NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 biggest load of tripe I've read in ages I don't know how to respond here. Are you clear on the concept of journalism? You do realize that it isn't supposed to be made up? So, you are saying that Oliver has to tell his readers who his sources are mackems.gif Fantastic. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. This isn't Watergate. Nobodies lives are at stake, and I doubt anyone's job is either (probably because he MADE IT UP). I at least want to know the agent's name, if not the person he spoke to. Especially if we end up appointing Harry Redknapp. sorry, but in the real world, journalists don't name their sources. For obvious reasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver: "All United would hint at today was that they are looking for an experienced manager who is with a club, and this rules out the likes of Martin Jol, Jose Mourinho, Marcello Lippi and Ottmar Hitzfeld." http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2008/01/10/look-hughes-in-the-frame-72703-20333994/ Has Hitzfeld left Bayern already? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The obvious reason being to lie and fabricate information. Alan Oliver's latest story is linking Mark Hughes to the job. So it is becoming apparent that the entire "top agent" myth is bullshit, wouldn't you agree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 biggest load of tripe I've read in ages I don't know how to respond here. Are you clear on the concept of journalism? You do realize that it isn't supposed to be made up? So, you are saying that Oliver has to tell his readers who his sources are mackems.gif Fantastic. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. This isn't Watergate. Nobodies lives are at stake, and I doubt anyone's job is either (probably because he MADE IT UP). I at least want to know the agent's name, if not the person he spoke to. Especially if we end up appointing Harry Redknapp. sorry, but in the real world, journalists don't name their sources. For obvious reasons. Backing NE5 on this one, no journo is going to hand over his source, no matter what line of feild he's in. Stupid to think he should or would, i know the guy is dumb, but he's not thick as fuk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver not backing his own story then? Not necessarily. Whether Redknapp or Hughes are considered of the 'blown socks off' standard depends on how highly they are rated by the board, whom at the moment have a very questionable level of football knowledge. nah sorry i'm not having that, if it turns out to be one of them he was lying Really, if Redknapp or Hughes are appointed, it means that the board thinks he was the best possible man for the job, and therefore given what must therefore be assumed to be limited football knowledge, Mort's socks blew off when he received the call touting whoever. Another absolutely correct observation, ignored by those who form a different "opinion" based on nothing other than seeing what they want to see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karjala Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver: "All United would hint at today was that they are looking for an experienced manager who is with a club, and this rules out the likes of Martin Jol, Jose Mourinho, Marcello Lippi and Ottmar Hitzfeld." http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2008/01/10/look-hughes-in-the-frame-72703-20333994/ I'm sure Oliver has about as much information on the next manager as us lot via SSN. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 There's so much against Redknapp, that I just can't see it being him. He's denied he's been asked, he's turned down jobs 'up norf' before, he's another scandalacious manager that I'm sure Ashley could do without, Pompey are doing alright, he's too f****** old. I'd be shocked if he came, tbh. totally agree So would I. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Expectations like that are why you are left with a gutter press in England. It is not acceptable for a journalist to write "According to an unnamed source, an unnamed agent for a top unnamed client may be interested in the Newcastle job!" and then walk away from the story the next day. I can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnypd Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 no journalist is going to name their source, doesn't matter what country they're in. as soon as they do blow their sources, info that they've been told in confidence, their career is over as they'd be unable in the future to get any more information. didn;t an american journalist recently go to jail for refusing to do the same? i agree it is silly to base a story around an unnamed agent saying an unnamed client is interested in the newcastle job, as there's not enough actual info in there to write the article. but in fairness to oliver, he didn;t actually turn it into a headline story, he snuck it into one of those op-ed columns and in conclusion left it open-ended as to the significance of the mysterious phone-call. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 biggest load of tripe I've read in ages I don't know how to respond here. Are you clear on the concept of journalism? You do realize that it isn't supposed to be made up? So, you are saying that Oliver has to tell his readers who his sources are mackems.gif Fantastic. