|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 10:44:20 GMT
i will repeat it again fella i came here in peace wishing for a sensible and fair debate and yes 29 is young in my eyes although a couple of people on here think im under 16 which quite frankly is laughable I thought you were 16 judging by the tone of your posts. I still believe that. I also believe that you should be sent back to the circus because clowns like you are without doubt affecting the quality of this board. You see responses like this are more likely to come from someone that is younger then yet you accuse me of being under 16 KLR cant you have a sensible debate without belittling people just because they have a different opinion than you? I have never insulted you where as you continue to do so to me
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 10:54:28 GMT
I also believe that you should be sent back to the circus because clowns like you are without doubt affecting the quality of this board. KLR - posts like that do the same. We all know that you have much better to post than that and you have let yourself down there. Ignore anything that bothers you to the point where you lose your normal level of passionate post please. You know all viewpoints are allowed on this board, regardless of anything else, so why tell someone to go away? How are you supposed to debate with them that way? How is that not censorship to a degree?
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 22, 2010 11:00:03 GMT
Look we all know what we know even if we can't always prove it! I strongly feel that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" - That you welcome all points of view; and you consistently put forward your point of view within the limits...And people will judge for themselves.
So that rather this be a case of "Martyrs" and "Censorship" and "Abuse" etc, it becomes a forum for information and opinions. Let the ad hominems and the slurs and the snide little comments and implied accusations be relegated to those elsewhere - along with the hypocrisy and cant and advocacy of the welfare of one gentleman.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 11:07:43 GMT
Look we all know what we know even if we can't always prove it! I strongly feel that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" - That you welcome all points of view; and you consistently put forward your point of view within the limits...And people will judge for themselves. So that rather this be a case of "Martyrs" and "Censorship" and "Abuse" etc, it becomes a forum for information and opinions. Let the ad hominems and the slurs and the snide little comments and implied accusations be relegated to those elsewhere - along with the hypocrisy and cant and advocacy of the welfare of one gentleman. mike i certainly have not made any snide remarks or slurs, merely stating what my opinion
|
|
|
Post by klr on Jan 22, 2010 11:09:40 GMT
I also believe that you should be sent back to the circus because clowns like you are without doubt affecting the quality of this board. KLR - posts like that do the same. We all know that you have much better to post than that and you have let yourself down there. Ignore anything that bothers you to the point where you lose your normal level of passionate post please. You know all viewpoints are allowed on this board, regardless of anything else, so why tell someone to go away? How are you supposed to debate with them that way? How is that not censorship to a degree? OK Mark, I've taken that onboard pal.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 11:22:29 GMT
markqpr
what was the questions that you would like me to answer?
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 11:26:02 GMT
markqpr what was the questions that you would like me to answer? apologies for that In fairness as i say i got shot down the minuet i done my first post therefore i went away to let things calm down can you remind me what your questions were please? I did answer some questions for another poster on here the other night so im not dodging anything Thanks Thanks for the reply! ;D It was in regards to your assertion that if there was a takeover then Pallidni would remain in his present role. I asserted that if you were a new owner and looked at the performance levels on the pitch and then the amount of money lost each year by the club then it would be more than reasonable to assume that the one constant in this over the last 5 years: Pallidini, is primarily responsible for this. Gianni's stated himself that his intentions were that he would lower the losses and try to balance the club's books. That is fact: he said that at a share holders meeting. In that respect he has failed dramatically, nearly running the club into the ground and to a point were we had to be saved by outside investors who now proclaim that without them the club would not exist. They have never claimed that without Gianni the club would not exist! In his role at QPR he has kept us going by hook or by crook but ultimately has failed in his own stated objectives from when he first came in and had to be rescued by others, several times. He is not very good at his job in short and we need better. I'm unsure as to why we need a Sporting Director anyway I suspect it's more to do with Flabio having a constant point of contact at the club because that is obviously not going to happen with the managerial turn around we have, but I think it's in our best interests to get in a manager on a long termm basis that Flabio can trust and do away with the entire Sporting Director role entirely. Just wanted a response to that really, a different viewpoint and then hopefully an insightful debate.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 11:37:27 GMT
