Martin Samuel/ daily mail

[ROSM]

Moments of great excitement only.

And to wipe my arse after having a dump.

I also stand for old ladies so they can sit down on the train.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Does the fact that the LMA have been incredibly quiet since the club threatened them, mean anything?

 

[Acker79]

Does the fact that the LMA have been incredibly quiet since the club threatened them, mean anything?

Maybe, maybe not. They said they only released that statement because of comments in the press coming from the club, and ended it saying they wouldn't comment further.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

PR 'expert' poster on NSC.

I think you need some help with your alphabet and acronyms but don't worry they'll get to that next year at school

 

[LamieRobertson]

I miss MS since he left the Times because I just can't bring myself to reading The Mail.

Good to see people maintaining some standards

 

[drew]

I work in the"real" world, In my contract I am in breach if I talk with prospective employers without notifying my current employer first, would have thought that was standard with most employment contracts

Have to say I have worked for some pretty big companies and have never seen conditions like that in a contract. I would suggest your situation is more likely to be the exception rather than the rule!

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Have to say I have worked for some pretty big companies and have never seen conditions like that in a contract. I would suggest your situation is more likely to be the exception rather than the rule!

I have seen in contracts clauses about not leaving for a competitor but even those are a bit dubious as they could be seen to be restraint of trade

 

[smudge]

If I want to read some good sports reporting, I read the Mail or the Guardian, my fave podcast is Guardian Weekly. I like to read Martin Samuel & Patrick Collins in the Mail.
Best Sports writer ever wrote for the Mail; Ian Wooldridge.
I must be some sort of Nazi according to some on here.

 

[Buzzer]

Quite. The usual crowd trying to outdo each other with their anti-Mail credentials. "I hate it more than you because I say it more often and more loudly...." Personally, I don't read the paper but then again I don't read the Guardian either. Both pander to their target audience, both equally as one-eyed in their perspective.

And a lot of people who seem to think that the political slant of a newspaper is a good guide to the quality of the football reporting in it. Remind me again who the brain-dead bozos are supposed to be?

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Good to see people maintaining some standards

Are you and other left wingers trying to look good by trashing the 'Mail'....yet you must read read it otherwise you could'nt comment on it....I'd like to trash the Daily Mirror....which I was reading after the war....but not reading it since 1954 I really cannot comment on it....depends whether you are left or right....me...yes I'm more a right winger than left.....Good on you Buckley....

 

[Questions]

Just because they're getting it right now, it doesn't mean I and others aren't allowed to say they got it wrong initially.

If Gus refused to sit down and talk about retained players, contracts etc for the coming season because he didn't even know if he was going to be here then the club did not get it wrong did they ?

IF.....

 

[Questions]

Quite. The usual crowd trying to outdo each other with their anti-Mail credentials. "I hate it more than you because I say it more often and more loudly...." Personally, I don't read the paper but then again I don't read the Guardian either. Both pander to their target audience, both equally as one-eyed in their perspective.

And a lot of people who seem to think that the political slant of a newspaper is a good guide to the quality of the football reporting in it. Remind me again who the brain-dead bozos are supposed to be?

Well your working on the assumption one buys a newspaper purely for its football coverage then are you ? Martin Samuel is a fine journalist but he writes for a paper I would never buy.
Like you say, "one eyed"

 

[drew]

I have seen in contracts clauses about not leaving for a competitor but even those are a bit dubious as they could be seen to be restraint of trade

Well the closest I have ever seen to that is restrictive covenants preventing you contacting your clients if you move to a competitor. It is highly doubtful that a contract can restrict you moving to a competitor as that is clearly restraint of trade.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

If Gus refused to sit down and talk about retained players, contracts etc for the coming season because he didn't even know if he was going to be here then the club did not get it wrong did they ?

IF.....

And ..... If Gus refused to sit down and talk about retained players, contracts etc for the coming season because he did know he was not going to be here because the club had already made it clear that they wanted shot of him?

IF.....



It's all speculation. I doubt if we will ever find out.

 

[London Irish]

Typical daily mail really. Its not really as straight forward as that as contracts are involved. If you sign a contract you don't have a RIGHT to choose a split without recompense. And using a divorce analogy is pretty lame as how many divorces are sorted by just giving the ring back.

Exactly my thoughts when I read this piece. Essentially Martin Samuel is being a bit thick here. He thinks the relationship analogy buries Poyet but in fact he's bolstering Gus's case for a negotiated financial pay-off - because that's how divorces are settled in the real world. Epic fail really

 

[Acker79]

If Gus refused to sit down and talk about retained players, contracts etc for the coming season because he didn't even know if he was going to be here then the club did not get it wrong did they ?

IF.....

With press releases, yes, even if the above were true, there was no benefit to the press release about gus "refusing" to attend the meeting he and the LMA felt he had a right to not attend, it only antagonised the LMA into a response, leaving the club in the awkward position of staying silent and letting it be assumed true or releasing another statement that amounted to barely above an almost childish "nuh-uh", then releasing the statement while he was on air allowing a "gus is fired on air" story to be told, or at least giving him a national audience to explain his position and get public opinion on his side.

I won't go as far as some others and say it was a disaster, but regardless of the rights and wrongs of gus's suspension and firing, the press releases were initially mishandled, and I believe that is what rosm is referring to. (Or maybe he just agrees with dick knight)

 

[Buzzer]

Exactly my thoughts when I read this piece. Essentially Martin Samuel is being a bit thick here. He thinks the relationship analogy buries Poyet but in fact he's bolstering Gus's case for a negotiated financial pay-off - because that's how divorces are settled in the real world. Epic fail really

"Epic fail"? There's postmodern irony.

 

[Woodchip]

Exactly my thoughts when I read this piece. Essentially Martin Samuel is being a bit thick here. He thinks the relationship analogy buries Poyet but in fact he's bolstering Gus's case for a negotiated financial pay-off - because that's how divorces are settled in the real world. Epic fail really

What the Google are you doing back?!?!?!

 

[Bakero]

Quite. The usual crowd trying to outdo each other with their anti-Mail credentials. "I hate it more than you because I say it more often and more loudly...." Personally, I don't read the paper but then again I don't read the Guardian either. Both pander to their target audience, both equally as one-eyed in their perspective.

Regardless of politics, the Guardian is a better quality paper. Whilst they were breaking the Snowden story, the Mail were leading with a piece on asylum seekers receiving free Curly Whirlys and discounted pedicures.

 

[Buzzer]

Regardless of politics, the Guardian is a better quality paper. Whilst they were breaking the Snowden story, the Mail were leading with a piece on asylum seekers receiving free Curly Whirlys and discounted pedicures.

You don't read Private Eye then? Whilst 'quality' is obviously subjective, I think a regular read of their summary of the goings-on at the dailies shows just how hypocritical, sensationalist and muck-raking all of them are. On its day, the Guardian can be just as bad as the Mail.

And I stand by my point that the editorial slant on the front of the paper is no guide to how good the back pages are. Case in point is Martin Samuels, the subject of this thread. The Guardianistas on here, by and large, think that what he writes must be utter tripe because its the Mail. I bet they didn't have that opinion when he wrote for the Times. Has Samuels dumbed down with his switch to the Mail? Of course not - it's just the usual crowd trotting out the usual ill-informed rubbish because it makes them look good to their fellow travellers.