Well mate Fergie got it correct most of the time this guy is not comparable to the great manYeah, Fergie never did anything like this, right?
Well mate Fergie got it correct most of the time this guy is not comparable to the great manYeah, Fergie never did anything like this, right?
And? Martial started because Hojlund had a niggle and couldn't start 2 games in a row. He was the only other 'striker' who was fit. Would you rather have ETH recall McNeil who can't get a game at a L1 club or the numerous u-18 strikers who have never played a senior game and start them? Sure, have a go at him for starting Rashford when he had other options. Varane lost his place to Maguire who has earner it due to his performances. Now Varane needs to show he's up for it and earn it back. That's competition for places. The less spoken about Sancho the better.The whole thing is embarrassing and suggests club is out of control and ETH is floundering. Noone can be surprised at what is being written when we can all see the awful performances and glaring like of effort from half the team. We all saw ETH shouting at martial, a total waste of space yet ETH chose to start him. We know he banned Sancho and wants him gone. We know he's relegated Varanne to the bench. People need to stop blaming the press.
That pretty much says it all. You want inside information on United. That's what's sells. That's why these journalists write these stories. And they are stories. Whatever they write you lap it up like it's the truth.I want journalists to do their work and give me the sort of inside information that United won"t want published. I want to know what is going on at the club.
No, you pointed out Manchester United’s dressing-room issues, did not follow the etiquette of offering a right of reply, and were banned.I pointed out Manchester United dressing room issues and was banned
If your nipples have not withdrawn into your body and your toes have not cringed deep into your ankles, are you even alive?During a heated discussion with a Manchester United player outside the team coach at Southampton last season, the player asked me, “Do you support us?”
I informed him, “Journalism is an impartial industry.”
As you will learn, the role of a United correspondent seems to be to have lunch and inform Manchester United staff of your misgivings.The exchange ended with the player having more of an understanding of what the role of a United correspondent entails.
If only they had listened, Samuel.Around a month before Erik ten Hag stepped into the Old Trafford press conference room and pressed the flesh of journalists to engage with the British press for the first time, this correspondent lunched with a senior staff member.
I flagged some abusive emails that I continued to receive from the relative of a player, citing it as an example of the toxic culture within the squad and the need for tangible changes.
Whether the staff member passed on the information he was furnished with is unknown. But, as Jose Mourinho once said, the problems are still there.
‘Yours truly’ is amazing. But possibly not as amazing as expecting Manchester United to pull out of a multi-million pound transfer because of information that is widely available on the internet.One of United’s summer signings is represented by the same PR whose clientele includes disgruntled players past and present. United were unaware of this until yours truly made them aware of it. They proceeded with the deal.
Hmmm. This would carry slightly more weight if the reaction from Manchester United supporters to Luckhurst being banned had been different. But this is the most-liked response and it is indicative of what comes afterwards:By banning journalists from press conferences, United are effectively showing contempt for supporters, for we ask questions on their behalf.
No. But it is your fault you did not contact Manchester United for a right of reply when you wrote that ‘Manchester United manager Erik ten Hag is losing the confidence of players and some staff members as the club’s season continues to spiral’.Now, some of us have been demonised after another defeat. It is not my fault Ten Hag picked Anthony Martial, bickered with him and then dithered over when to substitute him at Newcastle. Or for playing Marcus Rashford on the right.
‘Bully’ is a strong word for ‘refusing entry to their own property’. All they have asked is that you give them an ‘opportunity to comment, challenge or contextualise’ next time. It doesn’t sound like bullying. We don’t think you’d have a case at tribunal.United were bullied by Newcastle on Sunday and some journalists feel United have tried to bully them over a story written in good faith. They will not succeed.
deadly, they’ve just published an article professing to have such a great relationship with the club, but a day previously they were happy to publish whatever claptrap will get them a few clicks, even if it means dragging the club through the mud to get there.. so which is it?You’re not actually being serious here, right?
He's not wrong and obviously has no time for our Mr. Luckhurst.Article on F365:
https://www.football365.com/news/ma...ngjournalist-who-raised-mason-mount-questions
Man Utd stand accusing of ‘bullying’ (self) important journalist who raised Mason Mount questions
Editor F365 2 hours ago
Erik ten Hag attends a pre-match press conference.