markqpr what was the questions that you would like me to answer? Thanks for the reply! ;D It was in regards to your assertion that if there was a takeover then Pallidni would remain in his present role. I asserted that if you were a new owner and looked at the performance levels on the pitch and then the amount of money lost each year by the club then it would be more than reasonable to assume that the one constant in this over the last 5 years: Pallidini, is primarily responsible for this. Gianni's stated himself that his intentions were that he would lower the losses and try to balance the club's books. That is fact: he said that at a share holders meeting. In that respect he has failed dramatically, nearly running the club into the ground and to a point were we had to be saved by outside investors who now proclaim that without them the club would not exist. They have never claimed that without Gianni the club would not exist! In his role at QPR he has kept us going by hook or by crook but ultimately has failed in his own stated objectives from when he first came in and had to be rescued by others, several times. He is not very good at his job in short and we need better. I'm unsure as to why we need a Sporting Director anyway I suspect it's more to do with Flabio having a constant point of contact at the club because that is obviously not going to happen with the managerial turn around we have, but I think it's in our best interests to get in a manager on a long termm basis that Flabio can trust and do away with the entire Sporting Director role entirely. Just wanted a response to that really, a different viewpoint and then hopefully an insightful debate. [/quote] apologies if im being a bit thick but i thought you had some specific questions that you asked previously? or are you looking for my opinion on that last post you quoted im happy to respond to either
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 11:44:50 GMT
or are you looking for my opinion on that last post you quoted Yes. Everyone else thanks for your patience, we'll get there in the end!*
|
|
|
Post by FloridaR on Jan 22, 2010 12:44:06 GMT
I would prefer not to get involved in the Funky v Mike debate above and limit my words to something positive going back to Mike's original message. One positive thing about this site is that you can read a debate, with different views expressed (re Mike' Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis thread). But when fans debate sometimes tempers get lost and then abuse is swapped for argument. Anyone who disagrees with another view risks being accused of not being a real QPR fan, or worse still supporting Chelsea. I'm not taking the high ground here, as one I used to get heated up myself in such arguments many moons ago I was guilty of slipping into the first form of abuse now and then. In fact that is all nonsense. People should accept that they can have different views and still all be fans of the same club, and just because someone disagrees with you it does not make them a poodle or any other kind of canine variety, nor a P*******, troll or someone with mental problems (all of which have regularly been thrown around in the last few days). It's the abuse that needs to be cut out or trimmed down, that's all. I have seen some rather bizarre messages suggesting that the problem is that people who post on another board (eg WRTRBs) are the cause of the problem for somehow invading this site and posting a view different from the posters. That is surely nonsense and runs against the idea of this site being able to host debates between fans. It would be just as misconceived as saying the problem is caused by regular posters from IndyRs coming on this site to post their views. Surely both sets of posters should be welcome. Claiming the reasons for abuse is that someone has a different view (and thus somehow deserves it) as as contrary to the idea of free expression as complete censorship. So surely the best thing would be if people like Scott Jones, Funky, ha9, Qpblock Pete, Isleworth Ranger etc on one side, and Finney, awrightmush, floridarR, etc on another were all welcome and posting on here their own views, and were able to debate without the abuse that we have seen. And it's no good saying, 'he started it' or 'what he said was worse' or any of that kind of playground stuff - we could all do that but it is far better to let it go and try and cut out the abuse in the future. Good luck Mike and the other moderators who I think are doing their best, whatever their views, to encourage this. If you get it to work I am sure the quality, content and authority of this board will only increase. This post is the perfect example of why the board has been smeared with angry words over the past 2 weeks. Nico - spent the entire day on here yesterday with his wannabee assistants. Nico's attitude is one of the judge wearing the wig. Pyschologically later in the day Scott (BPD) starts, legalesing with albeit, aforementioned, said et al etc... One of the 1st rules for how to be a dumb lawyer & succeed is ; - When you don't have a leg to stand on the best form of defence is attack & keep on attacking. Saying that Ha9 has told us his age & getting us to speed on his life history, so I have high hopes that he will become a great participant on this magnificent forum. With regards to moderating I feel the folk in charge have shown remarkable restraint & compassion to the new / infrequent posters of other sites that use this board to launch attacks & vent their frustration on other loyal QPR fans. However if I were given the opportunity to become a moderator I would be more than willing to be one of the 1st to take lone's banning wand & strike down upon those that disgrace the good name of loyal QPR.
