raiders_boy said:
lotm, how dare you?
I usually like the points you make, because you seem like quite an intelligent guy, but thats way out of line. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and quite frankly, i think their right. You have no right to abuse people for having a say on a FORUM.
mate, i get extremely frustrated with gross incompetence. people without any real knowledge of the issues and without the attention span to investigate it come on here and claim they're universally right shouldn't be given a pat on the back for expressing an uninformed, stubborn, naive, ignorant and imprudent opinion.
while i admit i may have overstepped slightly, i'm not going to apologise for not being congenial to them.
raiders_boy said:
For those saying they won't answer hypotheticals is petty
it wasn't that i was trying to avoid answering the hypothetical - i was making a point. these blokes expected the raiders to express and act on their opinion after all the facts had been investigated by the police, yet desperately want us to answer their hypothetical without being able to put it into context, because WE DON"T KNOW THE FACTS.
it's hypocritical, is what it is.
if you want, i'll answer a few hypotheticals:
1. if it is found that bulgarelli actually had no association whatsoever with the package, and there were no other grounds for dismissal, the raiders will be legally liable
2. if charges are not laid due to insufficient evidence, the issue becomes very grey. it's not clear cut whether the raiders will be liable or not, as copious supplementary factors must be taken into consideration. but one thing is for sure ... the raiders will be very lucky to get out of this particular scenario without, at one stage or another, looking bad. but note: that does not, in any way, mean they made the wrong decision. i'd prefer to answer this scenario once i've got all the information handy - like i always do.
3. if boogs is found to have a connection with the package, i doubt there is any way that the he'll be compensated.
as far as i can tell, the key factor in all this is whether or not boogs asked for the package by name or not. if he did, i can't see any issue that could support his plea. but the fact that the particular receptionist who claims this happenned appears not to work there anymore is very suspicious, imo, but is inconclusive to form an opinion on the validity of the initial claim (i.e. that boogs asked for the package).
for all those who think that i haven't admitted mgt have made mistakes, the concept must be over your head. i'll outline my stance:
1. the current mgt have made mistakes in the past. the davico saga, imo, was the biggest one of them.
2. these mistakes are not sufficient to warrant immediate and unconditional dismissal (it's funny how bay desired this type of action, yet when raiders mgt apply it to boogs, he is "open" to the possibility that there might be a case for unfair dismissal)
3. i am willing to give management and the coach one more year. i'm not exactly sure what i expect, but if they make another major mistake, i'll withdraw my support of them. but i won't immediately condemn mgt without thoroughly investigating and intelligently forming an opinion. if the team is ravaged by injuries or decimated by some other unforeseeable circumstance, i'll form my opinion taking that into account.
4. i'm not a big fan of the media, as you can tell. all articles should be strictly scrutinised and it should always be acknowledged that they're writing to sell papers. they're writing to make the story as interesting and controversial as possible. the author's interpretation of quotes, events and circumstances is omnipresent and it frustrates me that some people are willing to accept rumours, speculation and media reports when it suits their argument, yet disparage them when they don't. i understand that it's difficult to criticise an article that supports your opinion, but i believe it's necessary in order to form a thorough and unbiased opinion.
i hope that helps you all understand.
