John Stones

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Shaelumstash said:
The BBC is the most reliable news source in the UK because they don't have a commercial agenda in the same way as the other news outlets, and they are also accountable if they get things wrong more than the others. It's not really in their interests to make up spurious shit like the rest of them.

The MEN isn't really any more reliable than any of the other news outlets any more. In the past they used to have local journalists who would have personal relationships with players and other people inside the club, but not really anymore. As players have become richer and live in a bubble they are less likely to frequent the same places as local journalists, and the club has become more professional and stand-offish with the media.

The MEN is owned by the Mirror, so it pretty much gets the same information as them. The journalist at the Mirror who reports on City is called Simon Mullock and apparrently he has good sources inside the club, as does Martin Samuel at the Daily Mail.

In the past the tabloids (Sun, Star, Mirror, Mail and Express) would be considered less reliable on transfer news than the broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) but nowadays they all report the same shite really. The Sun and Star are the least reliable, whereas the others tend to report the same shit as each other.

The most reliable thing you can glean from the UK press is when they all report exactly the same story with the same quotes. That's usually a very strong indication that the story has come from a brief from the club. This happened the other day with the story that we are closing in on Sane, Jesus and Moreno, so you can take that as absolutely bonafide, every single news source reported the exact same story.

It seems they are all starting to report that a deal for Stones is getting close as well, so you can assume that's accurate.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what to say. Thank you. I've been looking for a summary like that for a year. I finally got a feel for it but not in depth like this. @Ric should copy this post and blast an email out to all people signing up with a US IP. It'd help a lot of people out for sure. Cheers.
 
ADegenerate said:
I don't even know what to say. Thank you. I've been looking for a summary like that for a year. I finally got a feel for it but not in depth like this. @Ric should copy this post and blast an email out to all people signing up with a US IP. It'd help a lot of people out for sure. Cheers.
Click to expand...

No problem at all mate.
 
Shaelumstash said:
The BBC is the most reliable news source in the UK because they don't have a commercial agenda in the same way as the other news outlets, and they are also accountable if they get things wrong more than the others. It's not really in their interests to make up spurious shit like the rest of them.

The MEN isn't really any more reliable than any of the other news outlets any more. In the past they used to have local journalists who would have personal relationships with players and other people inside the club, but not really anymore. As players have become richer and live in a bubble they are less likely to frequent the same places as local journalists, and the club has become more professional and stand-offish with the media.

The MEN is owned by the Mirror, so it pretty much gets the same information as them. The journalist at the Mirror who reports on City is called Simon Mullock and apparrently he has good sources inside the club, as does Martin Samuel at the Daily Mail.

In the past the tabloids (Sun, Star, Mirror, Mail and Express) would be considered less reliable on transfer news than the broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Guardian) but nowadays they all report the same shite really. The Sun and Star are the least reliable, whereas the others tend to report the same shit as each other.

The most reliable thing you can glean from the UK press is when they all report exactly the same story with the same quotes. That's usually a very strong indication that the story has come from a brief from the club. This happened the other day with the story that we are closing in on Sane, Jesus and Moreno, so you can take that as absolutely bonafide, every single news source reported the exact same story.

It seems they are all starting to report that a deal for Stones is getting close as well, so you can assume that's accurate.
Click to expand...
I think Martin Blackburn at the Sun is well connected. He called Pogba off before most. Not that I rate the Sun otherwise, generally it's a despicable paper IMO.
 
Shaelumstash said:
It seems they are all starting to report that a deal for Stones is getting close as well, so you can assume that's accurate.
Click to expand...

The issue is this is not true see this from todays mediawatch on f365

There are many in the industry happy to insist that nobody just makes up transfer rumours; there has to be a truth somewhere. While Mediawatch is happy to accept that at face value, it is interesting to see how a rumour can gain traction with very little evidence.

Take the example of Romelu Lukaku, for example:

1) In the early hours of Tuesday morning, spurious Italian transfer website transfermarketweb.com claims that Romelu Lukaku could leave Everton for £40m.

‘According to latest rumours gathered through TMW sources, Belgian international striker Romelu Lukaku (23) is getting more and more likely to leave Everton for good and join Chelsea back.

Still tracked by Atletico Madrid, Napoli, AS Roma and Manchester City as well, Toffees star will be moving on an about €48/£40m offer.’

That website handily shows the number of views of each story. On that short piece, there have been 1,672 hits.

2) Later on Tuesday morning, somebody at the Daily Star had seen that story, probably via an aggregator like Newsnow.com.

‘Chelsea close in on £40m deal for in-demand Premier League ace – reports,’ is the Star’s headline.

‘Lukaku has emerged as one of the Premier League’s top strikers since Chelsea allowed him to join the Toffees for £28m two summers ago.

‘They are said to have beaten off competition from a number of top European clubs, including Manchester City and Atletico Madrid.’

Already, ‘getting more likely’ has become ‘closes in on deal’, and ‘still tracked by’ (present tense) has become ‘Chelsea have beaten off competition’ (past tense).

Again the fee is mentioned at £40m, despite there being no way on this earth that Everton will sell Lukaku at that price.

Finally, the story is written by Jamie Styles. The same Jamie Styles reported five days earlier that Chelsea had made an ‘opening bid’ of £50m for Lukaku. They’re probably not going to accept £40m now.



