Media coverage 2018/19

[mike1923]

Something about borrowing the money and assigning the incoming TV money to the bank as surety, I think. I think it means that the actually money at the club doesn't change, but it gives some spending money upfront.

Done by most clubs as far as I know. Transfer fees need paying in one go, TV money comes in instalments. Sensible financial planning

 

[blue b4 the moon]

VVD doesn’t even get in to WhoScored’s Nations League Finals Team.

Bernardo is the second highest rated. Though, even taking off the blue-tinted glasses, he really should be the highest, as he basically carried Ronaldo (and Portugal) through.

It’s also interesting that a **** player like Delph makes it in. ;-)

Didn't watch that much of the finals, caught the second half of the Portugal/Swiss game & most of England/Holland....Pickford/Delph England's best pair? Did the guy putting it together go to Crooks for advice?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Didn't watch that much of the finals, caught the second half of the Portugal/Swiss game & most of England/Holland....Pickford/Delph England's best pair? Did the guy putting it together go to Crooks for advice?

It is based entirely on their running player ratings for the Nations League games, which are supposedly “based on a unique, comprehensive statistical algorithm, calculated live during the game”, from “over 200 raw statistics included in the calculation of a player’s/team’s rating, weighted according to their influence within the game”, with “every event of importance taken into account, with a positive or negative effect on ratings weighted in relation to its area on the pitch and its outcome.” (Source)

Even if you question how their algorithm interprets the metrics at times, their rating system it is still substantially better than football “analyst” ratings (especially given the Liverpool-bias inherent in most, as you pointed out).

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Apologies if already posted...........

Another corker from the BBC;

Phil Neville: England women coach 'a natural leader in the Ferguson mould'

Promise I haven't made this up :-)

Oooo give it to chuckle 2 rather than giggsy has quite a ring to it.

 

[Onholiday(somemightsay)]

The best bit of that is that it's McNulty putting his own line in quotes in the headline. No-one actually appears to have said it to him.

Do the media outlets have an award for headline of the year or the like?

I'd very much like for this one to be tabled as a front runner.......

 

[mad4city]

I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?

 

[dario2739]

I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?

Also begs the question, that if Salah leaves in less than happy circumstances, will the level of hate crime increase?

 

[laserblue]

I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?

The thing is that it's been specifically reported as a reduction in Islamophobia. I guess the foaming Islamophobia against our owner that proliferates on RAWK and elswhere in dipper world doesn't count because the subject of this racist abuse doesn't live in Liverpool.

 

[rabby]

I've been thinking about last week's feel good story about "the Salah Effect" causing hate crime to be reduced by 20% on Merseyside.
This is obviously a good thing, regardless of how its presented or why it happened.
It's. A. Good. Thing.
Only an animal of a human being would argue otherwise.

So, I'm not arguing with the figures. If I'm honest, I want to believe them. Like any sane human being, I welcome the improvement. In any event, even if I were of a poisonous mind, I have no research of my own to contradict them. So, it would be futile.

That said, the figures - as superficially encouraging as they appear - are actually quite disturbing upon reflection...

If we accept both the connection and these figures to be true, they clearly imply that one in five hate crimes on Merseyside were committed by a (dangerously easy-to-influence) section of LFC fans.

And these hate crimes that have now eased off... they would have coincided with a time when what we might reasonably call the "Suarez Effect" was in full swing. (I am, of course, referring to LFC's staunch defence of Suarez during the Evra racism case and the fallout, thereafter).

Firstly, it's frightening to think that people are that fucking dumb, in the first place, that they'd take their lead on such a serious issue from the actions (or portrayal of the actions) of a footballer (or his club).

Secondly, it's quite disingenuous to offer credit to LFC fans for the improvement in race relations without encouraging them to take ownership of contributing to the problem in the first place.

Thirdly, if I am right in making the connection above, what next? Are Merseyside race relations really to be decided upon the beliefs/ bigotry or simple whims of LFC's next top goalscorer?

My point is that, if the connection between Salah and the drop in hate attacks is true, then this blind praising of LFC fans (or any grouping in society) that has been afoot for decades now, can have dangerous, knock-on effects for innocent people.

Obviously, the other thing is that the connection is bollocks. In which case, it was just blowing smoke up Liverpool's arse again. And you'd have to ask yourself, why? To what end? Cannot a good news story just be presented for what it is, without being viewed through certain prisms?

You know the score mate,any dipper story has to have a positive narrative and any City one needs a negative slant.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

The thing is that it's been specifically reported as a reduction in Islamophobia. I guess the foaming Islamophobia against our owner that proliferates on RAWK and elswhere in dipper world doesn't count because the subject of this racist abuse doesn't live in Liverpool.

The story is essentially fake news. The reporting of hate crimes goes up and down depending on the political climate. The biggest driver is public awareness ie there is a spike whenever a major incident occurs.
The level of racist vitriol against our owners on social media and in the mainstream media, especially comments on online stories, has gone off the scale in the last couple of years. Most of this has been driven by Liverpool fans. For example I was verbally abused in a pub before the CL match at Anfield by a woman who used the phrase "Arab owners and their dirty oil money." To suggest that Merseyside has become some sort of haven of tolerance because of Mo Salah is ridiculous. The opposite is true.