Manchester United refused entry to four journalists on Tuesday and one of them is really angry. Don’t they know who he is?
As Luck would have it…
On Tuesday several high-profile journalists were refused entry to Manchester United’s pre-match press conference.
Mediawatch will now explain why, because that information is missing from much of the coverage, but particularly from a self-important, self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, self-serving w*nk-fest written by second-year university student Manchester Evening News man Samuel Luckhurst, who wants you to believe United are conspiring to silence his truth-seeking rather than, you know, uphold the basic principles of journalism.
Luckhurst, along with Sky Sports‘ Kaveh Solekhol, the Mirror‘s David McDonnell and Rob Dawson of ESPN, were not allowed to attend Erik ten Hag’s press conference ahead of the Wednesday night clash with Chelsea after writing stories about players and staff members turning against the Dutchman.
United were pretty clear in their reasoning, issuing a statement saying: “We are taking action against a number of news organisations. Not for publishing stories we don’t like, but for doing so without contacting us first to give us the opportunity to comment, challenge or contextualise. We believe this is an important principle to defend and we hope it can lead to a re-set in the way we work together.”
Basically, the journalists gave United no right of reply.
Very little has been heard from three-quarters of the Forbidden Four since. But there is an exception. Step forward Samuel Luckhurst, clearly absent from the opening-day lecture about how journalists should never make themselves the story, not least because nobody gives a f*** about journalists.
And my word, does he make himself the story.
The headline:
No, you pointed out Manchester United’s dressing-room issues, did not follow the etiquette of offering a right of reply, and were banned.
But this might be the greatest of all opening lines:
If your nipples have not withdrawn into your body and your toes have not cringed deep into your ankles, are you even alive?
What follows is astonishing, but we will run you through a few highlights, none of which feature the actual reason Luckhurst was banned. But all of which paint Luckhurst as being one of the most important people in Manchester.
As you will learn, the role of a United correspondent seems to be to have lunch and inform Manchester United staff of your misgivings.
If only they had listened, Samuel.
‘Yours truly’ is amazing. But possibly not as amazing as expecting Manchester United to pull out of a multi-million pound transfer because of information that is widely available on the internet.
There were many other reasons not to spend a small fortune on Mason Mount.
Hmmm. This would carry slightly more weight if the reaction from Manchester United supporters to Luckhurst being banned had been different. But this is the most-liked response and it is indicative of what comes afterwards:
Mediawatch has been scrolling for three or four minutes and is yet to find an announce of sympathy.
No. But it is your fault you did not contact Manchester United for a right of reply when you wrote that ‘Manchester United manager Erik ten Hag is losing the confidence of players and some staff members as the club’s season continues to spiral’.
Mediawatch suspects that it was the ‘some staff members’ that irked. As you absolutely knew it would.
‘Bully’ is a strong word for ‘refusing entry to their own property’. All they have asked is that you give them an ‘opportunity to comment, challenge or contextualise’ next time. It doesn’t sound like bullying. We don’t think you’d have a case at tribunal.
Nobody is doubting that there is trouble afoot at Manchester United and it is absolutely Luckhurst’s job to write about it. But it’s really not his job to write about himself as if he is the victim of a great injustice because he failed to follow the rules. Yours truly is happy to point that out.
Ferguson did it from a position of strength though.Yeah, Fergie never did anything like this, right?
Who, Editor F365?He's not wrong and obviously has no time for our Mr. Luckhurst.
Wow. Holy shit. I thought it was parody at first. Checked and saw that Luckhurst really did publish another article today. Ban him for life I'd say.Man Utd stand accusing of ‘bullying’ (self) important journalist who raised Mason Mount questions
They can"t know what people at the club think and tell reporters unless those people tell the club itself.The club must know, hence the action taking and might have been able to convey that to the reporters if they didn’t publish such unsubstantiated bullshit.
Im pretty fecking sure they know 50 percent of the playing staff hasn’t fallen out with the manager for feck sake
Or they get the message to rein it in. And start corroborating facts before publishing them.If anything, we're inviting even more pressure from the press with this.