|
|
|
Post by klr on Jan 22, 2010 12:55:52 GMT
I would prefer not to get involved in the Funky v Mike debate above and limit my words to something positive going back to Mike's original message. One positive thing about this site is that you can read a debate, with different views expressed (re Mike' Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis thread). But when fans debate sometimes tempers get lost and then abuse is swapped for argument. Anyone who disagrees with another view risks being accused of not being a real QPR fan, or worse still supporting Chelsea. I'm not taking the high ground here, as one I used to get heated up myself in such arguments many moons ago I was guilty of slipping into the first form of abuse now and then. In fact that is all nonsense. People should accept that they can have different views and still all be fans of the same club, and just because someone disagrees with you it does not make them a poodle or any other kind of canine variety, nor a P*******, troll or someone with mental problems (all of which have regularly been thrown around in the last few days). It's the abuse that needs to be cut out or trimmed down, that's all. I have seen some rather bizarre messages suggesting that the problem is that people who post on another board (eg WRTRBs) are the cause of the problem for somehow invading this site and posting a view different from the posters. That is surely nonsense and runs against the idea of this site being able to host debates between fans. It would be just as misconceived as saying the problem is caused by regular posters from IndyRs coming on this site to post their views. Surely both sets of posters should be welcome. Claiming the reasons for abuse is that someone has a different view (and thus somehow deserves it) as as contrary to the idea of free expression as complete censorship. So surely the best thing would be if people like Scott Jones, Funky, ha9, Qpblock Pete, Isleworth Ranger etc on one side, and Finney, awrightmush, floridarR, etc on another were all welcome and posting on here their own views, and were able to debate without the abuse that we have seen. And it's no good saying, 'he started it' or 'what he said was worse' or any of that kind of playground stuff - we could all do that but it is far better to let it go and try and cut out the abuse in the future. Good luck Mike and the other moderators who I think are doing their best, whatever their views, to encourage this. If you get it to work I am sure the quality, content and authority of this board will only increase. This post is the perfect example of why the board has been smeared with angry words over the past 2 weeks. Nico - spent the entire day on here yesterday with his wannabee assistants. Nico's attitude is one of the judge wearing the wig. Pyschologically later in the day Scott (BPD) starts, legalesing with albeit, aforementioned, said et al etc... One of the 1st rules for how to be a dumb lawyer & succeed is ; - When you don't have a leg to stand on the best form of defence is attack & keep on attacking. Saying that Ha9 has told us his age & getting us to speed on his life history, so I have high hopes that he will become a great participant on this magnificent forum. With regards to moderating I feel the folk in charge have shown remarkable restraint & compassion to the new / infrequent posters of other sites that use this board to launch attacks & vent their frustration on other loyal QPR fans. However if I were given the opportunity to become a moderator I would be more than willing to be one of the 1st to take lone's banning wand & strike down upon those that disgrace the good name of loyal QPR. Agree with all of that. The smear campaigns have already begun in earnest, expect to see some dirty & foul play to earn the approval of their man. Dont even regard these people as fellow QPR Fans if I am being honest & wouldnt give them the time of day. The interests of Gianni come above the interests of QPR Football Club, not an opinion, its all patently obvious. I dont think theres any point in having a go at them, like I have said, I just dont even regard these people as QPR Fans.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 13:00:42 GMT
I would prefer not to get involved in the Funky v Mike debate above and limit my words to something positive going back to Mike's original message. One positive thing about this site is that you can read a debate, with different views expressed (re Mike' Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis thread). But when fans debate sometimes tempers get lost and then abuse is swapped for argument. Anyone who disagrees with another view risks being accused of not being a real QPR fan, or worse still supporting Chelsea. I'm not taking the high ground here, as one I used to get heated up myself in such arguments many moons ago I was guilty of slipping into the first form of abuse now and then. In fact that is all nonsense. People should accept that they can have different views and still all be fans of the same club, and just because someone disagrees with you it does not make them a poodle or any other kind of canine variety, nor a P*******, troll or someone with mental problems (all of which have regularly been thrown around in the last few days). It's the abuse that needs to be cut out or trimmed down, that's all. I have seen some rather bizarre messages suggesting that the problem is that people who post on another board (eg WRTRBs) are the cause of the problem for somehow invading this site and posting a view different from the posters. That is surely nonsense and runs against the idea of this site being able to host debates between fans. It would be just as misconceived as saying the problem is caused by regular posters from IndyRs coming on this site