Takeover Thread - July 1st statement, Staveley letter to Tracey Crouch (and response) in OP

[Shadow Puppets]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

You are literally spouting complete and utter gibberish like.

 

I don't know how thick people have to be to see it the way you do, but George has made it abundantly clear every time he's shared his bits of info that "the buyer's believe...", "it's from the buyer's", "the buyer's have been told there are no red flags". All of those things are true, or were true at the time of reporting.

 

As far as I'm aware, as someone who knows George a little bit, he hasn't once said that "THE TAKEOVER WILL BE APPROVED ON DAY XYZ".

 

 

[duo]

We need to delete this thread and forgot this every happened.  We're stuck with MA - it's just a fact.

[gjohnson]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

You are literally spouting complete and utter gibberish like.

 

I don't know how thick people have to be to see it the way you do, but George has made it abundantly clear every time he's shared his bits of info that "the buyer's believe...", "it's from the buyer's", "the buyer's have been told there are no red flags". All of those things are true, or were true at the time of reporting.

 

As far as I'm aware, as someone who knows George a little bit, he hasn't once said that "THE TAKEOVER WILL BE APPROVED ON DAY XYZ".

 

Saying news should have confirmed and verified sources is hardly gibberish. George may have had a confirmed source, but was never verified. Reading his pieces he only hints at this but does present it as fact even though technically he doesn't. His reports convinced a lot of people that he actually had an insight into what was going on, which over the last few weeks has been revealed as to be not the case.

[Dr.Spaceman]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

You are literally spouting complete and utter gibberish like.

 

I don't know how thick people have to be to see it the way you do, but George has made it abundantly clear every time he's shared his bits of info that "the buyer's believe...", "it's from the buyer's", "the buyer's have been told there are no red flags". All of those things are true, or were true at the time of reporting.

 

As far as I'm aware, as someone who knows George a little bit, he hasn't once said that "THE TAKEOVER WILL BE APPROVED ON DAY XYZ".

 

Saying news should have confirmed and verified sources is hardly gibberish. George may have had a confirmed source, but was never verified. Reading his pieces he only hints at this but does present it as fact even though technically he doesn't. His reports convinced a lot of people that he actually had an insight into what was going on, which over the last few weeks has been revealed as to be not the case.

 

His source is literally Amanda Staveley. How much closer to the deal do you want him to be?

[Happinesstan]

He got thousands to subscribe to the athletic at a time when there was no news to report. The man is a fucking genius.

[Minhosa]

As someone who used to have GC on the highest of pedestals, even I don't think he's covered himself in glory particularly on this takeover and perhaps he's been blinded by the source at times (early on in the process at the very least).

[Ankles Bennett]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

Caulkin reported numerous times that all he was doing was passing on what he had been told but couldn't vouch for the veracity of what he had been told.

[gjohnson]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

You are literally spouting complete and utter gibberish like.

 

I don't know how thick people have to be to see it the way you do, but George has made it abundantly clear every time he's shared his bits of info that "the buyer's believe...", "it's from the buyer's", "the buyer's have been told there are no red flags". All of those things are true, or were true at the time of reporting.

 

As far as I'm aware, as someone who knows George a little bit, he hasn't once said that "THE TAKEOVER WILL BE APPROVED ON DAY XYZ".

 

Saying news should have confirmed and verified sources is hardly gibberish. George may have had a confirmed source, but was never verified. Reading his pieces he only hints at this but does present it as fact even though technically he doesn't. His reports convinced a lot of people that he actually had an insight into what was going on, which over the last few weeks has been revealed as to be not the case.

 

His source is literally Amanda Staveley. How much closer to the deal do you want him to be?

 

Maybe try to check to see if she was telling the truth? Not saying he didn't, but there's no published evidence that he checked on what she was telling him. He's published opinion pieces to look like fact while technically not presenting them as fact.

 

He got a lot of people's hopes up by being good at gaming the news system, which is a sort of admirable quality but isn't up there for his long term credibility

[Minhosa]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

You are literally spouting complete and utter gibberish like.

 

I don't know how thick people have to be to see it the way you do, but George has made it abundantly clear every time he's shared his bits of info that "the buyer's believe...", "it's from the buyer's", "the buyer's have been told there are no red flags". All of those things are true, or were true at the time of reporting.

 

As far as I'm aware, as someone who knows George a little bit, he hasn't once said that "THE TAKEOVER WILL BE APPROVED ON DAY XYZ".

 

Saying news should have confirmed and verified sources is hardly gibberish. George may have had a confirmed source, but was never verified. Reading his pieces he only hints at this but does present it as fact even though technically he doesn't. His reports convinced a lot of people that he actually had an insight into what was going on, which over the last few weeks has been revealed as to be not the case.

