LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
I know/knew this creature, Damocles. And on this occasion you are most incorrect
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Email I got from Rob Beasley (aka Sunday Suppliment)
- Thread starter BusterPhillips
- Start date
JohnMaddocksAxe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,854
That is a fair reply.
But I said this on that thread yesterday and I'll say it again.
The man's agenda is coloured by his relationship/hero worshipping of Hughes.
He knows that Hughes is always willing to shit on people in the press and no doubt Hughes has been to him in the past with a request for dirty work which benefits both of them. (Fair enough, as a journo perhaps he is doing his job well by cultivating a relationship with someone who is so prone to back stabbing and using the press to promote an agenda)
Add this to this strange belief that many in the English media have regarding Hughes as some sort of modern footballing great (he was a good striker, nowhere near great) and their boyhood/teenage admiration of him and it is so obvious that certain sections of the media have a very duplicitous agenda when they comment on Hughes.
First comes the cosy, self serving relationship they have with him.
Second comes their teenage fantasies about Hughes the player and, in some cases, the posters they had on their walls.
A very distant third (if that) comes the truth and a balanced view.
Beasley's efforts on that programme yesterday, where he peppered it with, and this is not too strong, lies, proves that he is anything but objective.
But I said this on that thread yesterday and I'll say it again.
The man's agenda is coloured by his relationship/hero worshipping of Hughes.
He knows that Hughes is always willing to shit on people in the press and no doubt Hughes has been to him in the past with a request for dirty work which benefits both of them. (Fair enough, as a journo perhaps he is doing his job well by cultivating a relationship with someone who is so prone to back stabbing and using the press to promote an agenda)
Add this to this strange belief that many in the English media have regarding Hughes as some sort of modern footballing great (he was a good striker, nowhere near great) and their boyhood/teenage admiration of him and it is so obvious that certain sections of the media have a very duplicitous agenda when they comment on Hughes.
First comes the cosy, self serving relationship they have with him.
Second comes their teenage fantasies about Hughes the player and, in some cases, the posters they had on their walls.
A very distant third (if that) comes the truth and a balanced view.
Beasley's efforts on that programme yesterday, where he peppered it with, and this is not too strong, lies, proves that he is anything but objective.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Not sure if we've 'clashed' on other topics, but I agree 100% with that.JohnMaddocksAxe said:That is a fair reply.
But I said this on that thread yesterday and I'll say it again.
The man's agenda is coloured by his relationship/hero worshipping of Hughes.
He knows that Hughes is always willing to shit on people in the press and no doubt Hughes has been to him in the past with a request for dirty work which benefits both of them. (Fair enough, as a journo perhaps he is doing his job well by cultivating a relationship with someone who is so prone to back stabbing and using the press to promote an agenda)
Add this to this strange belief that many in the English media have regarding Hughes as some sort of modern footballing great (he was a good striker, nowhere near great) and their boyhood/teenage admiration of him and it is so obvious that certain sections of the media have a very duplicitous agenda when they comment on Hughes.
First comes the cosy, self serving relationship they have with him.
Second comes their teenage fantasies about Hughes the player and, in some cases, the posters they had on their walls.
A very distant third (if that) comes the truth and a balanced view.
Beasley's efforts on that programme yesterday, where he peppered it with, and this is not too strong, lies, proves that he is anything but objective.
JohnMaddocksAxe said:That is a fair reply.
But I said this on that thread yesterday and I'll say it again.
The man's agenda is coloured by his relationship/hero worshipping of Hughes.
He knows that Hughes is always willing to shit on people in the press and no doubt Hughes has been to him in the past with a request for dirty work which benefits both of them. (Fair enough, as a journo perhaps he is doing his job well by cultivating a relationship with someone who is so prone to back stabbing and using the press to promote an agenda)
Add this to this strange belief that many in the English media have regarding Hughes as some sort of modern footballing great (he was a good striker, nowhere near great) and their boyhood/teenage admiration of him and it is so obvious that certain sections of the media have a very duplicitous agenda when they comment on Hughes.
First comes the cosy, self serving relationship they have with him.
Second comes their teenage fantasies about Hughes the player and, in some cases, the posters they had on their walls.
