New announcer dude on the park

[Jay_7]

Because by banishing someone from the forum for having a job somewhere is as low as sacking someone for having an opinion?

Nothing like taking a post out of context is there? :wave01:

[gordyfromsneck]

The crux of Caley Ds dismissal is his research and the deductions he made from that research.

He published his findings and his assumptions on the board. That is not illegal.

Did he libel anyone? No.

If he had would they have come out and sued. I think not.

The assumption then, must be that he has hit paydirt.

As for stadium announcer, feck em. Just hope he is not banned from the stadium or there will be a real ruckus.

Someone is setting this club up for a fall.

[Scotty]

This could be open to further debate scotty - one question that sprang to my mind intantly was why do you not simply bannish those who are employed by the club, as someone, somewhere, has (it seems) deliberately used a posters opinion to generate unrest and ultimately, a dismissal?

EDIT: by employed I dont mean ticket sellers, programme sellers, catering staff of the reception girls, but those at a higher level who would potentially twist/abuse comments

Sorry Jnr, not one of your better ideas. Anyone could print off anything from this site and give it to someone at the club in a number of ways.

[Renegade]

I saw from the Who's Online page a guest printing something off just after all this sacking stuff erupted. Coincidence? :wave01:

[PullMyFinger]

Why would anyone feel the need to print off a web page when the pages are readily available when you log in?

[Scotty]

ok, can we get back on topic here.

We are not going to stop anyone logging on based on where they work or what position they hold. We are not going to stop anyone printing off stuff or anything else like that, and if we feel that any copyrighted material from the members area of this site including, but not limited to, forum discussions and or postings have been used in an inappropriate way then we will make a decision on how to proceed based on a private discussion between the operators of the site and any posters directly involved in the copyright breach.

[Joonya]

This could be open to further debate scotty - one question that sprang to my mind intantly was why do you not simply bannish those who are employed by the club, as someone, somewhere, has (it seems) deliberately used a posters opinion to generate unrest and ultimately, a dismissal?

EDIT: by employed I dont mean ticket sellers, programme sellers, catering staff of the reception girls, but those at a higher level who would potentially twist/abuse comments

Sorry Jnr, not one of your better ideas. Anyone could print off anything from this site and give it to someone at the club in a number of ways.

Like I said, it was just an instant thought when reading the post.

anyway, it still appears that no answers from the club are forthcoming. May they cntinue to hang their heads in shame!!!

[+Gringo]

....anyway, it still appears that no answers from the club are forthcoming. May they continue to hang their heads in shame!!!

There won't be a response from any of those that made the decision to sack Don because they haven't got the balls to...which makes it clear to me that what Don was saying (that got him the sack) was 100% true. Well, they haven't denied it have they?

[Oddquine]

ok, can we get back on topic here.

We are not going to stop anyone logging on based on where they work or what position they hold. We are not going to stop anyone printing off stuff or anything else like that, and if we feel that any copyrighted material from the members area of this site including, but not limited to, forum discussions and or postings have been used in an inappropriate way then we will make a decision on how to proceed based on a private discussion between the operators of the site and any posters directly involved in the copyright breach

Which is akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Scotty]

mebbe so, but it is better than a blanket ruling that would restrict people's access to the forums based not on what they actually do or say but rather on their employer or status with that employer .....

anyhoo .... back on topic

[Guest]

Looks like the press have picked up on your "sacking" Don Courier Article

Some interesting quotes in there-

It followed an initial warning Mr Johnstone received early last month for posting comments on www.caleythistleonline.com about the ownership of the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and the club's finances.

You never said you had already had a warning over the issue.

When Darren MacKintosh raised the matter of the comments with him, he indicated that he would rather have the right to free speech as opposed to being announcer. We have acceded to this request.

I understand that reporters are known for twisting the truth but if this is truly a quote from Darren then it sounds more like you resigned than were sacked?

[Yngwie]

Looks like the press have picked up on your "sacking" Don Courier Article

Some interesting quotes in there-

It followed an initial warning Mr Johnstone received early last month for posting comments on www.caleythistleonline.com about the ownership of the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and the club's finances.

You never said you had already had a warning over the issue.

Read post #98.

[Guest]

Looks like the press have picked up on your "sacking" Don Courier Article

Some interesting quotes in there-

It followed an initial warning Mr Johnstone received early last month for posting comments on www.caleythistleonline.com about the ownership of the Tulloch Caledonian Stadium and the club's finances.

You never said you had already had a warning over the issue.

Read post #98.

Fair point I either forgot about or missed the part about the warning, so what is all the fuss about then? If I had an official reprimand for something at work and blatantly ignored it then I would expect to be sacked!

[RiG]

Fair point I either forgot about or missed the part about the warning, so what is all the fuss about then? If I had an official reprimand for something at work and blatantly ignored it then I would expect to be sacked!

Perhaps but would you not also expect to be told what exactly it is you have said as opposed to "You're saying things we don't like. Stop it or we'll sack you." and not know exactly what things they are talking about?

Again, going back to post # 98 CaleyD asked to meet with them to iron out any difficulties and find out just what it was that he had said that caused the problem. He got no answer and nothing more was said to him.

[Guest]

Fair point I either forgot about or missed the part about the warning, so what is all the fuss about then? If I had an official reprimand for something at work and blatantly ignored it then I would expect to be sacked!

