Staying On Message?

[Ian M]

If you needed to remove his posts, then I understand. I have had posts removed in the past too. No big deal. I feel that the ban was overdoing things though. End of story.

A bit late for that now, Dave - richieb is an ex-poster and is no longer here to defend himself.

To clear up what appears to be a common misconception, richieb at this moment in time is NOT banned:

http://www.otib.co.uk/index.php?showuser=20

He is currently sitting in a different user group that doesn't appear to be searchable under the "Members" link.

He is also capable of posting but has been placed temporarily on Moderator Preview.

Madger.

[CGS RED]

This situation cannot be resolved even if Tinnion sued Richieb.

Its a classic he said he said situation , and neither can be proved outright. Private conversations without witnesses cannot have the content proved or disproved, unless legally taped.

We are left with Brians alleged version of events, and richieb's version of events, and friends and relations of either party cannot change that . They may offer opinion by virtue of character reference, but their view would be mere assumption based on their connection to the individual. Again not fact.

I would suggest both parties drop the before and after Wilson matter completely as it solves nothing, does not help Brians future, or richieb if a protracted legal entanglement evolves.

Brian, richieb, Let it go.

[Milo]

Milo,

I completely understand what you are saying so I do not want you to feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall. I just find it disappointing that we find ourselves in this situation, that's all. Living in a country where litigation can happen at the drop of a hat, I find it sad to see the UK going the same way. This is an internet forum. I am sure DW could have threatened legal action to any number of people for defamation of character during his tenure. He was not exactly treated kindly on here. Perhaps he was sensible enough to not get involved? Whatever, he rose above it pretty well.

Despite your offer, I will resist the temptation to name names as I can't see anything positive coming out of that particular course of action. However, regarding your point on the fact that this website is moderated by fans offers nothing in the way of assurances that it will be moderated impartially. In fact, you could say that it would be better moderated by people who had no connections to City whatsoever. Therefore, I fail to see the validity of the logic in your argument. Sorry.

If you needed to remove his posts, then I understand. I have had posts removed in the past too. No big deal. I feel that the ban was overdoing things though. End of story.

You will be pleased to hear I will shut up now as I am finding this as tedious as you probably are.

Thanks,

redrocks

Redrocks,

thanks for your reply and I'm pretty much in your camp with the first paragraph. As a financial adviser a significant cost overhead is insuring against litigation despite having never received a complaint related to my advice. But I guess I might feel different if I felt that I had been wronged.

I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph except perhaps that you fear that fans who are moderating might want to abuse their ability to remove and monitor posts or ban posters. Personally I don't think people think that way. The sort of fans who are moderating are, I'm sure, happier to debate than censor.

Thanks Madger for clearing up that richieb is not banned but having his posts checked before they get put up for a while. For the reasons I've stated above, this seems a sensible approach to protect Clik's and the ST's interests and hopefully you agree.

Miles

[Martyn Hocking]

To go back to the original cause of the rumpus, I would have to say I find Dave L's version of events pretty persuasive. I interviewed Steve L at length shortly after BT took over as manager for an article that was published in 442 magazine and the impressions I got from that were:

1. Danny would have remained manager if we had been promoted at Cardiff

2. Danny would still have remained manager if we had failed at Cardiff - as long as he accepted cost-cutting measures resulting from our failure to gain promotion

3. Steve genuinely liked and respected Danny

4. When Danny refused to accept the cuts, Steve decided to make a clean break rather than let things get messy between them

5. Steve felt that BT was as good a prospect as many other people he had previously interviewed for the manager's job prior to DW's time in the hot seat

6. Steve figured that appointing from within rather than looking outside the club would maximise our chances of having another promotion push straight away (on the assumption that a new man would want to change a lot of things and would need a season to 'bed in').

I certainly didn't get the impression that BT was being lined up for the job before Cardiff, or that Danny's departure was on the cards for any length of time before he actually left. It was a swift disagreement on a point of principle followed by a swift decision to part company.

I would liken the situation to the one at Newcastle - Shearer was talked about as a future manager while Souness was there, but had no hand in Souey's departure.

Well_Red

[Rednready]

And it is the fact that they are not remotely founded in truth that has led to BT's reaction.

I spent a lot of time with BT in the lead up to DW's departure. I can state quite categorically that BT did not have discussions with SL about the manager's job prior to DW's departure. He was genuinely surprised when he learned that DW was leaving the club but even then had no inkling that he was in the frame for the manager's job. In fact his initial concern was that the new manager wouldn't want to keep him on as a player.

I can also confirm that in a subsequent conversation I had with SL, he confirmed that he had no prior conversations with BT about the manager's job.

Those are the facts, straight from the horse's mouth. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit in with some of the conspiracy theories which have been bandied about here for the last couple of years, but it's the truth. I have in the past gone to great lengths to explain the facts to Richie, in considerable detail, but he has chosen to ignore me and continue to spread an untrue version of events.

I've no wish to see anyone banned from this forum, even Richie, and have spoken out against over-moderation in the past, but that doesn't mean that everyone has carte blanche to make up stuff when it suits them, particularly when it could have an adverse effect on another person's career. BT is currently looking for work in football, and his chances of employment would be seriously jeopardised if there was a general perception that he had plotted against his previous manager. Rumours repeated on internet message boards can soon take on the status of facts, and it is for that reason that he feels very strongly about this.

If Richie can offer any proof to back up his statement that BT knew before the Brighton game that he was going to get the manager's job, then let him do it. Let him give us his source and state clearly why he knows this to be true. But he cannot carry on insinuating things that he can't prove, otherwise he is calling BT a liar, he is calling SL a liar, and he is calling me a liar. If he can't back up his statement with facts then I would hope that he is man enough to accept my version of events and publicly state that he is wrong.

So DaveL, Tins, and SL, are not liars.

Richie has finally come out with an apology, and says he is not a liar.

It would appear that Richie's informant could be the liar, and as such, it would be handy for the rest of us to have the name. We could then avoid any future 'rumours' from that source.

[Robbored]

Richie has finally come out with an apology, and says he is not a liar.

I'm glad to see that Richie has publically apologised for posting his mis-information and fair play to Richie for doing so.After all he could have just slipped away from the forum.This hopefully puts end an to this ugly and pointless thread.

[Dave L]

This hopefully puts end an to this ugly and pointless thread.

Ugly, yes, but not at all pointless. However I welcome Richie's clarification and apology. Let's move on.

[Robbored]

Ugly, yes, but not at all pointless.

Pointless in as much that its historical and should never have been recycled again in the first place.All the thread achieved was to upset people to the point of making legal threats.No thread should do that which is why,imo it was unnecessary and pointless.

[Port Said Red]

What with Richie B's apology I would have thought this thread could locked off as well now. Water under the bridge and all that.

If it goes on and on, it may cause some other piece of conjecture to be posted in defence and it will be a problem again.

[megansdad]

not really an unconditional apology which is what would have been closure - too many if's if you ask me.

Fact - whatever statements Richieb made were so far after the fact that they were totally unnecessary, unwarranted and unhelpful and for that at least he should unconditionally apologise, whatever he may believe about their veracity.