to post their views. Surely both sets of posters should be welcome. Claiming the reasons for abuse is that someone has a different view (and thus somehow deserves it) as as contrary to the idea of free expression as complete censorship. So surely the best thing would be if people like Scott Jones, Funky, ha9, Qpblock Pete, Isleworth Ranger etc on one side, and Finney, awrightmush, floridarR, etc on another were all welcome and posting on here their own views, and were able to debate without the abuse that we have seen. And it's no good saying, 'he started it' or 'what he said was worse' or any of that kind of playground stuff - we could all do that but it is far better to let it go and try and cut out the abuse in the future. Good luck Mike and the other moderators who I think are doing their best, whatever their views, to encourage this. If you get it to work I am sure the quality, content and authority of this board will only increase. This post is the perfect example of why the board has been smeared with angry words over the past 2 weeks. Nico - spent the entire day on here yesterday with his wannabee assistants. Nico's attitude is one of the judge wearing the wig. Pyschologically later in the day Scott (BPD) starts, legalesing with albeit, aforementioned, said et al etc... One of the 1st rules for how to be a dumb lawyer & succeed is ; - When you don't have a leg to stand on the best form of defence is attack & keep on attacking. Saying that Ha9 has told us his age & getting us to speed on his life history, so I have high hopes that he will become a great participant on this magnificent forum. With regards to moderating I feel the folk in charge have shown remarkable restraint & compassion to the new / infrequent posters of other sites that use this board to launch attacks & vent their frustration on other loyal QPR fans. However if I were given the opportunity to become a moderator I would be more than willing to be one of the 1st to take lone's banning wand & strike down upon those that disgrace the good name of loyal QPR. yes i have nothing to hide, i have been up front from the begining and actually i like this board and most of the posters on here here's to happy relationship fella
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 13:08:11 GMT
This post is the perfect example of why the board has been smeared with angry words over the past 2 weeks. Nico - spent the entire day on here yesterday with his wannabee assistants. Nico's attitude is one of the judge wearing the wig. Pyschologically later in the day Scott (BPD) starts, legalesing with albeit, aforementioned, said et al etc... One of the 1st rules for how to be a dumb lawyer & succeed is ; - When you don't have a leg to stand on the best form of defence is attack & keep on attacking. Saying that Ha9 has told us his age & getting us to speed on his life history, so I have high hopes that he will become a great participant on this magnificent forum. With regards to moderating I feel the folk in charge have shown remarkable restraint & compassion to the new / infrequent posters of other sites that use this board to launch attacks & vent their frustration on other loyal QPR fans. However if I were given the opportunity to become a moderator I would be more than willing to be one of the 1st to take lone's banning wand & strike down upon those that disgrace the good name of loyal QPR. Agree with all of that. The smear campaigns have already begun in earnest, expect to see some dirty & foul play to earn the approval of their man. Dont even regard these people as fellow QPR Fans if I am being honest & wouldnt give them the time of day. The interests of Gianni come above the interests of QPR Football Club, not an opinion, its all patently obvious. I dont think theres any point in having a go at them, like I have said, I just dont even regard these people as QPR Fans. KLR Whilst we do not agree I admit it is time for change However what we disagree on is how we change this. Personally i believe flavio is to blame for the majority of problems we have right now You may disagree and I respect that Can also point out that i find it deeply offending when you say you dont think im a true QPR fan That really is aload of rubbish fella Lets just agree to disagree or lets debate in a friendly manner please Im not running any smear campaigns i actually like this board and the posters on here lets try and get on
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 22, 2010 13:10:39 GMT
If you are a true QPR supporter today, your past affiliations really don't matter. I do have to laugh though when I see posts (elsewhere) bemoaning the "smear" of calling people non-QPR supporters when the very charge of being "anti-QPR" originated from the very same person.
|
|
nico
Ian Holloway
banned
Posts: 256
|
Post by nico on Jan 22, 2010 13:31:25 GMT
Mike I agree. Such smears have no place anywhere. Against you or others on other sites, or against me and others by floridR and KLR on this site.
As some people from 'both sides' of the debate keep trying to emphasise, disagree on what you think is wrong now, or how to correct it, but just because you do you don't need to label each other not true supporters. And it doesn't matter if you live in Florida, Arsenal or New Zealand. Anyone can support QPR and express an opinion and it is not disloyal to diagree with each other
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 13:57:40 GMT
If you are a true QPR supporter today, your past affiliations really don't matter. I do have to laugh though when I see posts (elsewhere) bemoaning the "smear" of calling people non-QPR supporters when the very charge of being "anti-QPR" originated from the very same person. Can you elaborate on that Mike? Hopefully you are not reffering to me in that statement?
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 13:59:57 GMT
Mike I agree. Such smears have no place anywhere. Against you or others on other sites, or against me and others by floridR and KLR on this site. As some people from 'both sides' of the debate keep trying to emphasise, disagree on what you think is wrong now, or how to correct it, but just because you do you don't need to label each other not true supporters. And it doesn't matter if you live in Florida, Arsenal or New Zealand. Anyone can support QPR and express an opinion and it is not disloyal to diagree with each other my sentiments exactly nico we are one, a band of brothers so to speak and we should all try to respect each other
|
|
|
Post by QPR Report on Jan 22, 2010 14:04:22 GMT
If you are a true QPR supporter today, your past affiliations really don't matter. I do have to laugh though when I see posts (elsewhere) bemoaning the "smear" of calling people non-QPR supporters when the very charge of being "anti-QPR" originated from the very same person. Can you elaborate on that Mike? Hopefully you are not reffering to me in that statement? In this specific case my "assertion" of being called "anti-QPR" was NOT referring to you! (Somewhere on this board, about 3-4 weeks ago, we had a thread on the issue re being called 'Anti-QPR")
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 14:04:29 GMT
or are you looking for my opinion on that last post you quoted Yes. Everyone else thanks for your patience, we'll get there in the end!* Still waiting....................... And now a direct question I would like answered as well: Why is it taking so long for you to engage in debate with me, yet you can quickly fire a rebuttal to another poster over a trivial matter? This is beginning to lead me as to question your actual intentions in posting here as you seem to be ignoring my viewpoint and taking an awfully long way round to answer it. Plus I'm beginning to feel like Jeremy Paxman which is slightly uncomfortable as well. Simply put, with what I said about Pallidini's competence in the role as football director, leaving all personal feelings aside and taking into account my valuation of his time at QPR, what pros do you see in him keeping the job? Sentimental reasons are not good enough and will not convince me either.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 14:05:48 GMT
whoops sorry mark i was busy answering zed's questions
bear with me mate
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 14:10:08 GMT
Can you elaborate on that Mike? Hopefully you are not reffering to me in that statement? In this specific case my "assertion" of being called "anti-QPR" was NOT referring to you! (Somewhere on this board, about 3-4 weeks ago, we had a thread on the issue re being called 'Anti-QPR") im sure your heart is in the right place mate so dont worry, i was worried that you thought i was saying this was an anti gp site in fact thats wide of mark, i like this site, i like the posters and look forward to some decent debates fella
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 14:13:01 GMT
whoops sorry mark i was busy answering zed's questions bear with me mate Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Post by awrightmush on Jan 22, 2010 14:42:42 GMT
i will say this to you once...you are an exposed agitator, who is disliked on every site, you came on here to stir after your ridiclous posts were too much even for petes site. your name was outed on other sites to stop you trolling, you are someone who from all your posts has no opinion of your own, you just trash others views...my anti gp post was welcomed by most, and even acknowledged to be true in parts by a very pro gp person (via e mail). believe what you want but i have been asked by mods to ignore your posts, i think it may be because you are quite young and may come under the minors act. therefore i will comply with the mods re you. this is my final post to you its a shame someone so young is so easily led and has made so many enemies, mayt i sugest you think for yourself, and trone yourself down a bit...once GP has been outed, you may find your allies disapear toot suite. like i said HA9( James) is a well known agitator/troll........we are now his "band of brothers" or " Fella" which i find insulting.....i as asked will not converse with him.... i doubt you will get an answer until hes been told what he can say.......maybe a vote should be taken on whether to ban him, as he is just a childish stirrer.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 14:45:42 GMT
apologies for that In fairness as i say i got shot down the minuet i done my first post therefore i went away to let things calm down can you remind me what your questions were please? I did answer some questions for another poster on here the other night so im not dodging anything Thanks Thanks for the reply! ;D It was in regards to your assertion that if there was a takeover then Pallidni would remain in his present role. I asserted that if you were a new owner and looked at the performance levels on the pitch and then the amount of money lost each year by the club then it would be more than reasonable to assume that the one constant in this over the last 5 years: Pallidini, is primarily responsible for this. Gianni's stated himself that his intentions were that he would lower the losses and try to balance the club's books. That is fact: he said that at a share holders meeting. In that respect he has failed dramatically, nearly running the club into the ground and to a point were we had to be saved by outside investors who now proclaim that without them the club would not exist. They have never claimed that without Gianni the club would not exist! In his role at QPR he has kept us going by hook or by crook but ultimately has failed in his own stated objectives from when he first came in and had to be rescued by others, several times. He is not very good at his job in short and we need better. I'm unsure as to why we need a Sporting Director anyway I suspect it's more to do with Flabio having a constant point of contact at the club because that is obviously not going to happen with the managerial turn around we have, but I think it's in our best interests to get in a manager on a long termm basis that Flabio can trust and do away with the entire Sporting Director role entirely. Just wanted a response to that really, a different viewpoint and then hopefully an insightful debate. markqpr Firstly apologies for not replying to this any sooner. I lost track fella of all the posts i was being asked to reply to I will give you my view point on your post I will quote you as its easier to digest that way "It was in regards to your assertion that if there was a takeover then Pallidni would remain in his present role. I asserted that if you were a new owner and looked