Tweet
I applaud this site's policy on sensitive information regards current players.
Can I ask if there is a similar policy relating to sensitive information regards managers, past or present.
I wondered, because I came across the following comments on your site recently:
31 Mar - "Sousa wouldn't have a job if GP wasn't involved"
31 Mar - "Sousa is a dead man walking. And it has nothing to do with GP...if only you knew"
2 Apr - "Sousa is walking a tightrope"
2 Apr - "Can I be blatant? Sousa is getting the boot at some point. Him and Flavio have fell out, rightly or wrongly and that's that"
2 Apr - you really really don't know what's going on do you? Sousa STILL has a job thanks to GP FFS"
Pete, would you agree that this appears to be sensitive and confidential information which can only originated from the club? It is interesting to note that these comments were made before Sousa's "chat to a fan" and before his comments about Blackstock.
It was also interesting to see that all these comments were made by one person. But I was then shocked to notice that this person is actually an administrator on this board.
Do you agree that this isn't the sort of information that an administrator on your board should be making public? Do you agree that you as owner of the site have ultimate responsibility for the behaviour and comments of the site's administrators? Did you ask your administrator to evidence his source for these comments, showing you the evidence of approval from the club to release them into the public domain? And if he didn't have such evidence, why did you not ask him to withdraw them? Or is he simply a liar and fantasist, posting this sort of stuff to make him look like he's "in the know"?
You assured me on this board today that you had no prior knowledge that the club wanted to get rid of Sousa. The statements made are either true, or they are lies which would come pretty close to the definition of "propaganda".
Which is it?
Can I ask if there is a similar policy relating to sensitive information regards managers, past or present.
I wondered, because I came across the following comments on your site recently:
31 Mar - "Sousa wouldn't have a job if GP wasn't involved"
31 Mar - "Sousa is a dead man walking. And it has nothing to do with GP...if only you knew"
2 Apr - "Sousa is walking a tightrope"
2 Apr - "Can I be blatant? Sousa is getting the boot at some point. Him and Flavio have fell out, rightly or wrongly and that's that"
2 Apr - you really really don't know what's going on do you? Sousa STILL has a job thanks to GP FFS"
Pete, would you agree that this appears to be sensitive and confidential information which can only originated from the club? It is interesting to note that these comments were made before Sousa's "chat to a fan" and before his comments about Blackstock.
It was also interesting to see that all these comments were made by one person. But I was then shocked to notice that this person is actually an administrator on this board.
Do you agree that this isn't the sort of information that an administrator on your board should be making public? Do you agree that you as owner of the site have ultimate responsibility for the behaviour and comments of the site's administrators? Did you ask your administrator to evidence his source for these comments, showing you the evidence of approval from the club to release them into the public domain? And if he didn't have such evidence, why did you not ask him to withdraw them? Or is he simply a liar and fantasist, posting this sort of stuff to make him look like he's "in the know"?
You assured me on this board today that you had no prior knowledge that the club wanted to get rid of Sousa. The statements made are either true, or they are lies which would come pretty close to the definition of "propaganda".
Which is it?
Comment