So you’re genuinely suggesting a newspaper should reveal their anonymous sources? Good luck getting anyone to give you information after that.deadly, they’ve just published an article professing to have such a great relationship with the club, but a day previously they were happy to publish whatever claptrap will get them a few clicks, even if it means dragging the club through the mud to get there.. so which is it?
If he did the article then yes.Who, Editor F365?
They’ll know it’s lies and is the reason they should be approached for clarification. Otherwise reporters are taking one players word for it and it’s stupid to assume the reporter with one (if not made up source) is more aware of what’s going on at the club than the club itself.They can"t know what people at the club think and tell reporters unless those people tell the club itself.
If journalists from reputed media outlets publish something, I tend to believe it unless I have good reason not to. Might be because I work in the media as well.I find it so bizarre that you will believe every word a journalists writes but when United refute the claims of said article you side with the journalist. Cause they must be telling the truth. They have to, they're journalists.
You don't know if the reporter talked to only one player. And the club wouldn"t know it"s lies because players and staff members won't be telling rhe club 'yeah, we think ETH is crap and we told the reporter that'.They’ll know it’s lies and is the reason they should be approached for clarification. Otherwise reporters are taking one players word for it and it’s stupid to assume the reporter with one (if not made up source) is more aware of what’s going on at the club than the club itself.
It’s the entire reason why reporters should be held to that standard and have been for decades now.
It's not just MEN. Others were banned as well.To those of you having a go at the club, remember you’re taking the side of someone so petty that they would go with “Man Utd react to tenth defeat of the season by banning journalists” as their sub-heading and invoking the Munich disaster to show how legitimate they are.
A self-important, self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, self-serving w*nk-fest written by second-year university student Manchester Evening News man Samuel Luckhurst
It depends on the journalists, there are certain journalists at the Guardian, Telegraph and Independent (not so many at the Times), who dislike us enormously and who are not objective.If journalists from reputed media outlets publish something, I tend to believe it unless I have good reason not to. Might be because I work in the media as well.
A club denying things doesn"t mean anything in stories like this that deal with opinions of players and staff members as the club wouldn't start questioning them all. And even if it does, it wouldn't know what they actually think.
God that's embarrassing.The start of his article reads:
"Man United have reacted to 10 defeats from 21 games by banning journalists from attending Erik ten Hag's press conference."
Salty as feck
SAF won a European cup with Aberdeen. There is no comparison.Yeah, Fergie never did anything like this, right?
The Streisand Effect.There's a famous quote about dealing with the media that stuck with me over the years: "Never turn a one-day story into a two-day story".
United is well within their rights to ban these journalists, and I support their decision. But there is the risk that doing so will just draw more attention to what's been published and drag it out longer in the news cycle, particularly if we don't follow up with a positive result today.
Here’s the kicker.. I don’t actually think there are any,So you’re genuinely suggesting a newspaper should reveal their anonymous sources? Good luck getting anyone to give you information after that.
Of course there are sources in the dressing room willing to criticize Ten Hag anonymously. Sancho, Varane, etc. The question is how big the anti-ETH camp is but even Ten Hag has admitted that it exists.Here’s the kicker.. I don’t actually think there are any,
I’m starting to think it’s journalists being opportunistic and using the whole “dressing room source” thing as a way of cheaply validating their article without ever having to justify anything they print.
“It wasn’t us your honour, it was our anonymous source” …
“Which is?”
“well… they’re anonymous you see”
get in the bin.
Why would anything change with the leaks?Let's keep banning them for a few weeks and let's see about the leaks..
Were the last few months not negative for United?The Daily Mirror has for the latest month(s) have only written incredibly negative articles.
Maybe they might not print it nowWhy would anything change with the leaks?
Of course they will. Those articles are worth far more than press conference quotes that everyone have and that they can get without even being there.Maybe they might not print it now
Probably add Rashford to the list of the players who might have been leaking to the press.Everyone saw the same as me right? The 11 who started played like they cared and are still behind the manager. Mr Sulker here barely broke into a sweat and was his usual lazy self and played like he doesn't care for the manager. I wonder, was he the one who is leaking.....