at the performance levels on the pitch and then the amount of money lost each year by the club then it would be more than reasonable to assume that the one constant in this over the last 5 years: Pallidini, is primarily responsible for this." I will answer that simply that Gianni was the chairman for the last few years, when flavio came he in i believe that he made a judgement that it was better to stick with someone who knew the club inside out as opposed to an outsider that arguably wasnt aware of how the club was run On your last point you seem to point the finger at GP for the financial difficulties at QPR. Im sure you know anyway that caliendo et all were tight fisted so what could Gianni do? Its also worth mentioning Gianni is not a millionaire and money does not go on trees as they say...Make no bones about it he kept this club alive by hook and crook and he should be praised for doing so "Gianni's stated himself that his intentions were that he would lower the losses and try to balance the club's books. That is fact: he said that at a share holders meeting. In that respect he has failed dramatically, nearly running the club into the ground and to a point were we had to be saved by outside investors who now proclaim that without them the club would not exist. They have never claimed that without Gianni the club would not exist!" Refer to my earlier response. Gianni took us over when we was already in trouble. What did you expect a magic wand to be waved? As i already stated there was no way he could do that he does not have that financial clout. Thanks to the ABC loan Gianni was always fighting a losing battle. Also worth noting Gianni wasnt responsible for that loan, he was trying to correct the mistakes of the previous regime "In his role at QPR he has kept us going by hook or by crook but ultimately has failed in his own stated objectives from when he first came in and had to be rescued by others, several times." Sorry but you cant blame him for that "He is not very good at his job in short and we need better." Disagree with that im afraid. Do you know what he does day to day? If the answer is no then you shouldnt make a statement like that when you cant back it up "I'm unsure as to why we need a Sporting Director anyway I suspect it's more to do with Flabio having a constant point of contact at the club because that is obviously not going to happen with the managerial turn around we have, but I think it's in our best interests to get in a manager on a long termm basis that Flabio can trust and do away with the entire Sporting Director role entirely." I think we have already covered this, i think what people need to understand is in Italy most clubs have a DOF, flavio is Italian and im afraid until flavio leaves that will always be the way Trouble i see with DOF's, let's use us as an example, Flav barks the orders Gianni does what flavio requests, what im getting at is flavio doesnt want anyone to know all the orders come from above, so when it goes tits up the egg is gianni's face and imo thats not fair Took ages to write but still there you go
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 14:49:34 GMT
i will say this to you once...you are an exposed agitator, who is disliked on every site, you came on here to stir after your ridiclous posts were too much even for petes site. your name was outed on other sites to stop you trolling, you are someone who from all your posts has no opinion of your own, you just trash others views...my anti gp post was welcomed by most, and even acknowledged to be true in parts by a very pro gp person (via e mail). believe what you want but i have been asked by mods to ignore your posts, i think it may be because you are quite young and may come under the minors act. therefore i will comply with the mods re you. this is my final post to you its a shame someone so young is so easily led and has made so many enemies, mayt i sugest you think for yourself, and trone yourself down a bit...once GP has been outed, you may find your allies disapear toot suite. like i said HA9( James) is a well known agitator/troll........we are now his "band of brothers" or " Fella" which i find insulting.....i as asked will not converse with him.... i doubt you will get an answer until hes been told what he can say.......maybe a vote should be taken on whether to ban him, as he is just a childish stirrer. You're not helping! Let him answer in his own time. There's even a question there for him to answer about why it's taking so long. We'll get there in due course, there's no hurry. Also only use ha9's user name, please. Using someones (supposed) real name for the sake of antagonism is not wanted here. Ask Mike, sorry I meant Report. Seriously, stop it please.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 15:00:04 GMT
like i said HA9( James) is a well known agitator/troll........we are now his "band of brothers" or " Fella" which i find insulting.....i as asked will not converse with him.... i doubt you will get an answer until hes been told what he can say.......maybe a vote should be taken on whether to ban him, as he is just a childish stirrer. You're not helping! Let him answer in his own time. There's even a question there for him to answer about why it's taking so long. We'll get there in due course, there's no hurry. Also only use ha9's user name, please. Using someones (supposed) real name for the sake of antagonism is not wanted here. Ask Mike, sorry I meant Report. Seriously, stop it please. I have answered your post check the other thread Sorry it took so long mark
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 22, 2010 15:32:12 GMT
markqpr
Firstly apologies for not replying to this any sooner. I lost track fella of all the posts i was being asked to reply to
Not a problem, I understand that you have been busy responding to the many others. I don't mind waiting for a considered answer. Thanks.
I will give you my view point on your post
I will quote you as its easier to digest that way
Agree on that.
"It was in regards to your assertion that if there was a takeover then Pallidni would remain in his present role.
I asserted that if you were a new owner and looked at the performance levels on the pitch and then the amount of money lost each year by the club then it would be more than reasonable to assume that the one constant in this over the last 5 years: Pallidini, is primarily responsible for this."
I will answer that simply that Gianni was the chairman for the last few years, when flavio came he in i believe that he made a judgement that it was better to stick with someone who knew the club inside out as opposed to an outsider that arguably wasnt aware of how the club was run
But surely he was rescuing us from the previous chairman, Pallidini and it was a lazy and ill judged decision leading to where we are today?
