After our article published last Friday, we received a phone call with particularly virulent content and tone, even somewhat threatening, from a person whose name we will not disclose for confidentiality reasons.
How to explain it?
Yet, we limited ourselves to recounting the chronology of events without passing any judgment on anyone, but simply asking that responsibilities be established to avoid the traditional… farewell and see you next time!
So why this reaction?
“Excusatio non petita accusatio manifesta” as Roman jurists used to say. As for the threats… how sad it is to have to hear them!
For the sake of transparency, here are our public responses to the grievances our interlocutor raised:
– A micro-organization like Nice Premium requires a great complementarity of roles. It is quite possible that an article, between its conception and publication, is written and corrected by several hands. That is why in such cases, being a collective work, it is signed by “editorial team.” In any case, a publication, even if online, has a publication director who is the legal responsible. Where is the problem then?
– Public facts should not be portrayed as secrets. We very well know when and how to use the information we come to know about.
– An article must refer to a fact and express an opinion. The question is simple: are the facts proven or not? As for the opinions, of course, we take responsibility for them.
It is quite understandable that the expression “high-wire performance” may be considered a bit strong. But everything that happened will certainly have serious and negative consequences for a club of nearly 700 members (players, the large majority of whom are young people and children from the rugby school, educators, coaches, and managers). So, is there agreement to respect the form without also considering the substance?
Of course, we could have chosen to refer to the “Peter Principle,” which is well known in the managerial world: “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence,” as well as its corollary “with time, every position will be occupied by an employee incapable of taking on the responsibility.” But we could continue to discuss endlessly, with each party having its reasons if, in the meantime, the situation had not taken an unexpected turn.
Because following the general meeting of the SASP on September 17, convened after the previous one on June 4 was deemed invalid, the main shareholder and fund-provider did not attend; President John Hall renewed his resignation, and no one was elected in his place.
Therefore, the SASP is without a Board of Directors, and it will likely be the auditor, having noted the situation, who will take the initiative to request the appointment of a judicial administrator. This, barring a miraculous turnaround of the situation, will very likely lead to the liquidation of the company. What can we say? “What a mess!”
Alas, here it is no longer a question of being “judge and party” since the facts are the facts, and in this case, they are beyond any opinion!!!
What could have been the causes of this sad conclusion?
We offer our diagnosis: Are you familiar with dropsy, the disease of the frog who wanted to puff herself up to be as big as an ox? Finally, to conclude, in any story, as we know, there are always heroes and zeros. In this one, there have unfortunately been mostly the numbers side!!!
Will the club come out of this severe test unscathed? As the Latins said: “ex malo bonum” (good follows bad). This is all we wish for Nice rugby, supporting it as much as we can.
by Editorial Team
