Sky Sports News' fear of reality

[Gwylan]

Put British football on the map? English clubs won the European Cup in eight of the 15 years before the establishment of the PL (and were banned for five(?) of them)

That was truly embarrassing

 

[Questions]

Kirsty Gallagher has a nose that looks like its always melting.

Lovely tits though and that's what it takes to do well on Sky Sports. If you're a woman obviously.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

I usually find Syed a little unbearable but he certainly made an important point very well.

On the other hand I don't mind Cascarino that much (I thought his autobiography was refreshingly honest). He was in a bit of a tight spot there though, as I guess he gets a regular income from Sky.

I suppose it does beg a slightly uncomfortable question about the SAUCE of our own Chairman's stadium fund...

Quite. When penning my earlier response it briefly occurred to me that we don't exactly know where Tony Bloom's dosh comes from - and I opted to quietly overlook that (ahem). So I suppose I am being a little bit guilty of turning a blind eye to our own situation. But as far as I can tell from the comfort of my own armchair TB's main business activities are largely conducted very discretely and are on the other side of the world. I have faith that he is a highly successful businessman who chooses to invest in the Albion which has been a significant part of his family's sporting interests for 3 generations and is certainly nowhere near on the scale of Abramovich and Chelsea.

 

[vegster]

Syed could yet be in trouble, I'm pretty sure Newscorp own both Sky and The Times .End of contract rant maybe ?

 

[luge]

To be fair to Sky - they simply could have cut them off. Also, any Journo leading a discussion should be playing devils advocate. It's just they don't speak good innit.

Syed is bang on the money with his analysis of why big money is being invested.

 

[Robdinho]

Put British football on the map? English clubs won the European Cup in eight of the 15 years before the establishment of the PL (and were banned for five(?) of them)

That was truly embarrassing

Absolutely! I was surprised he didn't seize on that ridiculous statement a little more ruthlessly.

I thought the whole thing was summed up by the presenter's panicked glance to camera at 6:18 as he tries to get them back onto the original question which is the by now ridiculously vapid 'has Abramovich been good or bad for Chelsea?'

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Syed could yet be in trouble, I'm pretty sure Newscorp own both Sky and The Times .End of contract rant maybe ?

Ah yes, the so called 'free press' - a fine tradition that upholds all our principles of democracy and freedom of expression. That's until your critique is aimed at your own employer. Matthew maybe at risk of drifting into a potential 'breach of contract' scenario, something us NSCers are now familiar with.

 

[vegster]

Ah yes, the so called 'free press' - a fine tradition that upholds all our principles of democracy and freedom of expression. That's until your critique is aimed at your own employer. Matthew maybe at risk of drifting into a potential 'breach of contract' scenario, something us NSCers are now familiar with.

He either has another job nailed on somewhere else or he has just been told he has six months to live. Very unusual to bite the hand that feeds you, usually there are shameless plugs rather than any overt criticism.

The only insurance he can have is that he has is that some of the financial " irregularities " in the way Roman obtained his cash, were spoken about in open court thus he avoids Slander.

 

[glasfryn]

the truth is out there somewhere







and we might just of heard some of it there

 

[gordonchas]

Syed could yet be in trouble, I'm pretty sure Newscorp own both Sky and The Times .End of contract rant maybe ?

He either has another job nailed on somewhere else or he has just been told he has six months to live. Very unusual to bite the hand that feeds you, usually there are shameless plugs rather than any overt criticism.

The only insurance he can have is that he has is that some of the financial " irregularities " in the way Roman obtained his cash, were spoken about in open court thus he avoids Slander.

No, he has been writing stuff about Abramovich like that in the Murdoch-owned times for YEARS.

Honestly, as if the producers had no idea about Syed's opinions. Why do you think he was invited on to a discussion about Abramovich in the first place? Sheer dumb luck?

Nice to see this get the airing it deserves though.

 

[Questions]

He either has another job nailed on somewhere else or he has just been told he has six months to live. Very unusual to bite the hand that feeds you, usually there are shameless plugs rather than any overt criticism.

The only insurance he can have is that he has is that some of the financial " irregularities " in the way Roman obtained his cash, were spoken about in open court thus he avoids Slander.

Was his attack against Sky though ?

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

He either has another job nailed on somewhere else or he has just been told he has six months to live. Very unusual to bite the hand that feeds you, usually there are shameless plugs rather than any overt criticism.

The only insurance he can have is that he has is that some of the financial " irregularities " in the way Roman obtained his cash, were spoken about in open court thus he avoids Slander.

I feel that Matthew is too smart to get naively drawn into such an obvious potential breach of contract scenario. He made a very specific point in the Sky interview about the court case so I agree that (hopefully) he is referring to something that is already in the public domain.

He does have a privileged role beyond that of the average Sports correspondent in that he often writes editorial style features in The Times with far deeper intellectual analysis than most hacks are asked to churn out (and is I suspect a few readers too!). Plus he often provides interesting critiques on sporting / political matters on Sky and BBC news

Failing that maybe he does has something else lined up........... I like his incisive style and is generally well worth listening to or reading, even if I don't agree with him.