On your last point you seem to point the finger at GP for the financial difficulties at QPR. Im sure you know anyway that caliendo et all were tight fisted so what could Gianni do? Its also worth mentioning Gianni is not a millionaire and money does not go on trees as they say...Make no bones about it he kept this club alive by hook and crook and he should be praised for doing so
As acting chairman how is Pallidini not responsible for the running of the company? It's not worth mentioning that Gianni is not a millionaire. We know that. We have known that for years. Why would you mention that in relation as to whether or not he is good at his job? Might I even suggest that if he was good at his job he would be a millionaire? That way he wouldn't need his employer that is losing money yearly since he took over to have to lend him any money? That would be better for us I agree but you're right he's not a millionaire because he seems to lose money rather than earn it. Not a good credential for one of our directors.
"Gianni's stated himself that his intentions were that he would lower the losses and try to balance the club's books. That is fact: he said that at a share holders meeting.
In that respect he has failed dramatically, nearly running the club into the ground and to a point were we had to be saved by outside investors who now proclaim that without them the club would not exist. They have never claimed that without Gianni the club would not exist!"
Refer to my earlier response. Gianni took us over when we was already in trouble. What did you expect a magic wand to be waved? As i already stated there was no way he could do that he does not have that financial clout. Thanks to the ABC loan Gianni was always fighting a losing battle. Also worth noting Gianni wasnt responsible for that loan, he was trying to correct the mistakes of the previous regime
Gianni is like anyone else solely accountable for his own promises. I certainly did not expect a magic wand to be waved, please don't be so trite, but that is in effect what Gianni promised to do. He said that, so please consider that it was his statement to begin with and he simply got it wrong. He has failed to correct the mistakes of the previous regime, Flabio has definately confirmed this with his 'QPR would not exist' bit and so is it not logical to take that into account as well as the fact we are still losing money and say thanks but that's enough?
"In his role at QPR he has kept us going by hook or by crook but ultimately has failed in his own stated objectives from when he first came in and had to be rescued by others, several times."
Sorry but you cant blame him for that
Why not? Of course you can. No one made him say what he did. He has simply failed to live up to his own promises. He's had long enough to prove his worth to the club as a director and simply is not good enough.
"He is not very good at his job in short and we need better."
Disagree with that im afraid. Do you know what he does day to day? If the answer is no then you shouldnt make a statement like that when you cant back it up
I have no right to my opinion because I don't know the in's and outs of his day to day duties? Well I'm certainly confident enough to say that whatever he does it has resulted in an unbalanced squad and lower attendances. Enough for him to go. If he is not responsible for that then he should go as well as we need to focus on that and not whatever he does as we know he doesn't do it very well. The balance books for the last 5 years prove this.
"I'm unsure as to why we need a Sporting Director anyway I suspect it's more to do with Flabio having a constant point of contact at the club because that is obviously not going to happen with the managerial turn around we have, but I think it's in our best interests to get in a manager on a long termm basis that Flabio can trust and do away with the entire Sporting Director role entirely."
I think we have already covered this, i think what people need to understand is in Italy most clubs have a DOF, flavio is Italian and im afraid until flavio leaves that will always be the way
Trouble i see with DOF's, let's use us as an example, Flav barks the orders Gianni does what flavio requests, what im getting at is flavio doesnt want anyone to know all the orders come from above, so when it goes tits up the egg is gianni's face and imo thats not fair
Doesn't necessarily have to be Gianni then does it? Why not someone else? Surely after the last 2 years this is an area we could improve on? As you say Flabio can't be fired so in order to improve our club why not bring in an experienced Italian who has past experince of success in the job. Gianni has none, has failed in the last two years to achieve any and so therefore I would like to see a change in that position at the club.
Took ages to write but still there you go
Agree with that as well.
Please give me the pros of keeping Gianni over an experienced man in the same role and not an irrelevant look back in time, please.
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Jan 22, 2010 15:43:01 GMT
Don't hold your breath Marky Mark.
Great post and responses by the way.
|
|
|
Post by ha9 on Jan 22, 2010 15:49:41 GMT
markqpr
Firstly apologies for not replying to this any sooner. I lost track fella of all the posts i was being asked to reply toNot a problem, I understand that you have been busy responding to the many others. I don't mind waiting for a considered answer. Thanks. I will give you my view point on your post
I will quote you as its easier to digest that wayAgree on that. "It was in regards to your assertion that if there was a takeover then Pallidni would remain in his present role.
I asserted that if you were a new owner and looked at the performance levels on the pitch and then the amount of money lost each year by the club then it would be more than reasonable to assume that the one constant in this over the last 5 years: Pallidini, is primarily responsible for this."
