Time to leave Zorba

[Dan]

There is a whole lot of brainwashing going on and lots of people have just swallowed the bait really, but you have to really question motives here

 

[Dan]

There is a whole lot of brainwashing going on and lots of people have just swallowed the bait really, but you have to really question motives here

 

[WAMF]

There is a whole lot of brainwashing going on and lots of people have just swallowed the bait really, but you have to really question motives here

What, without questioning the motive of Zorba's presence on the board?

 

[WAMF]

There is a whole lot of brainwashing going on and lots of people have just swallowed the bait really, but you have to really question motives here

What, without questioning the motive of Zorba's presence on the board?

 

[byso]

So dan you don't question why penn would put him on the board anyhow. Considering it would create so many issues.

 

[byso]

So dan you don't question why penn would put him on the board anyhow. Considering it would create so many issues.

 

[Chip and Chase]

It'd duelling newspaper articles. Expect a return of serve over the weekend from Zorbas cronies at News.

News and Fairfax should come on board as sponsors, God knows we've helped them sell some papers with this decade long boardroom squabbling.

 

[Chip and Chase]

It'd duelling newspaper articles. Expect a return of serve over the weekend from Zorbas cronies at News.

News and Fairfax should come on board as sponsors, God knows we've helped them sell some papers with this decade long boardroom squabbling.

 

[Dan]

So dan you don't question why penn would put him on the board anyhow. Considering it would create so many issues.

That is a completely separate issue. Furthermore, how do we know any of these issues are in fact real and present and not the imaginings of a journalist or one board member with an axe to grind?

We need to collectively decide whether we are to believe the reporting by journalists or not. We can't pick and choose the articles we want to believe because they suit our own individual agenda or beliefs.

Either everything written by journalists is
a) complete truth
or b) a fabrication or part truths

The issue I have with all of this is that this is none of our, or the medias business and should never be public knowledge, this is a private holding and not a public entity. The one journalist so many of us profess to despise is the one so many of us believe when the subject matter is that which is contained in this thread. We simply can't have it both ways.

Also as I said earlier, whilst we need Kaspersky as a sponsor, they have no right to make demands of staffing and board members, furthermore they should not be taking these things out in the media. A sponsor is just that a sponsor, they do not have a decision based interest in this business, though they do have a right to withdraw funds if they think their brand has been damaged. Of course, they would need to be careful as long as the contract was correctly drawn up they would need to prove that their brand has been damaged through this action, which is something I find very difficult to believe, and think this very article is more damaging for their brand than the original.

but then again, I may be talking too much sense

 

[Dan]

So dan you don't question why penn would put him on the board anyhow. Considering it would create so many issues.

That is a completely separate issue. Furthermore, how do we know any of these issues are in fact real and present and not the imaginings of a journalist or one board member with an axe to grind?

We need to collectively decide whether we are to believe the reporting by journalists or not. We can't pick and choose the articles we want to believe because they suit our own individual agenda or beliefs.

Either everything written by journalists is
a) complete truth
or b) a fabrication or part truths

The issue I have with all of this is that this is none of our, or the medias business and should never be public knowledge, this is a private holding and not a public entity. The one journalist so many of us profess to despise is the one so many of us believe when the subject matter is that which is contained in this thread. We simply can't have it both ways.

Also as I said earlier, whilst we need Kaspersky as a sponsor, they have no right to make demands of staffing and board members, furthermore they should not be taking these things out in the media. A sponsor is just that a sponsor, they do not have a decision based interest in this business, though they do have a right to withdraw funds if they think their brand has been damaged. Of course, they would need to be careful as long as the contract was correctly drawn up they would need to prove that their brand has been damaged through this action, which is something I find very difficult to believe, and think this very article is more damaging for their brand than the original.

but then again, I may be talking too much sense

 

[Cameron]

It's like this anything written by massoud or proszenko is leaked by the anti penn side of things. Anything written by Ritchie or rothfield is leaked by zorba/ Penn side. So you need to read the article read who it's by and see what their motivation is.

Too me this is a power play to get rid of peters, who has been dumb enough once again to open his big mouth.

The thing that ****s me is if they put as much effort in to running club as they do this crap we would be the benchmark.

 

[Cameron]

It's like this anything written by massoud or proszenko is leaked by the anti penn side of things. Anything written by Ritchie or rothfield is leaked by zorba/ Penn side. So you need to read the article read who it's by and see what their motivation is.

Too me this is a power play to get rid of peters, who has been dumb enough once again to open his big mouth.

The thing that ****s me is if they put as much effort in to running club as they do this crap we would be the benchmark.

 

[TokyoEagle]

It was mentioned in the smh article that he said it on sportal, so it is not a private matter that has been leaked it seems.

 

[TokyoEagle]

It was mentioned in the smh article that he said it on sportal, so it is not a private matter that has been leaked it seems.

 

[Disco]

Who is the more derisive, the one who said the comment behind closed doors, or the one who leaked it to the press and made it public.

Umm Zorba made his comment on a Sportal podcast which is hardly "behind doors"

So this whole "leak" arguement is redundant

 

[Disco]

Who is the more derisive, the one who said the comment behind closed doors, or the one who leaked it to the press and made it public.

Umm Zorba made his comment on a Sportal podcast which is hardly "behind doors"

So this whole "leak" arguement is redundant

 

[Cameron]

Who is the more derisive, the one who said the comment behind closed doors, or the one who leaked it to the press and made it public.

Umm Zorba made his comment on a Sportal podcast which is hardly "behind doors"

So this whole "leak" arguement is redundant

Yes but who has leaked the story of kaspersky walking

 

[Cameron]

Who is the more derisive, the one who said the comment behind closed doors, or the one who leaked it to the press and made it public.

Umm Zorba made his comment on a Sportal podcast which is hardly "behind doors"

So this whole "leak" arguement is redundant

Yes but who has leaked the story of kaspersky walking

 

[Disco]

Who is the more derisive, the one who said the comment behind closed doors, or the one who leaked it to the press and made it public.

Umm Zorba made his comment on a Sportal podcast which is hardly "behind doors"

So this whole "leak" arguement is redundant

Yes but who has leaked the story of kaspersky walking

So your concern is not that Kapersky are threatening to pull millions in sponsorship but rather how the press found out?

The issue of a "leak" pales in significance to Kapersky threatening to run.

 

[Disco]

Who is the more derisive, the one who said the comment behind closed doors, or the one who leaked it to the press and made it public.

Umm Zorba made his comment on a Sportal podcast which is hardly "behind doors"

So this whole "leak" arguement is redundant

Yes but who has leaked the story of kaspersky walking

So your concern is not that Kapersky are threatening to pull millions in sponsorship but rather how the press found out?

The issue of a "leak" pales in significance to Kapersky threatening to run.