Phoenix Ownership - Rob says FTFFA (Part 1)

I agree with JD. Right from the start in this topic many of us who dared to even acknowledge the D Post had a right to consider TS's financial dealings 'news' we were made to feel we were part of the axis of evil as Dolores channelled George Bush in here with her you're either with us or against us

As more information came out (through the evil papers who funnily enough have the job of informing)  you and your other TS cheerteam slowly changed the topic to more along the lines of let's hope for the best anyway but still held tight on to your belief in Saint Terry

I went through a period of posting in this topic then gave up cause the rose glassed pitbull responses were so predictable and it jst depressed me as anyone with actual knowledge of finances, accounting, development, commercial retail sales etc just got attacked. I laughed at one of the posts read yesterday about Dolores being sick of negative whining as she has spent the most time being negative about any of us fellow YFites who dare to not follow her beliefs on this. It's made for an unhappy experience on the forums as late

And that article JD posted above is part of what I've been trying to say. There is a great chance Terry is insolvent. His assets could easily be worth nowhere near 230m and it has always been news and wether they are biased or not at least the Doom Post has given us the chance to find out that maybe Terry is an emperor with no clothes

And look Dolores I know you feel you're unfairly being called out by your so called stalkers etc and that there are others who've held your views all along... but you've kind of been the ultimate Rottweiler at the base of the tower of TS's reputation and we jst need to even brush the fence of it and we can stand and count the seconds as we hear the chain unravelling as you run full tilt at our posts. Normally you're a great forum contributor and hey I'm happy you like to have  a rosey view of life but so much of the attacking from page one of this thread has been you jumping down on dissenting opinions
stealthkiwi2011-09-05 07:43:53

A couple of points I would like to add to this debate if I may. I have just read the article https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/5562843/Doubts-raised-over-value-put-on-Serepisos-property I there are two things that don't sit right with me.



Once again the lack of a name makes me suspicious!

While I don't believe that everything is bliss with Terry's finances I do think that if a publication is prepared to print stories about this subject they should be factual and honest, both of which seem to be missing from this article.

C-Diddy2011-09-05 08:48:37

Should remember not to post when angry. But certainly many people here - including me - seem to get angry when reading opinions they don't agree with.
Doloras2011-09-05 09:53:50

Those who posted such things made others out to be idiots. They had no proof to what they were saying,so to us it's just someone making up the worst case.

From what I've seen,doloras has been like me (albeit a bit more animated),saying we don't know facts so why be so negative. She hasnt called anything wrong.

Your just being as condescending as ever at the moment.

I agree with your sentiment but what I find difficult to swallow is that if somebody at the Phoenix, lets say Terry, was rumoured to have said "The Dom Post is full of lies and deliberate deceipt" (this has not happened by the way if your reading Mr "Domininion Post"!) then the Dom Post would have no trouble at all printing his name all over the article and attributing the quote to him. However, should the reverse occur, as in this article where information about Terry Serepisos is apparently supplied and the "source" of their information is not printed, I believe that to be very unfair.
All it is doing is deliberately misleading its readers and helping them form misguided opinions about Terry Serepisos. I for one think that it is poor journalism and they should man up and stand by their alleged sources to show that they actually have fatual information on the subject.
If they aren't willing to do this then they should f*ck off and let us enjoy the upcoming football season without the fear of impending doom!C-Diddy2011-09-05 11:07:58

Is someone who is very close to Terry going to say something? Just putting it out there, not that I know any different.tpmyhill2011-09-05 11:46:36

What do you expect them to say?

I wouldn't think so.

Just heard that breakfast has finished and that Terry ate well, and that AFC paid, and all had a big hug at the end  

ooh, what did he have? Weet-Bix and sugar washed down with a fresh squeezed OJ??

Perhaps the DP source simply doesn't want to be named? If journalists name sources who asked for confidentiality/anonimity, their career is pretty much goneski.

If people aren't willing to stand by their comments then maybe they shouldn't comment in the first place!

Jesus H Christ.... If journalists named "sources" news would simply not exist. Anonimity of souce's has happened ever since Moses chisselled out a newspaper.

Confidential sources are part and parcel of investigative journalism, and without them it's pretty difficult to break any big story.

