Not content with running a 'Modric is leaving Spurs!' story every day for roughly the past fortnight, the Mail has decided to try and celebrate the fact by pointing out it's random idiocy, while printing the Levy statement. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...ottenham-chairman-Levy-Modric-sale-price.html Only two problems with that. The first is that their initial story was that City and United were fighting it out for him and the second is that they've implicated themselves as the paper that Levy suggests Chelsea leaked their bid and subsequent rebuff to. Wrong from the start and then part of an attempt to tap up a player? Well done!
The Mail seems to be the chosen conduit for what looks like a co-ordinated campaign between the Chavs and Modric, and or, his agent to try and force a transfer through. Obviously, after receiving Levys' letter the Chavs thought they could go the underhand route, by probably, ageeing personal terms with the agent and then going public. Modric has reportedly said that he will not ask for a transfer. It will be interesting to see if he keeps to that. Levy, has understandably got pissed off with the Chavs' underhand behaviour and that's why he released such an unequivocable statement this morning. I would think that funnily enough, that Levy is so pissed off that the Chavs now have almost zero chance of signing Modric - now, or ever!
Modric's agent, Nikki Arthur Vuksan, said: "The price that has been written greatly undervalues the price that the club values him at the moment. If there has been a bid of £22m I am not surprised that the club have rejected it. That figure is near to the fee that Spurs paid for Luka [around £16m]." Vuksan said he had not yet been informed that Chelsea have made a bid, but said he was ready to talk to Chelsea or any other club, should Spurs accept an offer. "The chairman has said he doesn't want to sell Luka and Luka is happy at Spurs. [But] if an offer comes to the club that they are happy to accept, then he is willing to talk to the club. Let's see what happens." An excert from....The Daily Fail!!
Methinks Mr Vuksan doth protest too much! I believe he knew exactly what was going on. And, was complicit in it.
As ever, Abramovic (and where else would this really come from?) has slightly misjudged things. Chelsea and Modric's people have almost definitely "leaked exclusively" this story to the mail to try and force a move. Levy seems a man of his word and any deal with the Chavs, as Notsosmart says, is a remote possibility now. I guess we could draw comparisons with Liverpool. Even in their darkest hour selling their best (only) good player at the time, Gerrard, was out of the question. It would have sent out all the wrong signals to supporters, players and potential players too. Now they are new and improved and still have him in place for the new season to come. We are still contenders. The loss of our best player would be disasterous, especially to a team who we are battling with for a top 4 place. Levy needs to play hardball on this one and I am sure he will. I can't imagine him writing a column in the Mail anytime soon either!
Luke, you don't strike me as being completely thick, so I'm going to assume that you're Wumming, as usual. As has been said on other threads, it's not the fact that Chavski, or whoever, put in a bid for Modric. It's, what now looks to be, an underhand campaign by the Chavs and Modrics' agent to try an engineer a transfer on their terms. That's what pisses people off. Unfortunately, for them it seems to have seriously pissed Levy off, too!
Genuinely avoiding coming off as one on the wind-up, all this anti-media rants from Spurs really smacks of paranoia. If there's one team from last season's top 6, you could genuinely call media darlings, it's Spurs who get more positive media coverage than their rivals. It's not the media who explicitly said Modric would love to move to a 'big' club where he could play in the champions league and win trophies- the player himself did. You have to accept that.
There is a clear code of ethics in journalism that states that reporting on direct quotes from an individual must not be 'misleading' 'inaccurate' or 'distort information'.
That's rich coming from a goon. You have been "media darlings" for years. Lazy hacks lauding your 'fantasy football" even when you don't win anything, swallowing the "this is the year" garbage from AW continuously. Also your reaction to Fabregas' want away antics (haven't seen Modric in a Chelsea shirt!) not quite believing anybody would want to play for Barca rather than Arsenal are directly comparable. Here's a newsflash: Nobody likes the media bigging up their local rivals and nobody likes to see their best players sold.
The quotes from Modric are irrefutable and not open to interpretation, whichever way you try to gloss over it
'It' being the singular topic of Modric's quotes, not each one in isolation - that you try to gloss over
I think it's clear that Modric has had his head turned by Chelsea - and no doubt his agent is trying to create an environment where his player's price is hiked up. Chelsea make an offer, Levy refutes it and says he is not for sale. This then ups the ante for a bigger bid. Game plan on track for Modric and his agent.
Just spun a load of twaddle from start to finish. The press stopped lauding our football since Drogba and Chelsea's repeated destruction of us. Who exactly has been swallowing the "this is the year garbage" apart from our more optimistic fans? And the Cesc jersey wearing incident was pretty much forced upon him in an awkward moment in the midst of overly enthusiastic team-mates. He couldn't have stopped it except he ran like a maniac or broke someone's nose. Bringing it up is rather desperate. I was actually shocked with the frank, explicit and rather disrespectful nature of his comments. He pretty much called (or implied) you a small club incapable of matching his ambition. If you saw that as wumming, it wasn't my intent.
There is a clear code of ethics that Journalists subscribe to. The press complaints commission uses these as grounds for settling disputes. Part of the code of ethics state that any direct quote is actually what the person said.
They break it all the time - as seen in this very story when the Mail's "EXCLUSIVE" was copied by the Telegraph, who also claimed an "EXCLUSIVE" So much for the never plagarise rule
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible. The hoax pictures of abused Iraqi prisoners published by the Mirror spring to mind. — Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing. There are countless people who never get the opportunity to respond — Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. Sources are rarely revealed — Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context. This is the easiest one of the lot. — Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallywood — Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story Phone hackings. — Never plagiarize. Already noted an example — Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others. — Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. Too easy. — Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant. Left wing papers won't have right wing views and vice versa. — Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context. Stories consistently have the journalist's bias in them
We know at least one of the Mail and Telegraph is lying as they can't both have had an exclusive interview with Modric So there is no reason why they can't be lying about the alleged quotes too
Pisskie. Why, oh why, do you keep going on about Journalists and ethics? Are you trying to convince yourself that journos are all saints who would never stoop to anything underhand? The only thing that most journos know about Ethics is that it's east of London. Let's face it, as has been proven by recent events, most of the red top rags are populated by a bunch of hyenas who will stop at virtually nothing to get a story - even if it has no foundation in truth, whatsoever