3) By Tuesday afternoon, the Daily Telegraph are all over the story.

‘Another forward on Chelsea’s radar is Romelu Lukaku, who, according to the Daily Star, is edging closer to a Stamford Bridge return after Chelsea launched a £40m bid for him over the weekenf (sic),’ that story reads.

Crucially, the Telegraph don’t want to quote transfermarketweb.com, so instead credit the Daily Star as the source. This is needed to give the story more kudos.

In addition, the Telegraph have added a detail about Chelsea ‘launching a bid’ for Lukaku ‘over the weekend’, despite neither the Star nor TMW mentioning a bid of any sort, let alone one made at a particular time. Has that merely been added for effect?

From a story on a website that got 1,672 hits to a website that in March released figures indicating daily traffic of 4.3m, all because nobody really cares if a story is true just so long as it gets clicks.

Finally, Mediawatch cannot stress this enough: Romelu Lukaku will not be moving to Chelsea for £40m this summer.
 
chesterguy said:
The issue is this is not true see this from todays mediawatch on f365

There are many in the industry happy to insist that nobody just makes up transfer rumours; there has to be a truth somewhere. While Mediawatch is happy to accept that at face value, it is interesting to see how a rumour can gain traction with very little evidence.

Take the example of Romelu Lukaku, for example:

1) In the early hours of Tuesday morning, spurious Italian transfer website transfermarketweb.com claims that Romelu Lukaku could leave Everton for £40m.

‘According to latest rumours gathered through TMW sources, Belgian international striker Romelu Lukaku (23) is getting more and more likely to leave Everton for good and join Chelsea back.

Still tracked by Atletico Madrid, Napoli, AS Roma and Manchester City as well, Toffees star will be moving on an about €48/£40m offer.’

That website handily shows the number of views of each story. On that short piece, there have been 1,672 hits.

2) Later on Tuesday morning, somebody at the Daily Star had seen that story, probably via an aggregator like Newsnow.com.

‘Chelsea close in on £40m deal for in-demand Premier League ace – reports,’ is the Star’s headline.

‘Lukaku has emerged as one of the Premier League’s top strikers since Chelsea allowed him to join the Toffees for £28m two summers ago.

‘They are said to have beaten off competition from a number of top European clubs, including Manchester City and Atletico Madrid.’

Already, ‘getting more likely’ has become ‘closes in on deal’, and ‘still tracked by’ (present tense) has become ‘Chelsea have beaten off competition’ (past tense).

Again the fee is mentioned at £40m, despite there being no way on this earth that Everton will sell Lukaku at that price.

Finally, the story is written by Jamie Styles. The same Jamie Styles reported five days earlier that Chelsea had made an ‘opening bid’ of £50m for Lukaku. They’re probably not going to accept £40m now.



3) By Tuesday afternoon, the Daily Telegraph are all over the story.

‘Another forward on Chelsea’s radar is Romelu Lukaku, who, according to the Daily Star, is edging closer to a Stamford Bridge return after Chelsea launched a £40m bid for him over the weekenf (sic),’ that story reads.

Crucially, the Telegraph don’t want to quote transfermarketweb.com, so instead credit the Daily Star as the source. This is needed to give the story more kudos.

In addition, the Telegraph have added a detail about Chelsea ‘launching a bid’ for Lukaku ‘over the weekend’, despite neither the Star nor TMW mentioning a bid of any sort, let alone one made at a particular time. Has that merely been added for effect?

From a story on a website that got 1,672 hits to a website that in March released figures indicating daily traffic of 4.3m, all because nobody really cares if a story is true just so long as it gets clicks.

Finally, Mediawatch cannot stress this enough: Romelu Lukaku will not be moving to Chelsea for £40m this summer.
Click to expand...

Haha! I've seen a meme about the same process for news journalism and wikipedia starting out as the initial source, so true.

To be honest I haven't read the latest round of Stones report and don't know the original source, so I'm not sure on that one.

The story yesterday about Sane, Jesus and Moreno was clearly a brief from the club though, with exactly the same quotes. The purpose of my post was more to point out when every single news source reports the exact same story near enough word for word, you can safely assume it's been briefed to them.
 
Why do we think the club have briefed the media?

I don't understand why we would do this unless the signings have been completed.
 
abu13 said:
Why do we think the club have briefed the media?

I don't understand why we would do this unless the signings have been completed.
Click to expand...

It sends a media bomb out and draws attention to the club. Somebody mention it helps with ticket sales and a few other things as well. Surely they only did if they were 100% the deals we're happening. They also posted that it's important to 'throw a dog a bone' occasionally to the media. If you don't they'll just print garbage which can negatively hurt the club.
 
birchwoodgingerste said:
So which CB pairing stones and kompany
Stones and bonnuci
Stones and ottamendi
I'd prefer stones and kompany if fit if not stones and bonnuci
Click to expand...

after hearing Pep say Fernandinho is capable of playing 10 different positions, he's that good....Stones/Fernandinho might be an interesting pairing!;) but more likely to be Stones/Kompany(if fit)
 
TRUE BLUE NO1 said:
after hearing Pep say Fernandinho is capable of playing 10 different positions, he's that good....Stones/Fernandinho might be an interesting pairing!;) but more likely to be Stones/Kompany(if fit)
Click to expand...

Stones / Kompany for the opening game then.. Then who? Lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top