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. This isn't Watergate. Nobodies lives are at stake, and I doubt anyone's job is either (probably because he MADE IT UP). I at least want to know the agent's name, if not the person he spoke to. Especially if we end up appointing Harry Redknapp. sorry, but in the real world, journalists don't name their sources. For obvious reasons. Backing NE5 on this one, no journo is going to hand over his source, no matter what line of feild he's in. Stupid to think he should or would, i know the guy is dumb, but he's not thick as fuk. To be fair, it would madness to oust his "source", that insider would soon become an outsider if people knew who he was, knowone wants a mole unless its tactical. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 The obvious reason being to lie and fabricate information. Alan Oliver's latest story is linking Mark Hughes to the job. So it is becoming apparent that the entire "top agent" myth is bullshit, wouldn't you agree? journalists don't name their sources, full stop, and I'm staggered that anybody can believe that they do. I believe this is what you were questioning ? As has been said, by people using a bit of common sense and basic logic, maybe he did blow Chris Morts socks off. It is Mort he is talking about, not you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 no journalist is going to name their source, doesn't matter what country they're in. as soon as they do blow their sources, info that they've been told in confidence, their career is over and they'd be unable in the future to get any more information. didn;t an american journalist recently go to jail for refusing to do the same? Yes. And he wasn't REPORTING ON SPORT. Jesus christ, do you really think Alan Oliver is talking to anonymous informants in dark alley ways like in the films? You only don't disclose if they are speaking on a condition of anonymity, which I doubt. And even if this were the case, there is still no reason not to name the agent. And certainly no reason to abandon the story the next day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Expectations like that are why you are left with a gutter press in England. It is not acceptable for a journalist to write "According to an unnamed source, an unnamed agent for a top unnamed client may be interested in the Newcastle job!" and then walk away from the story the next day. I can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. sorry again, but I don't really care how they do things in the USA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parky Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Expectations like that are why you are left with a gutter press in England. It is not acceptable for a journalist to write "According to an unnamed source, an unnamed agent for a top unnamed client may be interested in the Newcastle job!" and then walk away from the story the next day. I can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. sorry again, but I don't really care how they do things in the USA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 no journalist is going to name their source, doesn't matter what country they're in. as soon as they do blow their sources, info that they've been told in confidence, their career is over and they'd be unable in the future to get any more information. didn;t an american journalist recently go to jail for refusing to do the same? Yes. And he wasn't REPORTING ON SPORT. Jesus christ, do you really think Alan Oliver is talking to anonymous informants in dark alley ways like in the films? You only don't disclose if they are speaking on a condition of anonymity, which I doubt. And even if this were the case, there is still no reason not to name the agent. And certainly no reason to abandon the story the next day. You've been watching too many films mate, I'd be surprised if anybody thinks this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver not backing his own story then? Not necessarily. Whether Redknapp or Hughes are considered of the 'blown socks off' standard depends on how highly they are rated by the board, whom at the moment have a very questionable level of football knowledge. nah sorry i'm not having that, if it turns out to be one of them he was lying Really, if Redknapp or Hughes are appointed, it means that the board thinks he was the best possible man for the job, and therefore given what must therefore be assumed to be limited football knowledge, Mort's socks blew off when he received the call touting whoever. Another absolutely correct observation, ignored by those who form a different "opinion" based on nothing other than seeing what they want to see. Well you are ignoring things as well, such as Oliver describing the agents client as being a "top manager", and also one who didnt have morts number. It may of been viable that Oliver may belive that Hughes and Redknapp are top managers, and they may of "knocked the boards socks off" but it isnt under any circumstances viable that the representatives of Hughes or Redknap wont have Morts number Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Expectations like that are why you are left with a gutter press in England. It is not acceptable for a journalist to write "According to an unnamed source, an unnamed agent for a top unnamed client may be interested in the Newcastle job!" and then walk away from the story the next day. I can't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. sorry again, but I don't really care how they do things in the USA Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Venkman Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver not backing his own story then? Not necessarily. Whether Redknapp or Hughes are considered of the 'blown socks off' standard depends on how highly they are rated by the board, whom at the moment have a very questionable level of football knowledge. nah sorry i'm not having that, if it turns out to be one of them he was lying Really, if Redknapp or Hughes are appointed, it means that the board thinks he was the best