[Albion] Dunk to Leicester City?

[B.W.]

I don't know why you're taking this so personally. To claim that their 100s of tweets over 10 years have all been correct is laughable. Part of the reason I don't treat their work as gospel is that when they say we're not interested in someone they often get it wrong.

So, who do you trust more? the Argus or the NSC ITK tw@ts?

 

[chaileyjem]

I don't know why you're taking this so personally. To claim that their 100s of tweets over 10 years have all been correct is laughable. Part of the reason I don't treat their work as gospel is that when they say we're not interested in someone they often get it wrong.

Fine. you don't treat their work as gospel.
And you think they "often get it wrong" about transfer rumours . Fine. Not sure even the harsher critics on here think that. (CMS ? Zamora ? any others). But fair enough.

 

[B.W.]

It was about whether Leicester could have been interested in Dunk. The claim was that the Argus said they weren't, therefore that should be an end to the matter. I simply pointed out that they don't always know when there's interest in a player. It's not a wild claim, I'm clearly right, but Jem gave an oath to defend the Argus to his death, so he's arguing against reality.

They were correct on Dunk... remind me, is he still with us?

 

[B.W.]

Fine. you don't treat their work as gospel.
And you think they "often get it wrong" about transfer rumours . Fine. Not sure even the harsher critics on here think that. (CMS ? Zamora ? any others). But fair enough.

I'm with you on this CJ... they don't get it 100% right, 100% of the time, but they are far, far more reliable then almost any other Albion-related source...

 

[chaileyjem]

It was about whether Leicester could have been interested in Dunk. The claim was that the Argus said they weren't

Actually the Argus afaik reported that Dunk was 95% likely to stay, and at one point Brian Owen reported via a Midlands source that they were interested in Tarkowski as a replacement not Dunk. They've also reported the figure that Bloom slapped on Dunk to ward off (presumably Leicester and others) . north of "£45m"
Not sure they ever said Leicester weren't "interested" but i might have missed it in my attempt to defend them to my death.
I think the Argus report transfer rumours in good faith, have decent sources close to club and other players , perhaps even more than certain NSC contributors!! and also in other clubs, other local journalists here and abroad and do a good job - you are highly highly sceptical. Ok. Fair enough.

 

[Triggaaar]

I've just engaged in a lengthy thread with you quoting articles, links and tweets and answering your questions. Hardly "ignoring the facts".

Articles, links and tweets? You claimed that there was no activity regarding Maupay on the 10th June because we were pursuing other targets, and when asked what targets these were (as identified by the Argus) you came up with an article written 7 weeks later.

So who were these other targets?

I am not having a go at the Argus for not knowing who the targets are, I'm simply pointing out that they don't know. Just like they didn't know we were after Maupay, when clearly we were.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm with you on this CJ... they don't get it 100% right, 100% of the time, but they are far, far more reliable then almost any other Albion-related source...

But that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that when they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, they weren't wrong.

 

[chaileyjem]

But that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that when they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, they weren't wrong.

I'm not claiming anything because frankly i don't know and nor do you . My reading of it , is that they reported it in good faith and it was true at the time. (its ambiguous anyway - its a single tweet saying "no" to stories (unspecified) about Maupay that particular day.
You think it was an error I guess. Ok. Fair enough.

 

[Triggaaar]

So, who do you trust more? the Argus or the NSC ITK tw@ts?

I've already said above, but happy to repeat:

If the Argus say that we're interested in a player, or made contact etc, I've got quite a bit of confidence that they're right.
If the Argus say we're not interested in a player, I take that with a large dose of salt. Maybe we aren't, or if we are I assume that they just don't know about it yet.

So no criticism of the Argus there. The only real source I trust when there's a claim that we're not interested in a player is the club itself. If they say we're not interested, fair enough. But do they ever say that?

 

[B.W.]

But that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that when they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, they weren't wrong.

Pedant!

 

[Triggaaar]

They were correct on Dunk... remind me, is he still with us?

Didn't they claim that Leicester weren't interested in him? We have no idea whether that was correct or not.

 

[B.W.]

I've already said above, but happy to repeat:

If the Argus say that we're interested in a player, or made contact etc, I've got quite a bit of confidence that they're right.
If the Argus say we're not interested in a player, I take that with a large dose of salt. Maybe we aren't, or if we are I assume that they just don't know about it yet.

So no criticism of the Argus there. The only real source I trust when there's a claim that we're not interested in a player is the club itself. If they say we're not interested, fair enough. But do they ever say that?

Only through the Argus!!

And fair enough...

 

[Triggaaar]

But that's not what he's claiming. He's claiming that when they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, they weren't wrong.

Pedant!

WTF? There's nothing pedantic about it, that's what this conversation is about.

