Paladini - Position now untenable?

[Bluehoop]

Just as a sideline and to balance - I've heard that the Club are confident that the charges will be dismissed.

You see the problem is we have so many factions within the QPR message board soap opera that We were right because so and so is a worthless turd, that defender is miles better than that one because we kept a clean sheet today, that player is a midfielder not a striker and so it goes on.
As soon as there is any piece of conjecture on any single running subject the protaganists circle the wagons and off it goes - purely by way of points scoring and a holier than though approach per se.
Sadly, on both sides of the fence there are many people who fail to use their own brain/intelligence and simply hang their hat on the preferred peg. Very rarely is there incontrovertible evidence to support the case for the prosecution or the defence. The boards get whipped into a frenzy and a sour taste gets left in the mouth.

Surely it is a time to be united in the cause to get Rangers back to the promised land - well it is for those of us who love Rangers, support Rangers as our default setting and don't let our own ego's get in the way of that sole objective.

"I've got Rangers bests interests at heart" would be the response of many who spout verbiage on here without a shred of factual proof to back it up - well sorry but that is bowlochs and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

None of you is Alan Sugar and none of you will ever rule the world, let alone become leader of the Government or Opposition - so let the businessmen do the business and do your part as a football fan not a rocket scientist.

NB: Aimed at both sides of the fence as I have no preference either way and just want to see the players that wear the shirt do it with pride.

[Loftladder]

Every day Paladini remains at the club in a position of responsibility is a day too many imho.

[JustinQPR]

To answer the original title of this thread, in one word.


Yes.

[davidla80]

David, you really are struggling arent you?

I'm not a fan of his but if we are found not guilty then logically we/GP did nothing wrong in this case. So why should/could he be sacked?

David

[qblockpete]

You cannot sack someone who has not been found guilty.

[Jeffro]

You cannot sack someone who has not been found guilty.

Ian Holloway was..

[Goddard]

You cannot sack someone who has not been found guilty.

You can remove someone for stupidity and gross unprofessionalism.
It might cost the club a pay-off.

[paulmason]

You cannot sack someone who has not been found guilty.

He is guilty of using an unlicensed agent, he is probably guilty of everything else and the club will be fighting that it was not "deliberate", which even if they win (I hope they do) means GP is incompetent, which means he should be sacked.

[davidla80]

You can remove someone for stupidity and gross unprofessionalism.
It might cost the club a pay-off.

Bu if we are found not guilty then he would presumably be not guilty of both of those either (at least not in this case!)

David

[acricketer]

Quote from CCMB

"I'm actually staggered; Paladini makes Ridsdale look like a pillar of the community!"

[Nodge70]

You cannot sack someone who has not been found guilty.

What was Holloway found guilty of?

Pedantic I know but it happens all the time. If trust has been so fundamentally breached as to render an employee's position untenable then they must be released. Mutually or not.