possible man for the job, and therefore given what must therefore be assumed to be limited football knowledge, Mort's socks blew off when he received the call touting whoever. Another absolutely correct observation, ignored by those who form a different "opinion" based on nothing other than seeing what they want to see. Well you are ignoring things as well, such as Oliver describing the agents client as being a "top manager", and also one who didnt have morts number. It may of been viable that Oliver may belive that Hughes and Redknapp are top managers, and they may of "knocked the boards socks off" but it isnt under any circumstances viable that the representatives of Hughes or Redknap wont have Morts number especially given the links between redknapp and ashley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Im not being funny but you'd have to have a pretty limited knowledge of football to have your "socks blown off" by the likes of Hughes and Redknapp offering there serives to us,team which are witin 8 points of us. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver not backing his own story then? Not necessarily. Whether Redknapp or Hughes are considered of the 'blown socks off' standard depends on how highly they are rated by the board, whom at the moment have a very questionable level of football knowledge. nah sorry i'm not having that, if it turns out to be one of them he was lying Really, if Redknapp or Hughes are appointed, it means that the board thinks he was the best possible man for the job, and therefore given what must therefore be assumed to be limited football knowledge, Mort's socks blew off when he received the call touting whoever. Another absolutely correct observation, ignored by those who form a different "opinion" based on nothing other than seeing what they want to see. Well you are ignoring things as well, such as Oliver describing the agents client as being a "top manager", and also one who didnt have morts number. It may of been viable that Oliver may belive that Hughes and Redknapp are top managers, and they may of "knocked the boards socks off" but it isnt under any circumstances viable that the representatives of Hughes or Redknap wont have Morts number especially given the links between redknapp and ashley Precisely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Regardless of what Mort and Ashley think, it was Oliver who described this 'top agent' and attributed the interest to Mourinho's camp. If it's Redknapp or Hughes, he's still a fucking idiot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fredbob Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Regardless of what Mort and Ashley think, it was Oliver who described this 'top agent' and attributed the interest to Mourinho's camp. If it's Redknapp or Hughes, he's still a f****** idiot. Amen. Case closed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Oliver not backing his own story then? Not necessarily. Whether Redknapp or Hughes are considered of the 'blown socks off' standard depends on how highly they are rated by the board, whom at the moment have a very questionable level of football knowledge. nah sorry i'm not having that, if it turns out to be one of them he was lying Really, if Redknapp or Hughes are appointed, it means that the board thinks he was the best possible man for the job, and therefore given what must therefore be assumed to be limited football knowledge, Mort's socks blew off when he received the call touting whoever. Another absolutely correct observation, ignored by those who form a different "opinion" based on nothing other than seeing what they want to see. Well you are ignoring things as well, such as Oliver describing the agents client as being a "top manager", and also one who didnt have morts number. It may of been viable that Oliver may belive that Hughes and Redknapp are top managers, and they may of "knocked the boards socks off" but it isnt under any circumstances viable that the representatives of Hughes or Redknap wont have Morts number my post a few days ago, said that I think it was obviously a deliberate ploy to get this particular event reported in the press, by the biggest paper in the city, and Oliver duly obliged. It being his job, unless he had reason to hold it back. I haven't got a clue what Oliver thinks of Redknapp or Hughes. Nor Mort, because we don't know who the name was that was mentioned, nor do we know who Ashley and Mort think "would blow their socks off". Not yet anyway. So I can't see your point, you are rambling on again. I will be interested to see your response if they start to back their manager mind, copies of any letters of protest you send to the board for showing ambition and not building up solid, slow and "planned" foundations should be posted on here for interests sake if nothing else. Just so we can all see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 We don't know Mort had his socks blown off at all. We know that Alan Oliver "was told it nearly blew the chairman's socks off". So this is more second hand information from unattributed sources. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE5 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Im not being funny but you'd have to have a pretty limited knowledge of football to have your "socks blown off" by the likes of Hughes and Redknapp offering there serives to us,team which are witin 8 points of us. Well, you seem to appear to be unable to grasp the fact that Oliver was talking about Morts socks, not yours or his own. Assuming of course, it actually is Redknapp or Hughes. Anyway, Hughes may be a future manure manager. If he's good enough for them, he's good enough for us to give a go to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts