This is it. It isn't about Burnsy or any other individual. That's the convenient distraction of choice for the Allam fans. The issue here is that the independent, unbiased bit of the media, an institution which is a cornerstone of our open and free society, has been excluded because our owners don't want those values. Being held to account by an open and fair media organisation is something they don't agree with. How can anyone support them? It's sadly a common tactic used by dictators and oppresive regimes the world over, but a small-time playboy wannabe from a leafy East Yorkshire suburb? The fact he's using such unscrupulous methods should be the final straw for the remaining few apologists.
And yet there is no policy not to use Hull City. All those who put Hull Tigers are just making a simple mistake. Did anyone at last weeks supporters meeting question this (again) or is that topic forgotten now?
will they? I presume they'll be able to attend the usual pressers, but will they have tunnel access for the pre and post match interviews with manager and players?
No, they'll only get the same access as any of the other press, only Viking will now get the tunnel interviews post match.
There are hundreds if not thousands of independent and unbiased media outlets that can criticise his regime all they like, the are free to do so and he has no power to stop them. However, I don't understand why people think anyone let alone the Allams would continue to give a favourable deal to an individual or company that is openly critical of them. This sort of thing happens all the time in everything from science, to business, music to sport. If I started publishing negative articles about the company I work for or the people in charge then I wouldn't expect to have my job much longer.
As Fez rightly claimed those attending the meetings are being used and manipulated. There is no doubt that the Allams will be telling the FA that they are conducting productive meetings with supporters in accordance with the guidelines.
I can't find a single other example of a football club who have refused to allow the BBC to do commentaries due to their criticism of the owners and there's been plenty who have been critical. Fergie famously refused to give interviews to the BBC for years and Rangers once banned a BBC reporter for doing a piece criticising the club for not doing more about sectarian chanting, but they're the only examples I can find. This has **** all to do with the commercial terms of the deal and everything to do with the Allams trying to find someone who'll do what they're told.
It's an attempt to censor the media to spread their propaganda. It's a cowardly practice which is not welcome in a developed country. This country provided a safe space for the family when they fled a dictatorship. It's ****ing insulting that they go to such lengths to fight against democracy now.
Wow. A business makes a business related decision to change partners and suddenly its Kim Jong Un and North Korea.
he didn't flee a dictatorship - that's more Allam bollocks - he was accepted for a post graduate course in Germany - he left Egypt to go there but travelled via the UK to visit family on the way but ended up staying - he's a **** don't believe the lies
I do find this all quite amusing. I have never listened to Burnsey but I have read countless posts, on here, about how poor his commentaries were. On that basis the change would seem to have merit. Moving to DAB offers more the opportunity to listen; so a positive for many. Moving to independent radio and commercials is a huge negative - I won't take up the new DAB opportunity because of the intrusion of adverts. But what amuses me is the way in which Allam plays supporters - some more than others. He has won the need for supporter interaction by hosting the Supporter Meetings - FA box ticked. The OSC - say no more. Box ticked. He's now got a community media lapdog broadcasting games and interviews - Community box ticked. Another season without concessions - membership box ticked. He's really not doing too badly against the resistance; is he?
It offers more people outside Hull the chance to listen, but obviously not more people overall, the vast majority of people still access radio via FM.
This really is an utterly ridiculous argument. He has made a simple commercial business decision. It is his democratic right to do so. Stop behaving like some small time commy upstart and think of a real objection to what he does; because you're embarrassing yourself.
Thats an academic point, as DAB technology is available if people want it - regional FM isn't so easily accessed, if at all, for many. I think it's fair to say the opportunity for access has increased.
The BBC have said he didn't like the coverage they were getting. So, he's gone with someone else - yes, it's his right. But like all his decisions, the reasons he gives publicly are bullshit. Better commercial decision? On a station half the size of the previous station, that has less coverage (FM) in the area where the people most likely to listen actually live? It's the same logic that has them closing parts of the stadium to "improve the atmosphere in the bowl".
If anything it's better this way. More people now have access to the coverage than before. The BBC have influence, are a multinational organisation and can get things known. The chains are off, let's hope they use their free hands. I fail to see how this is anything but an ordinary democratic business decision.
Oh dear.... I often criticised the big fella for his numerous 'oh dear oh dear' comments and frequent heights of joy at our catastrophes, or as doctors refer to it "schadenfreude" But I'll miss the fella.... Can someone start a 'Bring back the Burnsey' chant... I hope Viking are as good as the beeb and update the listener on the other scores from around the country.....
I love all this stuff about adverts. Back in the day when the BBC had a monopoly people tuned in to Radio Luxembourg to hear decent music and were happy to hear adverts in exchange. Then came Radio Caroline and a host of others including our own 270 with even more adverts and younger people stopped listen I g to the BBC in droves. Of course the powers that be Didn't like it and that dupposedly great champion of freedom showed his preference for state control by shuttingbtgem down on the pretext their frequencies were interfsringbwith all sorts of things. Needless to say when the BBC had control again years later those same frequencies were sold off for a lot of money.