A very distant third (if that) comes the truth and a balanced view.
Beasley's efforts on that programme yesterday, where he peppered it with, and this is not too strong, lies, proves that he is anything but objective.
Maybe if Hughes relegates Fulham, they'll all shut the fuck up about him being a top manager.
Hughes has already peaked. When he was "resting" not one top club was interested in him. Even Liverpool chose Hodgson over him... and that speaks volumes.
Let's see if Ancelotti leaves Chelsea if they move for Hughes... ;-))
JohnMaddocksAxe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,854
What should be shocking, but to anyone with knowledge of such sections of the press isn't, is that the man defends his professional actions as being ok because he was "sticking up for a mate."
Now, I know that the clown acts like this when appearing on the tv, but does he honestly think that it befits a professional to behave in such a manner.
He is paid to go on that programme as a professional journo with an insight into the workings of football reporting and breaking stories.
If we wanted a mouthy bloke who 'defends his mates' we could get any one of 5 million piss pots in boozers up and down the country every weekend.
Where do his professional standards begin to justify that 'defending your mates' is part of a professional offering.
If I were to lie and give biased evidence in defence of my mates in my job I would expect to be sacked for gross misconduct. As would most people and anyone with a shread of professional pride in almost every occupation.
This bloke seems to think he is paid to be a professional piss artist impersonator, propping up an imaginary bar talking whatever shite it takes, depending on who his agenda is biased towards.
To do that is bad enough. To know you are doing that and to seek to justify it is a ridiculous lack of professionalism and sums up that particular part of tabloid journalism.
Laughable
Now, I know that the clown acts like this when appearing on the tv, but does he honestly think that it befits a professional to behave in such a manner.
He is paid to go on that programme as a professional journo with an insight into the workings of football reporting and breaking stories.
If we wanted a mouthy bloke who 'defends his mates' we could get any one of 5 million piss pots in boozers up and down the country every weekend.
Where do his professional standards begin to justify that 'defending your mates' is part of a professional offering.
If I were to lie and give biased evidence in defence of my mates in my job I would expect to be sacked for gross misconduct. As would most people and anyone with a shread of professional pride in almost every occupation.
This bloke seems to think he is paid to be a professional piss artist impersonator, propping up an imaginary bar talking whatever shite it takes, depending on who his agenda is biased towards.
To do that is bad enough. To know you are doing that and to seek to justify it is a ridiculous lack of professionalism and sums up that particular part of tabloid journalism.
Laughable
denislawsbackheel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 May 2008
- Messages
- 26,032
- Team supported
- We went to Rotherham…
Only nutters write to papers, so those who write to shite TV pundits are really sad.
LongsightM13
Well-Known Member
If nothing else, the lawyers should tear him a new one about blatantly lying about Mancini being in the stand at Mullet's last game when he was in Italy.
The mere fact you're discussing this 3rd rate biased so called journalist is
only stroking his ego.Why care what his opinions are.Don't give the
hypocrite the notoriety he obviously craves.How can anyone talk about
class when you have John Terry and Cashly Cole in you're squad.
only stroking his ego.Why care what his opinions are.Don't give the
hypocrite the notoriety he obviously craves.How can anyone talk about
class when you have John Terry and Cashly Cole in you're squad.
I don't watch Sunday Supplement but all the talk led me to look at a couple of the videos. Just glad I don't watch it now, would wind me up more than Collymore. The greasy haired one got to me more than Beasley. What's his name ? Paul Smith ? Naive question but who does he support or has he not declared it. It was the way he was snarling as he spoke about us. T**T
QuickSilva
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 697
LongsightM13 said:The three people he lists as 'mates' are all former Chelsea players, hence the 'only Fulham' line. And, I would wager, the 'Come on you Blues' line. See what he did there? So clever, tricking us thick northeners into thinking he was talking about City. He is a genius.
I once had the misfortune to briefly work alongside this smackhead-looking Gimp and he freely admitted to me that he despised City as 'the ultimate northern losers', but could never report on Chelsea as he would be 'too biased'
it's disgusting how quickly the 'press' have turned the general footballing pubic against us with these hidden biases...
are these people watching the same matches we are LOL
COME ON CITY