I will answer that simply that Gianni was the chairman for the last few years, when flavio came he in i believe that he made a judgement that it was better to stick with someone who knew the club inside out as opposed to an outsider that arguably wasnt aware of how the club was runBut surely he was rescuing us from the previous chairman, Pallidini and it was a lazy and ill judged decision leading to where we are today? On your last point you seem to point the finger at GP for the financial difficulties at QPR. Im sure you know anyway that caliendo et all were tight fisted so what could Gianni do? Its also worth mentioning Gianni is not a millionaire and money does not go on trees as they say...Make no bones about it he kept this club alive by hook and crook and he should be praised for doing soAs acting chairman how is Pallidini not responsible for the running of the company? It's not worth mentioning that Gianni is not a millionaire. We know that. We have known that for years. Why would you mention that in relation as to whether or not he is good at his job? Might I even suggest that if he was good at his job he would be a millionaire? That way he wouldn't need his employer that is losing money yearly since he took over to have to lend him any money? That would be better for us I agree but you're right he's not a millionaire because he seems to lose money rather than earn it. Not a good credential for one of our directors. "Gianni's stated himself that his intentions were that he would lower the losses and try to balance the club's books. That is fact: he said that at a share holders meeting.
In that respect he has failed dramatically, nearly running the club into the ground and to a point were we had to be saved by outside investors who now proclaim that without them the club would not exist. They have never claimed that without Gianni the club would not exist!"
Refer to my earlier response. Gianni took us over when we was already in trouble. What did you expect a magic wand to be waved? As i already stated there was no way he could do that he does not have that financial clout. Thanks to the ABC loan Gianni was always fighting a losing battle. Also worth noting Gianni wasnt responsible for that loan, he was trying to correct the mistakes of the previous regimeGianni is like anyone else solely accountable for his own promises. I certainly did not expect a magic wand to be waved, please don't be so trite, but that is in effect what Gianni promised to do. He said that, so please consider that it was his statement to begin with and he simply got it wrong. He has failed to correct the mistakes of the previous regime, Flabio has definately confirmed this with his 'QPR would not exist' bit and so is it not logical to take that into account as well as the fact we are still losing money and say thanks but that's enough? "In his role at QPR he has kept us going by hook or by crook but ultimately has failed in his own stated objectives from when he first came in and had to be rescued by others, several times."
Sorry but you cant blame him for thatWhy not? Of course you can. No one made him say what he did. He has simply failed to live up to his own promises. He's had long enough to prove his worth to the club as a director and simply is not good enough. "He is not very good at his job in short and we need better."
Disagree with that im afraid. Do you know what he does day to day? If the answer is no then you shouldnt make a statement like that when you cant back it upI have no right to my opinion because I don't know the in's and outs of his day to day duties? Well I'm certainly confident enough to say that whatever he does it has resulted in an unbalanced squad and lower attendances. Enough for him to go. If he is not responsible for that then he should go as well as we need to focus on that and not whatever he does as we know he doesn't do it very well. The balance books for the last 5 years prove this. "I'm unsure as to why we need a Sporting Director anyway I suspect it's more to do with Flabio having a constant point of contact at the club because that is obviously not going to happen with the managerial turn around we have, but I think it's in our best interests to get in a manager on a long termm basis that Flabio can trust and do away with the entire Sporting Director role entirely."
I think we have already covered this, i think what people need to understand is in Italy most clubs have a DOF, flavio is Italian and im afraid until flavio leaves that will always be the way
Trouble i see with DOF's, let's use us as an example, Flav barks the orders Gianni does what flavio requests, what im getting at is flavio doesnt want anyone to know all the orders come from above, so when it goes tits up the egg is gianni's face and imo thats not fairDoesn't necessarily have to be Gianni then does it? Why not someone else? Surely after the last 2 years this is an area we could improve on? As you say Flabio can't be fired so in order to improve our club why not bring in an experienced Italian who has past experince of success in the job. Gianni has none, has failed in the last two years to achieve any and so therefore I would like to see a change in that position at the club. Took ages to write but still there you goAgree with that as well. Please give me the pros of keeping Gianni over an experienced man in the same role and not an irrelevant look back in time, please. mark that is a great post now you know how long it took me to write Some very interesting points there I have to pop out for a couple of hours but we shall pick up where we left off later fella
|
|
|
Post by Markqpr on Jan 23, 2010 10:18:59 GMT
Ha9 - Just a reminder I'm waiting to continue this.... No rush, in your own time, etc. Don't get sidetracked or distracted by other posters, remember this is the actual reason why you and I are on this board, so focus on your answer please! Actually, thinking about it, Report was prophetic in this thread's title: This is like watching a TV show only have 'To be continued' come up and then you have to wait ages for the next episode in order to get answers!
|
|