**My view of this board**

[sirpiechucker]

I've been a member of this and the old board for over a year now. I regularly have members thanking me for the time and effort I put in with my stats, which I am very grateful for. The majority of the time I enjoy the banter on here and most of what is said is harmless fun. I believe there is no point arguing an issue unless you have a logical reason or evidence to prove it. For example, last week I asked why do people believe Gary Hooper can make the step up to the Championship? I was expecting answers about his abilities as a footballer (speed, strength, positioning, good touch) but instead I kept getting the answer that its because he has scored goals in League One, which doesn't actually answer the question.

Anyway, until recently I could honestly say that this forum and its members have never annoyed me and never could. Oh how wrong was I? This forum is about debate and opinion on all things QPR. You ask questions and people provide answers and you debate the differences. When you've agreed your differences or are happy with the answers you move on. You don't start a new thread asking the same question hoping that a new set of readers will answer the question how you want it answered. If someone during a debate sets a question which you don't like or answers a question which is different from what you want to hear you don't ignore the thread and hope it goes away. When your point has been proven wrong you don't start a new debate hoping someone else will prove you right.

I get all my information to create the stats from various Internet sites. If you are reading this then you have access to the Internet and you can find them for yourself if you really are interested. Don't keep asking fellow members to provide the information for you. If they are kind enough to find them and then prove you wrong have the guts to admit you are wrong. There are a few members of this board who are rapidly losing the respect. This forum has the potential to be the biggest and most successful QPR forum on the web but at the same time it could crash and burn before next season unless people learn to respect one another.

I am not perfect. I have opinions and sometimes my opinions about certain players and managers are proven to be wrong but I'm not afraid to admit this. If I'm asked a question I will answer it even if it proves that I'm wrong. I don't start new threads to argue with new people.

I urge people to re-read that last paragraph and then admit their forum mistakes. Only then will people start re-respecting certain people. Until then this website will be fuelled with agression which in turn will end with nobody making comment as they will have had enough.

[haqpr1963]

Excellent post. Well said.

[Factamondo]

im often right n often wrong.........i'll own up to my mistakes n appologise when im in the wrong............but i'll always voice 'my' opinion!

[qblockpete]

I cannot go through every post, but I think your stats are excellent.

Though I guess it works both ways

I ask about Blackstock for 2009 and you give me 2008, I guess to prove how wrong I am.

At the end of the day its all about opinions.

If I asked who would be the best manager for this club.

I would not get 100% on one man. Thats what should make a messageboard. Opinions.

This site gets accused of being pro GP, in fact your stats will show more posts are actually anti. Though in my view he gets blamed for everything, but thats just opinion, never going to change views. Its either one or the other side for people. No in-between.

Anyway, I digress excellent post and if you provide stats I will try to answer them.

[brightonr]

sirpiechucker,

Very well said.

What I fail to understand, is why such posters as for example : KLR, Bernies Barnet and the ridiculous WeymouthHoop, join this site with what appears to me to be the sole intent of Criticising either GP, Pete, or anyone holding similar views to Pete for that matter, without coming up with one sensible and valid reason for doing so. Perhaps if they were to be a little more willing to allow others to hold opinions of their own, as opposed to referring to them as puppets or poodles, their own views would hold more credibility.

I am struggling to find one objective, well thought out post by any of these people, which is a shame, because it would be fascinating to understand how they have arrived at their conclusions.

[Bernie's barnet]

I cannot go through every post, but I think your stats are excellent.

Though I guess it works both ways

I ask about Blackstock for 2009 and you give me 2008, I guess to prove how wrong I am.

At the end of the day its all about opinions.

If I asked who would be the best manager for this club.

I would not get 100% on one man. Thats what should make a messageboard. Opinions.

This site gets accused of being pro GP, in fact your stats will show more posts are actually anti. Though in my view he gets blamed for everything, but thats just opinion, never going to change views. Its either one or the other side for people. No in-between.

Anyway, I digress excellent post and if you provide stats I will try to answer them.

"If someone during a debate sets a question which you don't like or answers a question which is different from what you want to hear you don't ignore the thread and hope it goes away."

What about that bit of his post?

[Quaz]

excellent post sirpiechucker....totally agree on every aspect

[KLR]

sirpiechucker,

Very well said.

What I fail to understand, is why such posters as for example : KLR, Bernies Barnet and the ridiculous WeymouthHoop, join this site with what appears to me to be the sole intent of Criticising either GP, Pete, or anyone holding similar views to Pete for that matter, without coming up with one sensible and valid reason for doing so. Perhaps if they were to be a little more willing to allow others to hold opinions of their own, as opposed to referring to them as puppets or poodles, their own views would hold more credibility.

I am struggling to find one objective, well thought out post by any of these people, which is a shame, because it would be fascinating to understand how they have arrived at their conclusions.

Speaking for myself, its because I love QPR, & whats going on at QPR is wrong, pure & simple.
What's your excuse ??

[sirpiechucker]

sirpiechucker,

Very well said.

What I fail to understand, is why such posters as for example : KLR, Bernies Barnet and the ridiculous WeymouthHoop, join this site with what appears to me to be the sole intent of Criticising either GP, Pete, or anyone holding similar views to Pete for that matter, without coming up with one sensible and valid reason for doing so. Perhaps if they were to be a little more willing to allow others to hold opinions of their own, as opposed to referring to them as puppets or poodles, their own views would hold more credibility.

I am struggling to find one objective, well thought out post by any of these people, which is a shame, because it would be fascinating to understand how they have arrived at their conclusions.

Like a TV Soap Opera you need an array of different characters and those you mention as well are Pete make this site interesting. If not sometimes very annoying. IMO this is because none of them let a point go. I've read countless times the same opinion whether it be about the need for 3 full backs (KLR), anti-Pete stuff (BB) or anti-Sousa (Pete), which just gets a bit boring after a while. As I've already said you need them though to keep it interesting - if we agree all the time the forum would die. I just hope that people have learnt some lessons over the last few days and will chill out and talk about something different.

[KLR]

Like a TV Soap Opera you need an array of different characters and those you mention as well are Pete make this site interesting. If not sometimes very annoying. IMO this is because none of them let a point go. I've read countless times the same opinion whether it be about the need for 3 full backs (KLR), anti-Pete stuff (BB) or anti-Sousa (Pete), which just gets a bit boring after a while. As I've already said you need them though to keep it interesting - if we agree all the time the forum would die. I just hope that people have learnt some lessons over the last few days and will chill out and talk about something different.

Not trying to be argumentative SirPie, but did you think my mantra about the fullbacks was not in any way valid ??

[sirpiechucker]

I cannot go through every post, but I think your stats are excellent.

Though I guess it works both ways

I ask about Blackstock for 2009 and you give me 2008, I guess to prove how wrong I am.

At the end of the day its all about opinions.

If I asked who would be the best manager for this club.

I would not get 100% on one man. Thats what should make a messageboard. Opinions.

This site gets accused of being pro GP, in fact your stats will show more posts are actually anti. Though in my view he gets blamed for everything, but thats just opinion, never going to change views. Its either one or the other side for people. No in-between.

Anyway, I digress excellent post and if you provide stats I will try to answer them.

Thanks for the response Pete. Yes I did post the 2008 stats because your argument was that the manager never played him, which is true about both De Canio and Sousa. Whether this is because someone at the club influenced their decisions or because both think he isn't good enough who knows. What we do know though is that Sousa played Blackstock as much as De Canio did.

I've said many times before that I am not anti-Paladini as I am grateful for many things he has done for the club. I believe that if given a tiny budget he has made some good and of course bad decisions but it will always be difficult when we don't have a bottomless pit of cash to meet fan expectation. The problem here though is that because you post pro-GP those who are anti-GP come out and attack you. If you didn't say anything most won't comment.

[Goodfell_R`s]

Good post sir...

[sirpiechucker]

Not trying to be argumentative SirPie, but did you think my mantra about the fullbacks was not in any way valid ??

I don't think you are being argumentative just you have been slightly too repetitive.

I do believe we need full backs just not three new ones though. Mainly because I don't think the new manager/Paladini will have a budget big enough to bring in 2 strikers and a sub GK let alone 3 new defenders. If we did then I would say we first need a new left back and then a new right back but only when we've signed 2/3 first team strikers.

[Stanley]

Spot on, Sirpie. At the end of the day opposing opinions and healthy debate is always a good thing. What's not good is when that descends into disrespectful posts and personal attacks towads those with differing opinions. Inevitably feelings will often run high as we are all passionate about the club we love. That passion just needs to be tempered sometimes until ye olde red mist recedes

[Bernie's barnet]

sirpiechucker,

Very well said.

What I fail to understand, is why such posters as for example : KLR, Bernies Barnet and the ridiculous WeymouthHoop, join this site with what appears to me to be the sole intent of Criticising either GP, Pete, or anyone holding similar views to Pete for that matter, without coming up with one sensible and valid reason for doing so. Perhaps if they were to be a little more willing to allow others to hold opinions of their own, as opposed to referring to them as puppets or poodles, their own views would hold more credibility.

I am struggling to find one objective, well thought out post by any of these people, which is a shame, because it would be fascinating to understand how they have arrived at their conclusions.

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.