Someone said Leicester weren't interested in Dunk, because the Argus said so. I pointed out that they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, and that they were wrong. Jem disagreed with me. That's it. So I point that out and you say I'm being pedantic

It seems you've joined the conversation half way through and assumed I'm just saying that the Argus can't be trusted as much as other sauces, and then when I point out what we were actually discussing you complain.

 

[Easy 10]

Didn't they claim that Leicester weren't interested in him? We have no idea whether that was correct or not.

No, but it may have been correct at the time. People DO change their minds, and what might have been correct 2 weeks ago, may not be the case 2 weeks later. It doesn't mean they were "wrong", but things can change and targets can be re-aligned. Its a fluid market, and information that comes out can never be taken as gospel.

But on the whole, I trust Naylor and Owen as reliable sources as they obviously have contacts. They also have no reason to release made-up stuff that is out-and-out bullshit, because (unlike the likes of ourselves) they do actually have a professional reputation to maintain.

 

[Triggaaar]

I'm not claiming anything because frankly i don't know and nor do you . My reading of it , is that they reported it in good faith

Oh I'm sure they reported in good faith. Nowhere have I ever suggested that they lie. When they say that Leicester aren't interested in Dunk I'm sure that's also in good faith.

and it was true at the time.

I think that's extremely unlikely.

You think it was an error I guess. Ok. Fair enough.

Indeed.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, but it may have been correct at the time. People DO change their minds, and what might have been correct 2 weeks ago, may not be the case 2 weeks later. It doesn't mean they were "wrong", but things can change and targets can be re-aligned. Its a fluid market, and information that comes out can never be taken as gospel.

Yes things can and do change. It is however obvious that our club were trying to get at least one striker and they would have been on it since Potter arrived, and possibly before. It seems that the Argus (and this isn't a criticism of them) didn't have any knowledge of which strikers we were interested in. So when they say there is no truth in rumours that we're after a particular player, all that means is that they're not aware of it. It doesn't mean there is no truth in the rumours, it just means they're not aware of it.

If the Argus reply 'yes, there's truth in that rumour', then you know (with at least some confidence) it's a goer.
If the Argus reply 'no', that doesn't mean there's no truth.

I'm not sure why that's difficult for some to accept.

 

[Braggfan]

The Argus has quite frankly been an embarrassment when it has come to transfer speculation in recent years.
Anyone can start speculating once Sky have pretty much confirmed it albeit they themselves have their early rumour mill.

The Argus is embarrassing across the board in terms of the truth of their stories. But In fairness to them, local papers just can’t compete with twitter and social media for breaking news anymore, so they have to print sensationalist news to attract readers. Its click bait journalism. I’d take everything they print with a pinch salt.

 

[Easy 10]

Yes things can and do change. It is however obvious that our club were trying to get at least one striker and they would have been on it since Potter arrived, and possibly before. It seems that the Argus (and this isn't a criticism of them) didn't have any knowledge of which strikers we were interested in. So when they say there is no truth in rumours that we're after a particular player, all that means is that they're not aware of it. It doesn't mean there is no truth in the rumours, it just means they're not aware of it.

If the Argus reply 'yes, there's truth in that rumour', then you know (with at least some confidence) it's a goer.
If the Argus reply 'no', that doesn't mean there's no truth.

I'm not sure why that's difficult for some to accept.

Seems fair enough to me.

I sometimes wonder if I should take the Barry Glendenning suggestion of avoiding ALL the transfer rumours, speculation, comings and goings and general bullshit throughout the entire summer. Then just rock up at the first game of the season, buy a programme, and have a look at the squad thats listed in it. Someone will fill you in if there's been a deadline day signing or two that occurred after it went to print.

Quite an attractive proposition, if you ask me. Saves on all the angst and bollocks doesn't it (except its pretty much impossible to completely avoid, unless you put your phone in a drawer and take yourself to a cave in the Outer Hebrides for three months).

 

[B.W.]

Didn't they claim that Leicester weren't interested in him? We have no idea whether that was correct or not.

All evidence suggests it was correct... and we know because (a) Leicester immediately went for other players at other clubs once Maguire was sold... and... (b) the Argus correctly debunked the Leicester Mercury article about a zillion days before Maguire actually went that claimed that the Dunk deal was done (if Maguire goes)...

 

[B.W.]

WTF? There's nothing pedantic about it, that's what this conversation is about.

Someone said Leicester weren't interested in Dunk, because the Argus said so. I pointed out that they said there was no truth in the Maupay rumour, and that they were wrong. Jem disagreed with me. That's it. So I point that out and you say I'm being pedantic

It seems you've joined the conversation half way through and assumed I'm just saying that the Argus can't be trusted as much as other sauces, and then when I point out what we were actually discussing you complain.

WTF?

I am pointing out that the Argus repeatedly said we were after Maupay long before he was actually signed... so, they answered one tweet incorrectly? So ****ing what!? As I said, pedant...