Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Struggling to see where the "shit stirring" is to be honest.
Has he said anything inaccurate over Hammondgate ?
Has he said anything inaccurate over Hammondgate ?
Struggling to see where the "shit stirring" is to be honest.
Has he said anything inaccurate over Hammondgate ?
What troubles people about Naylor is that he associates with REAL shit stirrers, like some of the players' agents. It's always interesting stuff, but it's often not presenting a fair view of the Club.exactly - he uncovers stories and issues the fans otherwise wouldn't know about, and puts them into the public domain. just seems to me that because he doesnt toe the club line, he is deemed to be shit stirring
If I were a journo i too would be in the company of all sorts too! Crikey thats good work by him imo.What troubles people about Naylor is that he associates with REAL shit stirrers, like some of the players' agents. It's always interesting stuff, but it's often not presenting a fair view of the Club.
He is a climber and would not give two hoots about Brighton if he got offered another job at a respectable paper.
i would say he tells the truth - you can tell that by dicks reaction to the phone in - come when is everyone going to wake up to the truth - can everyone be wrong and dick knight be right?
He presents opinions as facts
take for example todays' "... Hammond is currently serving a three-match ban which does not end until after the home game against Crewe on February 2 so he will almost certainly never play for the club again.
No quote from the club, the payer or even the agent.
And it doesn't sell papers. The Argus's sales figures have been falling for years as seen below rom "Hold The FrontPage" on 3 March 2006.
My take on it is the it's not that he's not telling the truth - largely he is.
It's just he doesn't tell the WHOLE truth.
Similarly, in this instance, I don't suppose Dean Hammond was too enamoured with having his contract story covered in the paper, I know the club certainly weren't. But what Naylor has done - via Hammond's agent - is to go public with the story, which serves little purpose apart from bringing into focus who people might choose who is the hero and who is the villain in this story - a scenario which isn't really necessary.
Meanwhile, Hammond, who is clearly at a crossroads as to what to do next in his career, has had the spotlight put on him to make his mind up. I suspect he would have preferred to make his mind up without that spotlight being placed on him.