Sure they open up a minefield when you don't know who the information is coming from and all the problems associated with that, but it's really the type of situation where you have to take the rough with the smooth.

Not sure that this is a breaking news story. Conjecture, as this thread is testament, has been around for months.

I think the media have had enough time to get their facts straight and print some truths rather than hiding behind hearsay.

Well, firstly, I was mostly commenting in general terms, rather than on this particular article. Like I said, if a source asks to remain confidential, then its professional suicide to name that source. I have no idea whether this in fact happened in this situation, but it is not all that far-fetched to think it may have.

As for the second part of your post, has the media not get their facts - as far as they as are ascertainable in the given circumstances - straight for the most part?

I'm a little bit with C-Diddy on this. I appreciate that the 'source' is a legitimate tool in journalism but it's been used here to disguise laziness in my view. If it was some huge piece of juicy information, then sure, quote the unamed source but heck this "deep throat" is only saying something that any teller down at the ANZ Bank could tell you. This is poor journalism and something that Perry White or Mr Grant would not let you get away with in their newsroom.

the silence from the club is deafening.

I think you'll find that the club are getting on with doing what they do best and thats preparing for the upcoming A-League season.
Plus I don't think they need to actually weigh into the debate as they cannot add anything new.

What news article are we talking about?  Majority have -The Dominion Post/ -Stuff at the bottom but then under the headline have the reporters name?

Yeah, Phil Kitchin is an established leader of the "Get Terry" brigade.

For those who are stating that anonymous sources are 'just part of journalism', yes that is correct, but it's also one of the reasons why journalism is dying as a profession... no one wants to know the opinion of the writer anymore, no one wants to read 'sources tell us' anymore. It's all bullsh*t.  Articles are just blogs, and there's enough people writing them these days. All people want to see now is the quote directly from the horse's mouth i.e. twitter/facebook

Sorry, I've got to disagree. Since when is journalism dying as a profession? Articles are not "just blogs", reporters are trained in areas bloggers generally are not, such as media law and ethics. While I agree the use of anonymous sources can be a bit of a cop out or often offer nothing to a story, they are more often than not a way of someone close to a story sharing something sensitive without fear of repercussions. It is up to the journalist's discretion as to when it is appropriate or not (I've probably used "sources" twice in three years reporting).

So-called mainstream media also has the credibility a blogger does not. By all means go to a blog for your news if that is what you want to do - but they can make up what they like. If we make stuff up, there are repercussions, be it from the press council or BSA, courts, or getting the sack.

As for Cory Jane, in the past he's packed a sad when he has been quoted in the media. He may like to read his NZRU contract - which says posts on public social networking sites are deemed published and may be quoted. I've got nothing against Twitter, it's great that it gets the public closer to who they are interested in, but conventional media can provide added depth, background and has that all important credibility.

In my opinion, social media and bloggers pose no threat to real journalism whatsoever.

As for the Dom Post, NBR and whoever else, I'm not going to comment on whether they have a vendetta against Terry, I just don't know. But I doubt it. I'd say they've put a lot of work (time and effort) into what is a good ongoing story, which is newsworthy, like it or not. And at the end of the day, it's selling papers and gettiing page impressions, which keeps the bosses happy. I don't like the fact Terry is in the news for all the wrong reasons, but I hardly see how reporters are to blame for doing what is essentially their job. Hell, even I've written some Terry stories.

Typical journo. Says one thing and does another.

Damn it. You can't trust us!

As C-Diddy pointed out there was no investigative journalist who put their name to the article....

I don't know why some people on this thread are still intent on talking about "speculation", "conjecture", "rumour" etc when Terry's financial situation has been discussed in court several times now. We may not know EXACT details, but it's pretty clear to me what is going on and I've now given up on Terry somehow turning things round. Maybe if the $100million loan comes through (ha!), however it's still a loan and how exactly would he propose to pay it back anyway??

I never knew you could construct a double-oxymoron until now. Even better than "military intelligence" This was the point at which I choked on my lunch laughing. Thanks for the cheer up! Grandadi2011-09-06 13:26:01

Oh no....

I write to both inform and entertain!

Pay Ricki!

That's what NotW said (except scratch the inform part)

hmm i deleted that - dont want the copyright police on me

So.  The Phoenix five.  How about some theories.

I'll post it for you then: