Go on then, a different perspective for you that I posted on another board...
Just a different **opinion** mind...
As with all the other garbage to come out of the board over the last two weeks, this is pure and simple garbage. There are no lies in there, but so many interpretations, its frankly embarrassing. Some examples:
"Paulo wasn't sacked, he had his contract terminated"
"We terminated the employment of John Gregory"
The difference between a sacking and a terminated contract is...
"As a board, we spoke about wanting to see QPR play a more attacking aggressive brand of football in a 4-4-2 formation and he promised us that he would do that"
Absolutely f**king barking. So, a manager is told to play 4-4-2 by a bunch of cretins who know NOTHING about football. Does this mean that we have to play 4-4-2 no matter what the opposition or whether we are home or away? If we are 2-1 down with ten minutes left, he can't go to 3-3-4 or 3-5-2 or 2-0-8 as needs be? If this isn't influencing the team coach then I don't know what is - keep you f**king nose out, Flab, YOU KNOW NOTHING.
"A few clubs approached me for Dexter including Nottingham Forest. I spoke to Gianni Paladini and he advised me that we needed to clear this with Paulo Sousa. Paulo came bck from Portugal on March 26th at lunchtime. Dexter discussed the situation with Paulo and he didn't say anything to Dexter about the possibility of him staying with QPR"
Right, so Paulo didn't say anything to Dexter, that does NOT mean that he arranged the loan deal. On the contrary, it clearly states that the board had already agreed with Forest. Dex is not suited to one up front, so if Sousa wanted to continue with that, how can he guarantee that Dex would be in his starting line up? Also, maybe he felt that he'd been undermined and couldn't be bothered to fight against the interference any more???
Four year plan - "we are progressing very well" - NO, we are not - muppet, we are back to square one on the management front. A new man will have new ideas that will need new players to implement - you going to fund that, or are we?
"We have invested over £34m in the club"
Fine, does that mean that the club does NOT owe you £34m then? If someone wants to buy it off you, can he pay the same £10-20m you paid for the club. Surely, with £34m **invested** the club is debt free, isn't it?
Give it up on the Sousa baiting, settle with him out of court and SHUT UP. Discrimination is clear when you sack someone for doing something and keep others despite them REPEATEDLY doing the same thing. I doubt you have a case...
Then appoint a new man and for f*ck's sake DO NOT mandate 4-4-2 on him you know nothing, arrogant ******.
Thanks,
davman x
Just a different **opinion** mind...
As with all the other garbage to come out of the board over the last two weeks, this is pure and simple garbage. There are no lies in there, but so many interpretations, its frankly embarrassing. Some examples:
"Paulo wasn't sacked, he had his contract terminated"
"We terminated the employment of John Gregory"
The difference between a sacking and a terminated contract is...
"As a board, we spoke about wanting to see QPR play a more attacking aggressive brand of football in a 4-4-2 formation and he promised us that he would do that"
Absolutely f**king barking. So, a manager is told to play 4-4-2 by a bunch of cretins who know NOTHING about football. Does this mean that we have to play 4-4-2 no matter what the opposition or whether we are home or away? If we are 2-1 down with ten minutes left, he can't go to 3-3-4 or 3-5-2 or 2-0-8 as needs be? If this isn't influencing the team coach then I don't know what is - keep you f**king nose out, Flab, YOU KNOW NOTHING.
"A few clubs approached me for Dexter including Nottingham Forest. I spoke to Gianni Paladini and he advised me that we needed to clear this with Paulo Sousa. Paulo came bck from Portugal on March 26th at lunchtime. Dexter discussed the situation with Paulo and he didn't say anything to Dexter about the possibility of him staying with QPR"
Right, so Paulo didn't say anything to Dexter, that does NOT mean that he arranged the loan deal. On the contrary, it clearly states that the board had already agreed with Forest. Dex is not suited to one up front, so if Sousa wanted to continue with that, how can he guarantee that Dex would be in his starting line up? Also, maybe he felt that he'd been undermined and couldn't be bothered to fight against the interference any more???
Four year plan - "we are progressing very well" - NO, we are not - muppet, we are back to square one on the management front. A new man will have new ideas that will need new players to implement - you going to fund that, or are we?
"We have invested over £34m in the club"
Fine, does that mean that the club does NOT owe you £34m then? If someone wants to buy it off you, can he pay the same £10-20m you paid for the club. Surely, with £34m **invested** the club is debt free, isn't it?
Give it up on the Sousa baiting, settle with him out of court and SHUT UP. Discrimination is clear when you sack someone for doing something and keep others despite them REPEATEDLY doing the same thing. I doubt you have a case...
Then appoint a new man and for f*ck's sake DO NOT mandate 4-4-2 on him you know nothing, arrogant ******.
Thanks,
davman x
Comment