Gary Neville | Banned from attending Sunday’s game by Forest

Betterdeedthan red said:
Why .
Maybe they should tell that race faced **** to wind his neck in.
And remember he actually knows fuck all as was proved when he was a manager
Click to expand...
Like when him and that other failed manager Keane were pushing for Mainoo to start for England in the Euros and he came in and was crap. (Not really Mainoo's fault he was over hyped)
 
Stephen230 said:
If I was Sky I’d tell Forest to let us know when the ban is up and we’ll consider showing some of your home games again.

In the meantime, I’m sure you won’t be interested in your share of the £6.7 Billion we’ve just agreed to pay the Premier League to show live games over the next four years.
Click to expand...
But there's a legal contract between Sky & the PL to show a minimum number of games of each club. Clubs, on the other hand, have the right to accredit who they want.

And about 3 months ago a non-football journalist from the New Yorker, one of the most respected magazines in the world, applied to City for accreditation as he was planning a story about City fans' views on ticketing and the way the club seemed to be moving away from its traditional fanbase to be more appealing to a global audience, like Barcelona or Real Madrid. @BTH was also involved

The NY is known for being a very serious publication and punctilious about fact-checking. It's not some clickbait outfit like F365 or Football Insider. Yet they wouldn't give him accreditation, but they'll happily accredit open detractors and even slanderers like Delaney & Herbert, not to mention the Guardian crew.
 
Stephen230 said:
Why? Because when one company is giving another company in the region of £300 million, the company accepting the money, don’t get to call the shots.

If they don’t like Sky’s terms. Fine. Tell them to fuck off and don’t take their money.
Click to expand...
The terms preclude insisting on commentators.

Get your facts straight.

Rag.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
But there's a legal contract between Sky & the PL to show a minimum number of games of each club. Clubs, on the other hand, have the right to accredit who they want.

And about 3 months ago a non-football journalist from the New Yorker, one of the most respected magazines in the world, applied to City for accreditation as he was planning a story about City fans' views on ticketing and the way the club seemed to be moving away from its traditional fanbase to be more appealing to a global audience, like Barcelona or Real Madrid. @BTH was also involved

The NY is known for being a very serious publication and punctilious about fact-checking. It's not some clickbait outfit like F365 or Football Insider. Yet they wouldn't give him accreditation, but they'll happily accredit open detractors and even slanderers like Delaney & Herbert, not to mention the Guardian crew.
Click to expand...

Look, I wasn’t being literal. I’m aware that collectively the 20 clubs as ‘The Premier League’ negotiate contracts with broadcasters and one club can’t just go it alone.

It was more just a general point that Forest, like all the clubs, are happy to take Sky’s millions but now it seems want to dictate who the commentators should be.

They’ve been getting on my nerves ever since they came up to be honest, with their constant whinging and victim mentality.
 
Stephen230 said:
Why? Because when one company is giving another company in the region of £300 million, the company accepting the money, don’t get to call the shots.

If they don’t like Sky’s terms. Fine. Tell them to fuck off and don’t take their money.
Click to expand...

The club doesn't have to comply with "Sky's terms", it has to comply with the PL rules and, afaik, there is no requirement in the rules to accept anyone in particular from the broadcast company. Only that the appropriate facilities are made available.

They are completely within their rights not to accept someone into their ground.

I think :)
 
Vienna_70 said:
This obviously came from the top at Forest, whereas the pisscan, an employee at the swamp could ban any journalist he wanted with impunity.
Click to expand...
Spitty confirmed it did with the caveat Demis Roussos told him to fuck off to his face as well.

He might be a man who has a penchant to firebomb referees houses in Greece but the Forest chairman does have a endearing side to him.

:)
 
Last edited:
Forest board showing more balls than UK Tv or Qatari government.
 
Wow aclub hat has some balls to do something about these arrogant twats ......... .it may seem petty but why welcome someone with open arms when the cunts do nothing but put you down at every corner.

Man City spoiling football with there so called boring play now would Neville be saying the same if his rag side where winning things playing that way ??????

The man is a double standard weasel **** the end
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
But there's a legal contract between Sky & the PL to show a minimum number of games of each club. Clubs, on the other hand, have the right to accredit who they want.

And about 3 months ago a non-football journalist from the New Yorker, one of the most respected magazines in the world, applied to City for accreditation as he was planning a story about City fans' views on ticketing and the way the club seemed to be moving away from its traditional fanbase to be more appealing to a global audience, like Barcelona or Real Madrid. @BTH was also involved

The NY is known for being a very serious publication and punctilious about fact-checking. It's not some clickbait outfit like F365 or Football Insider. Yet they wouldn't give him accreditation, but they'll happily accredit open detractors and even slanderers like Delaney & Herbert, not to mention the Guardian crew.
Click to expand...
Are you sure though? There's a difference between some third party news organisation requesting access, and the official broadcaster paying for official rights. Surely Sky would have it in the contract that they get to pick the staff that get accreditation?
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Are you sure though? There's a difference between some third party news organisation requesting access, and the official broadcaster paying for official rights. Surely Sky would have it in the contract that they get to pick the staff that get accreditation?
Click to expand...
It's entirely up to the club who they accredit. Why we let some of the cunts who regularly slander us through the doorI really have no idea.

I believe the broadcasters have a contractual right to have their representatives there but they can't insist on who.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
It's entirely up to the club who they accredit. Why we let some of the cunts who regularly slander us through the doorI really have no idea.

I believe the broadcasters have a contractual right to have their representatives there but they can't insist on who.
Click to expand...
On a purely practical level, it would seem strange that a club can just ban Sky representatives like this though. Let's give Sky pundits the benefit of the doubt and assume that they do preparation for the games they're covering, it's pretty outrageous that a club can remove accreditation at what is effectively a day or two's notice. What if they did the same with the director? A few of the camera operators? It's probably never been an issue before because no-one is as petty as the Forest owner apparently is, but it's potentially a big problem if clubs can start banning pundits that say bad things about them.

Presumably why they're talking about changing the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top