From today's 'spare you the click-bait' summary : 1. Manchester United willing to go up to £60m for Eric Dier Sports Mole 16:12 And yet Citeh cannot pay more than 45m for Walker ?? Poor Citeh : is their oil money running out ?? 2. Famous European club preparing move for £30m Spurs flop Moussa Sissoko [Sun] Give Me Sport 16:29 Oh, this one was sorely tempting. But please, make it so. 3. McAvennie: West Ham should have followed Spurs model Knees up Mother Brown 16:28 Does he mean "model" as in operating/financial, or some Page 3 sort wearing a wet Spurs top ??
No better example of hacks trying desperately to be the first to any potential click-bait (note the timings) ... Manchester United get Eric Dier encouragement Manchester Evening News 22:39 Manchester United chief Ed Woodward skips US tour in bid to clinch Ivan Perisic and Eric Dier…Mirror.co.uk 22:37 Manchester United: Manchester United step up efforts to sign Eric Dier from Tottenham The Guardian 22:35 Eric Dier stuns Tottenham: I want to join Man Utd and work with Jose Mourinho Daily and Sunday Express 22:32 Eric Dier to Manchester United: Will this be the beginning of major Spurs overhaul? Daily and Sunday Express 22:32 Eric Dier wants Man Utd move: Tottenham star eyed after Nemanja Matic deal falls through Daily Star 22:31
There's also this one... Odds cut on Eric Dier leaving Tottenham to join Man Utd - Ladbrokes News, 10:20 Hmm, that doesn't look suspicious at all. I mean what does Ladbrokes have to gain from posting stories on the odds dropping of a player moving clubs? It's not as if they get any financial benefit from it whatsoever...
Interestingly, The Mail, who I have pointed out are being very fair to us of late, don't carry the Eric Dier wants to go to United story. Not a single word of it. Nothing. I've been told by my brother that, as reported by The Express, Eric Dier that did tell friends he fancied playing for United and for Jose Mourinho. At the time he was a teenager and playing for Porto. That point is strangely missing from the bollocks in today's media.
The Manchester Evening News has run an article demanding to know why the media reporting of Man City paying colossal transfer fees is markedly different from Man Utd paying colossal transfer fees. Maybe because of a combination of City being a mid-table club at best before they won the Billionaire Owner Lottery combined with people remember City paying colossal transfer fees (and colossal wages) for Roque Santa Cruz, Emmanuel Adebayor, Eliaquim Mangala, Raheem Sterling and John Stones...
The inability to fill their ground is a factor. All the money in the world to piss up the wall on footballing talent, plans to own a team on Mars and the moon and they can't find 50,000 people to rock up and watch. It's a bit sad really. Chelsea used to struggle to get 10,000 at times but Roman's benevolence has bought enough fans to fill their stadium. Citeh have to advertise on TalkSPORT.
From today's 'spare you the click-bait' summary : Everton want loan deal for Tottenham flop Moussa Sissoko Royal Blue Mersey (Weblog) 09:22 Everton back in for Spurs midfielder Moussa Sissoko The Everton Forum 09:04 Everton make loan approach for €35m player, want a try-before-buy deal Sport Witness 08:36 Hmm. Horse-trading with Everton for getting Barkley ??
The Sun really don't want people to find out about an article they blatantly made up in an attempt to smear the editor of Skwawkbox, a blog which by complete coincidence regularly holds the Murdoch machine to account for their ****ty excuses for journalism. One small problem with this plan: the second the article went online, plenty of people made damn sure to archive it for future reference, and the entire thing can be found here https://web.archive.org/web/2017070...trepreneur-who-cashed-in-on-nhs-privatisation Here's their retraction, which is surprisingly hard to find on their website, which is so sincere they repeat all their smears in the space of a praragraph... please log in to view this image
If I was in charge, newspapers would have to print an apology that takes up half a page of one of the first pages inside, every time they do this stuff.
I agree. Retractions should occupy exactly the same space as the original story for the same number of days that the story ran for. The problem for the Sun is that it would have to be 5 cm. thick. Same for the Excess
Did somebody mention retractions? http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/nigel-farage-proof-the-uk-has-no-eu-obligations/
If I was in charge, PMQs would take an hour of the daily schedule due to the amount of times needed to pause either Cameron or May mid-sentence to detail why what they're saying is a complete lie.
Today, Martin Samuels (yes, him) has written an article about Spurs not being smug about not signing anyone and how we'll never win anything. As much as I dislike the man, and I do, he's not entirely stupid. However, he seems unable to differentiate between doing financially prudent business by not waving your money around like a drunken sailor fresh in port (Liverpool, Citeh) and shopping carefully because you're on a budget. Make no mistake, we want 3 or 4 new signings and there are a couple that need moving on. However, acting overly keen or desperate just ends up with you paying twice as much for your second choices, as The Mousers are part way through finding out. Say nothing in the press, try and subtly tap the player up, make discrete enquiries......"we like the look of.......player X........would you have a price in mind if we were interested in making a bid?", try to negotiate under the radar and you have some chance of landing a player who could play for a top side within the budget of Samuels's beloved Spammers.......or you could spunk £24m and £120k per week on Arnautovic.......or bid £70m for Keita and Van Dijk and getting neither as the price goes up and up and.......
Indeed. He has done a WUM job on you. I do try to protect you all here from this, but my "missile defence shield" is not : 1. 100% guaranteed 2. manned 24x7 Some will get thru, and you will click.
Could the Tory-supporting smearmongers of the press please tell the general public what this says? https://web.archive.org/web/2003060...rvatives.com:80/news/article.cfm?obj_id=60916
