should not have their own opinion, as in doing so, he would give ammunition to those that already hold the view that he is in some way controlling what people can and cannot say.

                  Secondly, do we really believe in all honesty,(despite the majority of posters appearing to not be entirely happy with FB & co.), that they would for one moment think that using this messageboard as a means to discredit the manager, would be either sensible or effective? Assuming that FB is even aware that this site exists, the amount of members would hardly form a majority of QPR fans, would it?

                  I think it is unfortunate for the club, it's fans and PS, that things did not work out as well as all parties may have hoped, but to suggest that a smear campaign was necessary, is a little puzzling. Particularly when people have even suggested that a third party was used to solicit sensitive information from the manager and post it for all to see on here. I do not see much criticism of the original place where that information was posted either.

                  I just feel that if you were to ask your questions in a slightly friendlier manner, without the insinuation of devious practises, from either any poster or the club, you may get more joy. After all, this is a fan's messageboard, not a government department.

                  Finally, KLR, what is my excuse for what? I will happily answer your question once I understand what it is that you are asking.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Bernie, The problem is you give pete too much authority and act as if he runs the club. He supports the club like all of us.

                    I've never seen Pete post the items that were in that original post you refer to. We have sensitive information and information which are made up of opinions and it just suits peoples agenda to single out one person. He puts himself in the firing line, but I know supporters from Sherperds bush to Adelaide appreciate his efforts in bringing news to the club.

                    Over the weekend, I've read we are after 4 different managers, yet if pete comes on here, and names a prospect, he is told???. I've known pete for a number of years and he is simply a paasionate fans who helps many fans that cannot go to games each week.

                    I see all the mud-slinging, yet very rarely do you see anyone compliment pete on the hard work he does on this site. I have never seen another QPR web-site carry a positive story on WATRB's for example his 45 minute Clive Wilson interview, no paid journalist would have done better.

                    I've also never seen someone like Rodney Marsh give such a long chat to an interviewer..

                    Would be nice to focus on some positives. FFS the guy even gets stick for bringing a drum.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by brightonr View Post
                      Thanks for the detailed response.

                      Firstly, and I could well be wrong on this, but your second FACT, was in all probability a personally held opinion. Assuming that to be the case, then why would Pete feel the need to tell anyone that they should not have their own opinion, as in doing so, he would give ammunition to those that already hold the view that he is in some way controlling what people can and cannot say.

                      Secondly, do we really believe in all honesty,(despite the majority of posters appearing to not be entirely happy with FB & co.), that they would for one moment think that using this messageboard as a means to discredit the manager, would be either sensible or effective? Assuming that FB is even aware that this site exists, the amount of members would hardly form a majority of QPR fans, would it?

                      I think it is unfortunate for the club, it's fans and PS, that things did not work out as well as all parties may have hoped, but to suggest that a smear campaign was necessary, is a little puzzling. Particularly when people have even suggested that a third party was used to solicit sensitive information from the manager and post it for all to see on here. I do not see much criticism of the original place where that information was posted either.

                      I just feel that if you were to ask your questions in a slightly friendlier manner, without the insinuation of devious practises, from either any poster or the club, you may get more joy. After all, this is a fan's messageboard, not a government department.

                      Finally, KLR, what is my excuse for what? I will happily answer your question once I understand what it is that you are asking.

                      Which of the following is a statement of opinion and which is a statement of fact:

                      "Sousa may well get the sack"

                      "I think Sousa is going to be sacked"

                      "Sousa is going to be sacked"

                      You can't dress a statement as fact and then say "oh well it was only an opinion". Do you think if someone posted the statement "John Smith is a rapist" on here, and John Smith then decided to sue for libel, that you could stand in a court and say in your defence "ah, but that was just my opinion".

                      It's the sort of thing the army of moderators on this board should be responsible for picking up on instead of warning people for calling each other i.diots and such like. Given that these statements are being dressed as fact and are coming from the site owner and one of its administrators, and are not being amended or deleted by moderators, then you or I or anyone else who reads those statements are entitled to take them as fact.

                      So, as I said way back, the statements are either accurate, in which case someone in the club is disclosing sensitive information with or without authority, or they are not, in which case people who read this board are being deliberately misled to suit the purposes of the site and its owner. Which would be a reasonable definition of "having an agenda".
                      Last edited by Bernie's barnet; 12-04-2009, 05:10 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BigShark View Post
                        Bernie, The problem is you give pete too much authority and act as if he runs the club. He supports the club like all of us.

                        I've never seen Pete post the items that were in that original post you refer to. We have sensitive information and information which are made up of opinions and it just suits peoples agenda to single out one person. He puts himself in the firing line, but I know supporters from Sherperds bush to Adelaide appreciate his efforts in bringing news to the club.

                        Over the weekend, I've read we are after 4 different managers, yet if pete comes on here, and names a prospect, he is told???. I've known pete for a number of years and he is simply a paasionate fans who helps many fans that cannot go to games each week.

                        I see all the mud-slinging, yet very rarely do you see anyone compliment pete on the hard work he does on this site. I have never seen another QPR web-site carry a positive story on WATRB's for example his 45 minute Clive Wilson interview, no paid journalist would have done better.

                        I've also never seen someone like Rodney Marsh give such a long chat to an interviewer..

                        Would be nice to focus on some positives. FFS the guy even gets stick for bringing a drum.

                        Sorry, if you can point out anywhere in any post that I've suggested Pete runs the club, I'll edit it immediately.

                        He is however owner of this website and responsible for its content, and as far as I'm aware, it's only the content of some posts on this website I've asked him to comment on.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Why are you not consistent?

                          You only ask a question because it suits your agenda.

                          Unless of course you ask questions of other admin staff from Independent r's to rivals?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bernie's barnet View Post
                            Sorry, if you can point out anywhere in any post that I've suggested Pete runs the club, I'll edit it immediately.

                            He is however owner of this website and responsible for its content, and as far as I'm aware, it's only the content of some posts on this website I've asked him to comment on.
                            In light of recent events, the administrative team has reviewed its conduct and has produced a Privacy Policy which can be found at the top of the We Are The Rangers Boys Forum.

                            Thank you,

                            WATRB Team.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BigShark View Post
                              Why are you not consistent?

                              You only ask a question because it suits your agenda.

                              Unless of course you ask questions of other admin staff from Independent r's to rivals?

                              I'm completely consistent in what I've asked, but again if you can find anything in my posts which aren't consistent, I'll happily edit or withdraw them.

                              Since you feel I have an agenda, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what it is, over and above the reasons I've already outlined.

                              Can't remember saying that I visit or contribute any other boards or sites, and in any case, that would be entirely my business and not yours. But I'd certainly ask the same questions if I found the same issues on any other site on which I participate, football related or not.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X