The Agenda: Part Deux

[honkytonkman187]

Lawrenson had to justify where he got the story from, and claimed that Mancini had told Savage, who had told him.

Savage was incensed when he was challenged by City that he offered to deny it on the BBC, which City declined.

At best, it was Chinese whispers.

there is NO WAY that Mancini would have looked to leak to Merseyside, when he can use Platt or Kidd to do his bidding in Manchester.

 

[Jontyh68]

Tell me, what is it that possessed you to type that?

Apart from its being a grammatical disaster, there's the irony that Evans would have been guilty of slander not libel. I found it amusing.

Out of interest, Jonty, as you picked him up on it what is the difference between libel and slander, and why do you think this was the latter and not the former?

Broadly, and to the best of my knowledge because I'm not a lawyer either, libel refers to written defamation and slander to verbal.
But, in news more germane to a football forum, I'm hearing that Di Matteo has 'parted company' with Chelsea. I don't know why Abramovich doesn't just take over as manager himself. It'd save him the bother of sacking all these idiots who won't do what he tells them every five minutes.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Lawrenson had to justify where he got the story from, and claimed that Mancini had told Savage, who had told him.

Savage was incensed when he was challenged by City that he offered to deny it on the BBC, which City declined.

At best, it was Chinese whispers.

there is NO WAY that Mancini would have looked to leak to Merseyside, when he can use Platt or Kidd to do his bidding in Manchester.

Well done honkytonkman. The truth will always finally out. Of course Tony Evans won't be issuing any apologies anytime soon for his comments.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Lawrenson had to justify where he got the story from, and claimed that Mancini had told Savage, who had told him.

.

Bingo

 

[honkytonkman187]

Lawrenson had to justify where he got the story from, and claimed that Mancini had told Savage, who had told him.

.

Bingo

Bingo?
Savage offered to publicy state that he did not have any part in the story getting to Lawrenson. This was not Mancini's leak.

The scouse journos were so sure that it was true, that they didn't even check it with Liverpool, apart from a courtesy-call to Liverpool as the story was going to print.

That's why Tony Evans backed off when asked about it on Talkshite

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Lawrenson had to justify where he got the story from, and claimed that Mancini had told Savage, who had told him.

.

Bingo

Bingo?
Savage offered to publicy state that he did not have any part in the story getting to Lawrenson. This was not Mancini's leak.

The scouse journos were so sure that it was true, that they didn't even check it with Liverpool, apart from a courtesy-call to Liverpool as the story was going to print.

That's why Tony Evans backed off when asked about it on Talkshite

utter rubbish. If you believe that lawrenson would lie and name savage as his source in a panic then you have a head full of magic. He's an experienced footballer and journo. He knows the implications of his actions.

Not that I'm bothered particularly. Maybe Mancini has learnt a lesson about loyalty.

 

[honkytonkman187]

Bingo

Bingo?
Savage offered to publicy state that he did not have any part in the story getting to Lawrenson. This was not Mancini's leak.

The scouse journos were so sure that it was true, that they didn't even check it with Liverpool, apart from a courtesy-call to Liverpool as the story was going to print.

That's why Tony Evans backed off when asked about it on Talkshite

utter rubbish. If you believe that lawrenson would lie and name savage as his source in a panic then you have a head full of magic. He's an experienced footballer and journo. He knows the implications of his actions.

Not that I'm bothered particularly. Maybe Mancini has learnt a lesson about loyalty.

he's experienced enough to know that he doesn't want to upset his mates at Liverpool.

If Mancini wanted the story out, he could do it very easily through Platt or Kidd.

Tony Evans stated that "the interest wasn't serious, it was Mancini flexing his muscles". Utter crap - Manciniis learning (slowly) to only pick fights he can win. Hewouldn't want to upset Begiristan so early in the relationship. Begiristan has only just got his feet under the table, so Bobby wouldn't start by upsetting somebody who could become an ally.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Bingo?
Savage offered to publicy state that he did not have any part in the story getting to Lawrenson. This was not Mancini's leak.

The scouse journos were so sure that it was true, that they didn't even check it with Liverpool, apart from a courtesy-call to Liverpool as the story was going to print.

That's why Tony Evans backed off when asked about it on Talkshite

utter rubbish. If you believe that lawrenson would lie and name savage as his source in a panic then you have a head full of magic. He's an experienced footballer and journo. He knows the implications of his actions.

Not that I'm bothered particularly. Maybe Mancini has learnt a lesson about loyalty.

he's experienced enough to know that he doesn't want to upset his mates at Liverpool.

If Mancini wanted the story out, he could do it very easily through Platt or Kidd.

Tony Evans stated that "the interest wasn't serious, it was Mancini flexing his muscles". Utter crap - Manciniis learning (slowly) to only pick fights he can win. Hewouldn't want to upset Begiristan so early in the relationship. Begiristan has only just got his feet under the table, so Bobby wouldn't start by upsetting somebody who could become an ally.

I said earlier in the thread I don't believe Mancini wanted the story out. My guess is that savage let him down playing billy big bollocks. Lesson learned.

 

[Chris in London]

Apart from its being a grammatical disaster, there's the irony that Evans would have been guilty of slander not libel. I found it amusing.

Out of interest, Jonty, as you picked him up on it what is the difference between libel and slander, and why do you think this was the latter and not the former?

Broadly, and to the best of my knowledge because I'm not a lawyer either, libel refers to written defamation and slander to verbal.
But, in news more germane to a football forum, I'm hearing that Di Matteo has 'parted company' with Chelsea. I don't know why Abramovich doesn't just take over as manager himself. It'd save him the bother of sacking all these idiots who won't do what he tells them every five minutes.

In fact, if you broadcast something on the radio or on television, that makes it a libel rather than slander.

Struck me as odd that (a) you picked on a fellow blue (assuming you to be a blue) for a typo which you described as a 'disaster area', and (b) you picked him up over a legal distinction which not only are you equally without qualification to draw, but about which he was right and you were wrong.

There are some, but not many, people who pick other posters up on typos/grammatical errors on this forum. Most people don't proofread their posts, it doesn't mean we're all illeterate buffoons.* If posters have nothing better to comment on than standards of literacy, it makes you wonder why they are here in the first place, and if you comment on every deviation from standard english in this forum you will be on-line for a very long time.

Please don't think I'm elling you what you can and can't post about, I wouldn't dream of being so presumptious. But nitpicking over grammatical 'disasters' and taking barrack-room lawyers' points (especially bad ones) tends to put people's backs up a tad. I'm sure you aren't a twat, but if you don't mind me saying so, you did come across as a bit of one last night ;)







* see what I did, there?

 

[honkytonkman187]

If Lawrenson and/or Savage were sure of the story- because it had come directly from Mancini- wouldn't they have given it to the Mirror, who they both have a column for (as a professional duty)? Even if the source is not named, it would have been run back-page as a certainty.

Having such a scoop, from such a source would have been viewed most favourably by the paper.

Mancini was asked directly by the club, "do you want Suarez?" and he said, "no"
Mancini would have no reason to imply or directly state to Savage that he was interested in Suarez, if he doesn't want the player.

Are we to now believe everything that Robbie Savage ever says about City, because of his relationship with Mancini?

Sorry DD, but this one doesn't find its way back to Mancini