The Agenda: Part Deux

[Didsbury Dave]

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

Not my understanding. Lawrenson didn't give it to the press for a start. I believe he gave it to Liverpool FC who themselves went straight to the press to embarrass Mancini and us.

Honestly mate. It's an open secret in football circles that this story came from Mancini. Some of the media even went to print with that. Why? I don't know. If nothing else, Suarez would be the wrong player for us - he's too similar to Aguero.

The embarrassing thing about this story was that City formally bloody denied it without knowing the true source.

 

[Anonymous]

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

Not my understanding. Lawrenson didn't give it to the press for a start. I believe he gave it to Liverpool FC who themselves went straight to the press to embarrass Mancini and us.

Honestly mate. It's an open secret in football circles that this story came from Mancini. Some of the media even went to print with that. Why? I don't know. If nothing else, Suarez would be the wrong player for us - he's too similar to Aguero.

The embarrassing thing about this story was that City formally bloody denied it without knowing the true source.

Or double bluff... they knew the source and wanted source putting in its place?

 

[moomba]

Not my understanding. Lawrenson didn't give it to the press for a start. I believe he gave it to Liverpool FC who themselves went straight to the press to embarrass Mancini and us.

So doesn't that make Liverpool FC the source of the press articles?

Honestly mate. It's an open secret in football circles that this story came from Mancini. Some of the media even went to print with that. Why? I don't know. If nothing else, Suarez would be the wrong player for us - he's too similar to Aguero.

The embarrassing thing about this story was that City formally bloody denied it without knowing the true source.

Seems to me you're making things up. Why? I don't know.

 

[honkytonkman187]

"It's an open secret in football circles that this story came from Mancini" - a lie started by the scouse-pack , says I

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Not my understanding. Lawrenson didn't give it to the press for a start. I believe he gave it to Liverpool FC who themselves went straight to the press to embarrass Mancini and us.

So doesn't that make Liverpool FC the source of the press articles?

Honestly mate. It's an open secret in football circles that this story came from Mancini. Some of the media even went to print with that. Why? I don't know. If nothing else, Suarez would be the wrong player for us - he's too similar to Aguero.

The embarrassing thing about this story was that City formally bloody denied it without knowing the true source.

Seems to me you're making things up. Why? I don't know.

Look up the definition of "source" if it's too complicated for you.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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

Not my understanding. Lawrenson didn't give it to the press for a start. I believe he gave it to Liverpool FC who themselves went straight to the press to embarrass Mancini and us.

Honestly mate. It's an open secret in football circles that this story came from Mancini. Some of the media even went to print with that. Why? I don't know. If nothing else, Suarez would be the wrong player for us - he's too similar to Aguero.

The embarrassing thing about this story was that City formally bloody denied it without knowing the true source.

Lawrenson even teased Savage about it on Football Focus on Saturday!

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

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

It was passed to The Mirror as exclusive and ran by Dave Maddock as such.

The Merseyside pack simply carved it up. As said, safety in numbers and throwing the scent off the original source, who did not want to be seen over-egging idle lunch chatter.

 

[moomba]

Look up the definition of "source" if it's too complicated for you.

Well it's good to have someone like you on the internet to provide us poor uneducated types with the benefit of your knowledge and experience. And in a non-patronising way too.

But perhaps you could help me. In court if a journalist is required to reveal his or her source, do they:

a) say the name of the person who told them the story, or
b) say the name of someone else

If your fanciful story is true and Liverpool released a story about another teams interest in one of their players, just to embarrass an opposition manager then as far as I'm concerned they are the source of the story.

You would have been more believable if you just stuck with wink, wink, nudge, nudge policy of dropping hints about Mancini giving the story to the press direct.

Anyway, thanks for the journalism lesson. I hope you can tell just how much I value it.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Look up the definition of "source" if it's too complicated for you.

Well it's good to have someone like you on the internet to provide us poor uneducated types with the benefit of your knowledge and experience. And in a non-patronising way too.

But perhaps you could help me. In court if a journalist is required to reveal his or her source, do they:

a) say the name of the person who told them the story, or
b) say the name of someone else

If your fanciful story is true and Liverpool released a story about another teams interest in one of their players, just to embarrass an opposition manager then as far as I'm concerned they are the source of the story.

You would have been more believable if you just stuck with wink, wink, nudge, nudge policy of dropping hints about Mancini giving the story to the press direct.

Anyway, thanks for the journalism lesson. I hope you can tell just how much I value it.

source (sôrs, srs)
n.
1. The point at which something springs into being or from which it derives or is obtained.
2. The point of origin, such as a spring, of a stream or river. See Synonyms at origin.
3. One that causes, creates, or initiates; a maker.

But I'm just making this up, so it doesn't matter, does it?

 

[moomba]

source (sôrs, srs)
n.
1. The point at which something springs into being or from which it derives or is obtained.
2. The point of origin, such as a spring, of a stream or river. See Synonyms at origin.
3. One that causes, creates, or initiates; a maker.

But I'm just making this up, so it doesn't matter, does it?

If you're going provide everyone which a much needed education in journalism you could at least find a definition of journalistic source for me. Come on now, lift your game. We rely on you.