Perhaps but would you not also expect to be told what exactly it is you have said as opposed to "You're saying things we don't like. Stop it or we'll sack you." and not know exactly what things they are talking about?

Again, going back to post # 98 CaleyD asked to meet with them to iron out any difficulties and find out just what it was that he had said that caused the problem. He got no answer and nothing more was said to him.

Yes RiG but do you not think it was glaringly obvious that posting about how the major shareholder had surruptitiously acquired ownership of the stadium and ground would be the annoying posts. You and I both know that CaleyD is an expert at pushing buttons, God knows I've gone up against him lots of times on these boards. Let's not pretend that we or he is as naive as to not know what the issues were.

[Harry Chibber]

Fair point I either forgot about or missed the part about the warning, so what is all the fuss about then? If I had an official reprimand for something at work and blatantly ignored it then I would expect to be sacked!

I think you're missing the point and trying (very hard) to start an arguement even when you haven't read all the facts.

[Guest]

Harry lets get to the point,

CaleyD, what annoyed you most? Was it the fact that you had an opportunity to meet the board and discuss your sacking but were denied or was it that the board denied you the chance you had been angling for to ask those awkward questions you so desire the answer to?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Revbirdog

[Johnboy]

Harry lets get to the point,

CaleyD, what annoyed you most? Was it the fact that you had an opportunity to meet the board and discuss your sacking or was it that the board denied you the chance you had been angling for to ask those awkward questions you so desire the answer to?

Birdog....

Given that there is a danger that ICT could go into administration, don't you think these "awkward questions" are questions that should be asked?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Johnboy

[Guest]

Harry lets get to the point,

CaleyD, what annoyed you most? Was it the fact that you had an opportunity to meet the board and discuss your sacking or was it that the board denied you the chance you had been angling for to ask those awkward questions you so desire the answer to?

Birdog....

Given that there is a danger that ICT could go into administration, don't you think these "awkward questions" are questions that should be asked?

Johnboy are we really that close to administration or is it a story put about by others who wish to get their claws on the club? Seriously, I have asked Don to put all his information together so that I could judge for myself but I have been given the same stony silence from him which eminates from TCS towards him.

[Renegade]

Anyone else read the comment from "Brian" further down? For those who didn't he says -

Brian

Absolutely agree with the club on this one.

They should not have to put up with a constant stream of negative comments aimed at them from their own stadium announcer.

Did he honestly think the club were going to put up with all these ridiculous comments, whilst still employing him to do a job?

Someone in the boards answer to the whole thing perhaps?

Edited February 2, 2010 by Renegade

[RiG]

Yes RiG but do you not think it was glaringly obvious that posting about how the major shareholder had surruptitiously acquired ownership of the stadium and ground would be the annoying posts. You and I both know that CaleyD is an expert at pushing buttons, God knows I've gone up against him lots of times on these boards. Let's not pretend that we or he is as naive as to not know what the issues were.

As already mentioned he had been posting in such a style for a long time. It's not as if they didn't know what they are getting in to when they took him on.

Why then give the announcer job to him in the first place?

Why did they refuse to meet him to discuss his alleged warning on the 11th of January and allow him to carry on in the post when he made it clear he wanted to clear things up?

I'm with Harry here - I think you are simply trying to start an argment for the sake of it.

Edited February 2, 2010 by RiG

[Georgeios]

*Some Pish*

Birdog....

Given that there is a danger that ICT could go into administration, don't you think these "awkward questions" are questions that should be asked?

Dame it!! when you quote a post it bypasses the Ignore.... my eyes hurt.

[Guest]

Fair point I either forgot about or missed the part about the warning, so what is all the fuss about then? If I had an official reprimand for something at work and blatantly ignored it then I would expect to be sacked!

I think you're missing the point and trying (very hard) to start an arguement even when you haven't read all the facts.

Harry could you provide me with all the facts please, because Don does not wish to. I don't know if that is due to him being worried about legal action from the club or if he just does not have them, I would like to judge for myself.

[Guest]

Yes RiG but do you not think it was glaringly obvious that posting about how the major shareholder had surruptitiously acquired ownership of the stadium and ground would be the annoying posts. You and I both know that CaleyD is an expert at pushing buttons, God knows I've gone up against him lots of times on these boards. Let's not pretend that we or he is as naive as to not know what the issues were.

As already mentioned he had been posting in such a style for a long time. It's not as if they didn't know what they are getting in to when they took him on.

Why then give the announcer job to him in the first place?

Why did they refuse to meet him to discuss his alleged warning on the 11th of January and allow him to carry on in the post when he made it clear he wanted to clear things up?

I'm with Harry here - I think you are simply trying to start an argment for the sake of it.

No RiG I would like, as explained to Scotty, to have the facts given to me in one place. All Don's accusations aimed at the club are in various threads which I have lost track of through working away and avoiding the forum at times. If Don really has a case against the club the surely it is in all of our interests to be able to view it objectively, please Don.

[RiG]

You seem to be the only one thinking he has a case against the club. If you are so bothered about it and so hell bent on retaining that opinion you can easily go and make use of the search facility on this site. It's pretty easy to have a look through all of a particular persons posts if you so wish.