 

[beorhthelm]

Was his attack against Sky though ?

no, i'm not sure where that angle is coming from.

 

[vegster]

Was his attack against Sky though ?

Not directly against Sky, the prog seemed to expect to be about how wonderful the Premiership is and the reflected glory obtained by Sky... in technical terms a " puff " for how wonderful Sky are but it ended with their balloon being burst.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

One interesting thing about the foreign investors (Milan Mandaric excepted) . . . they have stuck to their guns, bunged in masses of cash, and are still here. Who at Fulham would complain about Fayed (notwithstanding the laughable Jacko statue)? When Gilette and the other twit quit Liverpool, in stepped John Henry. And Abramovitch, for whatever benefit he has gained from being UK domicile, has put in somewhat more than he has taken out, and he's still here.

I'm not a fan of the premiership for its own sake, but the facts will only look torrid if a run of 'top' sides (like Chelsea) get filleted and dumped by their patrons. Clubs have always gone bust. Accrington, Aldershot (and that's just the 'As'). The facts at the moment are that the prem is exiting and good telly, and good for the local fans who largely attend.

I'm not a fan of Murdoch either. I remember Wapping and all that. And The Sun.

But I don't see any harm yet. The smaller clubs were always largely awful, awful grounds, fat players, crap games. Crappy owners. Look at us? Dig up Archer and bring him back - he was English! Yeah . . . . right.

The premier league is a success. OK some will say its harming England, but . . . just as if England were once any good . . . seriously.

No, I'll be contrary and share Cascarino's incredulity. For now . . .

 

[Gwylan]

Failing that maybe he does has something else lined up...........

He's on the Labour Party's approved list of candidates so may find a safe seat somewhere - he stood against The Vulcan in 2001 so he's had a tough start- that's one of the safest Tory seats in the country

 

[vegster]

One interesting thing about the foreign investors (Milan Mandaric excepted) . . . they have stuck to their guns, bunged in masses of cash, and are still here. Who at Fulham would complain about Fayed (notwithstanding the laughable Jacko statue)? When Gilette and the other twit quit Liverpool, in stepped John Henry. And Abramovitch, for whatever benefit he has gained from being UK domicile, has put in somewhat more than he has taken out, and he's still here.

I'm not a fan of the premiership for its own sake, but the facts will only look torrid if a run of 'top' sides (like Chelsea) get filleted and dumped by their patrons. Clubs have always gone bust. Accrington, Aldershot (and that's just the 'As'). The facts at the moment are that the prem is exiting and good telly, and good for the local fans who largely attend.

I'm not a fan of Murdoch either. I remember Wapping and all that. And The Sun.

But I don't see any harm yet. The smaller clubs were always largely awful, awful grounds, fat players, crap games. Crappy owners. Look at us? Dig up Archer and bring him back - he was English! Yeah . . . . right.

The premier league is a success. OK some will say its harming England, but . . . just as if England were once any good . . . seriously.

No, I'll be contrary and share Cascarino's incredulity. For now . . .

I think M S's point was that he hasn't really invested in a team, merely bought a lifeboat for when things get choppy. A handy way of getting some of his money out and becoming a big man in London. But he still has to be careful who makes his tea.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

One interesting thing about the foreign investors (Milan Mandaric excepted) . . . they have stuck to their guns, bunged in masses of cash, and are still here. Who at Fulham would complain about Fayed (notwithstanding the laughable Jacko statue)? When Gilette and the other twit quit Liverpool, in stepped John Henry. And Abramovitch, for whatever benefit he has gained from being UK domicile, has put in somewhat more than he has taken out, and he's still here.

I'm not a fan of the premiership for its own sake, but the facts will only look torrid if a run of 'top' sides (like Chelsea) get filleted and dumped by their patrons. Clubs have always gone bust. Accrington, Aldershot (and that's just the 'As'). The facts at the moment are that the prem is exiting and good telly, and good for the local fans who largely attend.

I'm not a fan of Murdoch either. I remember Wapping and all that. And The Sun.

But I don't see any harm yet. The smaller clubs were always largely awful, awful grounds, fat players, crap games. Crappy owners. Look at us? Dig up Archer and bring him back - he was English! Yeah . . . . right.

The premier league is a success. OK some will say its harming England, but . . . just as if England were once any good . . . seriously.

No, I'll be contrary and share Cascarino's incredulity. For now . . .

But that's missing the whole point. Insofar as his rant was aimed at the morality of the pot of cash that Chelsea have benefited from and NOT whether the cash has been good from a purely footballing perspective.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Interesting to see somebody articulate on Sky Sports, and somebody with a view on the big money in football. But how much is what he said about Abrahamovich's motives for his ownership of Chelsea his own supposition, which I suppose is what they could have challenged.

And whatever the original reason, he does seem to be genuinely interested in what goes on - sometimes too much so.

I don't think we need to worry about our own Chairman in the same way, or the source of his wealth. Plenty of stuff has been said about Mr A's dealings over a long period to give plenty of people plenty of grounds to be plenty suspicious of it all.

 

[HastingsSeagull]

Thank god for TB