Re: Ex MCFC boss Mark Hughes calls for clarity over Tevez row
The contrast between Hughes and Souness on Sky immediately after the match in Munich will come back to haunt Hughes. For anyone who missed it, Paul Wilson's assessment of Hughes' response is well worth reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/sep/28/carlos-tevez-graeme-souness-sky-sports
Hughes certainly did himself no favours that night; and he is doing himself no favours now by aiding and abetting the Tevez-Joorabchian
obfuscation campaign, ironically in the name of 'clarity'!
As to the Manchester Evening News, it is highly significant that they also did not permit comments on the two pieces yesterday about what Joorabchian said in defence of Tevez. I suspected long before this latest affair broke that at least one of their reporters has regularly based stories on (dis)information from Joorabchian.
It amused me that Brennan wrote that a "source to close to Tevez" had planted as a smokescreen the story that, immediately after he met the City inquiry team, Tevez had gone to holiday in Europe (rather than to Argentina) -
without acknowledging that Brennan himself had tweeted that story. Brennan should be embarrassed not so much because he tweeted something that turned out to be wrong but because he believed something told him by a "source close to Tevez", particularly at this time. In any event, this episode merely confirmed what I had suspected previously about many of the "anonymous City sources" that Brennan has cited in the past.
While I am on the subject of Brennan, I have also been amused - and irritated - by his recent references to how critical much of the 'media' were of Edin and Mario last season - as though the MEN and Brennan were not party to it. As for Dzeko, from immediately after he signed, Brennan was insisting that Edin could not play in the same team as Tevez because they needed to occupy the same 'space' (and Brennan was such a Tevez fan that there could be only one implication for team selection). The MEN's treatment of Mario last season was as bad as that by the tabloids. A classic case was an article based on what looked like an exclusive interview with Nigel de Jong, the main feature of which was Nigel pleading with the media to give Mario a break. When Nigel read the final paragraph of that same article - gossip about how Mario had reportedly had a late-night confrontation with 'fans' - he must have thought: "Why did I bother?"
PS: Is it possible for the OP to change the title of the thread to include a reference to the MEN's blocking comments?
