Paulo Sousa : Four Year Plan shows my job at QPR was impossible

[haqpr1963]

Tarrabt on the bench?

Is that really a reason Pete?

[qblockpete]

I was using one example. You've chosen the one you wanted to. Blackstock not being used was another one and playing one up front was another. it was not as if we were struggling relegation when Dowie left was it?

I didn't like him, like you I am entitled to an opinion.

I was against the departures of Magilton and Dowie and said so at the time. Even though the 0-0 at swansea City with Milky bar kid in goal, does live long in the memory under Dowie.

[Bluehoop]

Can someone tell me the number of sightings of QBP in the 4 year plan programme. I was too wrapped up in the story to take any notice, although I do recall Joe doing his usual quality impression of an owl and Pat H looking like she didn't want the camera exposure during one meeting. Just curious lke, Pete? Anyone?

[qprjim]

Can you explain to me how "making a shameful attempt to influence fans" on a forum is different from simply posting one's opinion, no matter how unpopular it may be? Or is the former expression just a creative way of describing the latter act?

If you have the time then I suggest you look back at QBP's posts from that particular period. that difference will become clear

[qblockpete]

You are confusing expressing an opinion with having an influence on proceedings.

Bluehoop, think it was 5

[haqpr1963]

I was using one example. You've chosen the one you wanted to. Blackstock not being used was another one and playing one up front was another. it was not as if we were struggling relegation when Dowie left was it?

I didn't like him, like you I am entitled to an opinion.

I was against the departures of Magilton and Dowie and said so at the time. Even though the 0-0 at swansea City with Milky bar kid in goal, does live long in the memory under Dowie.

So we are back to the Blackstock thing. Have a look back on this site to see what I have had to say about this.

The big thing is what was PS told when he joined the club. Was he told win every game or you are out? I very much doubt it, even if it was Flavio and Gianni telling him. I expect he was told build the team and then we can go forwards next season. He got the defence working well, and it wasn't as if he lost that many games. When he took over we were 9th when he left we were 10th.......

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, as are we all.

Was he a good manager? Yes. Was he the manager we needed at the time? Probably not, we should have gone all out to get someone like NW, but that isn't down to PS.

And yes the 0 - 0 away to Swansea was awful, but it has nothing to do with PS so why bring it up....

[Bluehoop]

You are confusing expressing an opinion with having an influence on proceedings.

Bluehoop, think it was 5

Pretty much the same as me then - all background and certainly not in an influential way.
You see, to my mind, anyone with enough influence to get a manager the sack or indeed any of the other things implied over the years, would surely have featured heavily in the film, particularly as it was an "access all areas" and "no Board influence over the portrayal of events" type of film.
The major players in all things Rangers (and I include in that anyone significant enough to get a manager the sack) were very clearly identifiable.
There are reasons Sousa got the sack - the most obvious of which is he was not up to the job and add to that the fact Flabby was trigger happy at all times. And of course, that night in Swansea was as good a reason as any, being as it was, one of the most awful performances I have witnessed in my life.
The one thing that no impartial observer could deduce was that "that Pete bloke" really influenced Flabby's decision to sack Sousa or anyone else for that matter.
As usual though, the reality should never get in the way of a good slanging match

Oh and for the record, I wanted Sousa out after Swansea and I defy any other Rangers fan that was at the Liberty that night to say it was in any way acceptable.

I just realised what a load of tosh that was - Dowie out (and yes I could have edited it out so as not to look silly) but I emphasise my point by leaving it in - because it doesn't matter who was in charge, if the performances are that poor then the manager must go. And that was true of the run of results leading to Sousa's dismissal also.

[haqpr1963]

Pretty much the same as me then - all background and certainly not in an influential way.
You see, to my mind, anyone with enough influence to get a manager the sack or indeed any of the other things implied over the years, would surely have featured heavily in the film, particularly as it was an "access all areas" and "no Board influence over the portrayal of events" type of film.
The major players in all things Rangers (and I include in that anyone significant enough to get a manager the sack) were very clearly identifiable.
There are reasons Sousa got the sack - the most obvious of which is he was not up to the job and add to that the fact Flabby was trigger happy at all times. And of course, that night in Swansea was as good a reason as any, being as it was, one of the most awful performances I have witnessed in my life.
The one thing that no impartial observer could deduce was that "that Pete bloke" really influenced Flabby's decision to sack Sousa or anyone else for that matter.
As usual though, the reality should never get in the way of a good slanging match

Oh and for the record, I wanted Sousa out after Swansea and I defy any other Rangers fan that was at the Liberty that night to say it was in any way acceptable.

Erm, was Sousa in charge at the Liberty?

[Bluehoop]

Erm, was Sousa in charge at the Liberty?

Read my edit.

[Bluehoop]

So we are back to the Blackstock thing. Have a look back on this site to see what I have had to say about this.

The big thing is what was PS told when he joined the club. Was he told win every game or you are out? I very much doubt it, even if it was Flavio and Gianni telling him. I expect he was told build the team and then we can go forwards next season. He got the defence working well, and it wasn't as if he lost that many games. When he took over we were 9th when he left we were 10th.......

Yes you are entitled to an opinion, as are we all.

Was he a good manager? Yes. Was he the manager we needed at the time? Probably not, we should have gone all out to get someone like NW, but that isn't down to PS.

And yes the 0 - 0 away to Swansea was awful, but it has nothing to do with PS so why bring it up....

Actually, I think it is pretty clear from the film that Flabby expected every manager to win every game - anything less made them a failure and an idiot. In fact, during one interview (can't remember if it was Warnock or Magilton) "he" was told as long as you win your job is safe, beyond that FB will have issues.
Remember the job Warnock did and the duress he was under (both the Faurlin saga and a lack of buys beyond the signing of WR on loan) and yet when we failed to beat Hull or was it Brizzle, FB used the same words and abused Warnock exactly the same way he did all the other managers. Imagine if he'd lost one of those first 19 matches, Derby say, I reckon Flabby would have surfaced straight away to abuse and consider sacking the man.

[qblockpete]

The one thing that no impartial observer could deduce was that "that Pete bloke" really influenced Flabby's decision to sack Sousa or anyone else for that matter.

Paulo Sousa had plenty of opportunity to single me out

Flavio could have said that "fat bloke Pete" has made my mind up

It was simply messageboarders who had a great incentive to fire some bullets and see if they stuck. In particular the ones I had given a hard time to previously.

[Stanley]

Sousa was not sacked for divulging sensitive information. That "official reason" was purely an excuse to get rid. After seeing the film you'd have to be incredibly thick not to realise that. He was sacked because FB was a trigger-happy buffoon.

[vblockranger]

Paladini hated Sousa....hence Pete's stance at the time.

[Bluehoop]

Sousa was not sacked for divulging sensitive information. That "official reason" was purely an excuse to get rid. After seeing the film you'd have to be incredibly thick not to realise that. He was sacked because FB was a trigger-happy buffoon.

And there lies the truth

[IsleworthRanger]

Paulo Sousa had plenty of opportunity to single me out

Flavio could have said that "fat bloke Pete" has made my mind up

It was simply messageboarders who had a great incentive to fire some bullets and see if they stuck. In particular the ones I had given a hard time to previously.

But you and a few followers did get a free season ticket for getting rid of Sousa didnt you?

It must be true because I have read it on another site