 

His source is literally Amanda Staveley. How much closer to the deal do you want him to be?

 

Maybe try to check to see if she was telling the truth? Not saying he didn't, but there's no published evidence that he checked on what she was telling him. He's published opinion pieces to look like fact while technically not presenting them as fact.

 

He got a lot of people's hopes up by being good at gaming the news system, which is a sort of admirable quality but isn't up there for his long term credibility

 

In his defence, he's got a lot of credit in the bank. He's not pulled up any trees since joining the Athletic and I think he was hugely looking forward to reporting on a genuine football club again.

 

It's not an easy club to cover for journo's who privately must hate lots about their jobs nowadays.

 

He's gone very quiet since it died and I think that's a combination of annual leave but just needing to get some sheer headspace from this whole shitshow.

 

Personally, I feel he'd probably invested a lot of himself into the bid happening and he probably knows much more about their plans than he's able to let on so he's probably doubly disappointed because he knows exacty what could have been.

[Scoot]

People having a go at George Caulkin for reporting what he's been told off the buyers?

 

Thick!

 

Not thick at all. Looking at the situation with critical eyes

 

Nothing to stop him doing some actual journalism and checking to see if what he's been told is actually based in any kind of factual world. Unless it was just an interview and reported as one, rather than taking a single source as gospel

 

That's fine in most scenarios, but with one source (we are assuming) involved in a highly confidential process, I'm not sure how feasible that is.

 

In that case a decent journalist wouldn't report as fact, and would write as an opinion piece. Probably not feasible to report with checks, but that should have been made clear.

 

Caulkin reported numerous times that all he was doing was passing on what he had been told but couldn't vouch for the veracity of what he had been told.

 

Thickos man!

[TRon]

I think if GC could be accused of anything it was being too much of a fan. He obviously wanted it to happen desperately and I would never hold that against him.

[Ikon]

I think if GC could be accused of anything it was being too much of a fan. He obviously wanted it to happen desperately and I would never hold that against him.

 

Yeah, but people need someone to moan at.

[mouldy_uk]

Caulkin isn't perfect, but he really should be near bottom of the list when it comes to directing anger/criticism at the journalists that have covered it.

[Consortium of one]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

[Rocker]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

[Dr.Spaceman]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

 

You tease

[St1pe]

Pretend ITKs should be banned for crimes against the forum.

[gjohnson]

Caulkin isn't perfect, but he really should be near bottom of the list when it comes to directing anger/criticism at the journalists that have covered it.

 

There's no anger intended, but criticism yes....in terms of journalism at least. He's done a very good job in getting readers/subscribers for his articles which is more than likely a part of his remit given that he works at a subscription based publication. Just saying that reflectively most of his articles were nothing more than nicely dressed up click-bait, carefully and subtlety worded so they looked like facts but were in fact just opinions.

 

It's an admirable talent, but totally designed to get the 'thickos' as another user put it to generate money for The Athletic. Being articulate and sympathetic to a cause does not mean you are a good journalist. Not saying he isn't, but checking sources should be the first thing to do.

 

I write a fair few scientific articles, and if i can't show at least one peer reviewed confirmation it's laughed out of the place before even being considered for publication. That doesn't make me a thicko, or spouting gibberish, as some have claimed, that makes me credible in my field

[Shearergol]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

 

Absolutely no offence, but I doubt anyone on here is going to take you at face value

[Stal]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely no offence, but I doubt anyone on here is going to take you at face value

 

That tiny spark of hope is just nice though.

[Judge Holden]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely no offence, but I doubt anyone on here is going to take you at face value

 

That tiny spark of hope is just nice though.

 

Rocker is the Steve Wraith of N-O.

[Dr.Spaceman]

Based on what

[mouldy_uk]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

 

[gdm]

GC is great, IMO.  He's a fan but doesn't allow that to blind him.  Clearly, mandy was feeding him positive intel in part, perhaps, because she personally wanted the deal to go through.  How fun would it have been to have (at least) one partial owner who was emotionally invested into the club as she would have been?

 

That brings me to the point of asking: after her plea to the fans why hasn't she said anything at all.  Is that due to her realizing the deal is dead or is it possible that a new NDA is in effect while there is some form of negotiation going on.

 

For the sake of sanity, while I still check this thread often, I feel better on the assumption that it is dead, dead, dead.

 

 

That shit ain’t funny

[buzz]

Bruce's comments recently made it sound like he'd been definitively told the takeover was over.