Bcfc And Btc

[SimplyRed]

Yesterday, I posted (what I considered) a valid question on the SL Forum where I asked after the board's reasons for selecting BTC as the new shirt sponsor.

I did not ask for details but merely whether it was purely the amount of money offered or whether it was because there were no other takers.

I also asked if SL had considered the implications of a reputable professional football club being associated with a used car dealer.

I stated that, with all due respect to BTC, Joe Public in general would have VERY subjective views about such businesses, especially if they felt wronged by them, and I posted this link as an illustration of opinions that implied that BTC did not always conform to best business practice.

I then speculated that, should there be any negative media interest in BTC's business practices, whether it would reflect badly on BCFC.

When I visited the SL forum earlier today, I noted that the post had been pulled without explanation.

I immediately posted another question, asking why my post had been pulled when seemingly conforming to the forum rules, and why I had not been granted the common courtesy of an explanation why.

To date I have still not received an explanation.

[Milo]

Just a thought, but it might be that the Club, have willingly accepted a large cheque from BTC in return for some positive sponsorship, feel that you highlighting criticism of BTC is not overly helpful .

Which doesn't mean that your point is not valid - far from it. But he who pays the piper (pays for this forum) picks the tune (may delete your posts).

[Robbored]

Removing some threads without explanation does seem to be a fairly common occurance and has prompted others to complain about the boundries of the so called moderaters who it seems hide safely behind thier own anonimity.

It obvious that some level of moderation is needed to protect the site from profanities,abusive reamarks,false alegations and personal insults but there does seem to be a level of moderation that oversteps those boundries.

Its smacks of Big Brother and I would like to know why reasonable questions are removed without explanation.Who makes the decision on what is acceptable and what is not?

Moderators - feel free to respond or maybe you'll remove this post as well.

[SimplyRed]

Just a thought, but it might be that the Club, have willingly accepted a large cheque from BTC in return for some positive sponsorship, feel that you highlighting criticism of BTC is not overly helpful  .

Which doesn't mean that your point is not valid - far from it. But he who pays the piper (pays for this forum) picks the tune (may delete your posts).

←

Yes, I can understand that it would be embarrassing for the club to have critical posts about its sponsors on the forum, and I would accept that as an explanation.

However, I was irritated that the post was pulled without explanation or even notifying me.

I would also say that there was nothing in the post that is not in the public domain available on the web and I was genuinely trying to discover how the board would feel about negative media coverage of their sponsor.

[Milo]

Yes, I can understand that it would be embarrassing for the club to have critical posts about its sponsors on the forum, and I would accept that as an explanation.

However, I was irritated that the post was pulled without explanation or even notifying me.

I would also say that there was nothing in the post that is not in the public domain available on the web and I was genuinely trying to discover how the board would feel about negative media coverage of their sponsor.

←

I agree with you. It would seem to make sense for the moderators to contact a poster when threads are removed, to both inform the poster why and to avoid the topic reappearing.

I appreciated your link in the first post by the way, and hope we also get to hear some positive stories about BTC soon.

[SimplyRed]

So 5 adverse comments totalling about 20k out of a billion pound turnover constitutes bad business practice ?  What business are you in mate ?

←

I wasn't trying to tarnish the reputation of BTC, but merely illustrate the type of bad publicity that can surround used car dealers and the possible consequences of a business association with companies of that ilk.

[SimplyRed]

Why quote the bad references then ?  In my opinion, you were trying to stir it up.

←

I thought I answered that here:

...merely illustrate the type of bad publicity that can surround used car dealers and the possible consequences of a business association with companies of that ilk