Re: Daily Mail's Martin Samuel does a hatchet job on City.
Some people ( and I’m not talking about agents or club chairman etc) really are sad cases.
Some of the shite I’ve just read is as low as the Saints fan who got thrown out a couple of weeks back.
Re: Daily Mail's Martin Samuel does a hatchet job on City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Sala-died.html
First thing I'd say about the article is that it is effective and hits the target often, he asks pertinent questions regarding some of City's dealings in the past and the charge that it is all about the money with the club is a hard one to argue against.
However, a major flaw in Samuel's argument for me is the way he claims that none of this would be happening if Emiliano Sala were still alive. He brings attention to the Vincent Tan/ Malky Mackay/Iain Moody situation while making particular reference to the Andreas Cornelius transfer, but doesn't our owner's use of the legal system in that case show that there is at least the possibility that City would be acting in exactly the same way if Emiliano was still with us? My own view is that City's off field management were reactive, rather than proactive, when it came to the Cornelius transfer and the same may be true about Sala as well, but I think Samuel is misjudging Vincent Tan when it comes to when he would turn to litigation.
While reading the article, I also had a vague memory of Neil Warnock mentioning Martin Samuel, and not in a complimentary way, by name in one of his press conference as City manager, so I did some checking and I think it's fair to say that there is a bit of history between the two men;-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...lace-boss.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/w...el-b6rqmbt5zk5
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...ek-433835.html
http://archive.onetouchfootball.com/...1;t=010196;p=3
Samuel also wrote a piece on last season's FA Cup match with Man City which had the subtitle "Guardiola masterclass gives Cardiff cloggers the boot".
it's a powerful piece by Samuel and I believe he makes a number of valid points, but he is hardly an impartial bystander in all of this and I find it hard to avoid the feeling that the article might have read differently if Neil Warnock was not our manager.
Just two initial responses showing that Mr Samuel has shown himself up by seeking to dovetail his article into an agenda he has.
(1) BAMBA:
"Bamba went from starting the 2016-17 season as Leeds United captain to having his contract cancelled after four games, meaning he joined Cardiff as a free agent. This seems a very peculiar situation, but clearly no need for alarms — particularly as Bamba has arguably been Cardiff's best player, certainly this season, and is very much alive."
"Are they [City] asking the same questions about Bamba's deal [SP: as Sala deal]? Are they asking why Leeds would cancel the contract of their captain and let him go to a rival from the same division?"
What is so peculiar with his move to Cardiff City or the fact that on Sept 1st 2016 Leeds released him (Wikipedia)? What's peculiar that he subsequently trained at Derby (Wikipedia)? What's peculiar that he subsequently didn't sign for City until Oct 2016? Why need City question anything over Leeds' releasing of Bamba. What is Samuel insinuating here? The Bamba and Sala moves have nothing in common, despite Samuel trying to insinuate they did, apart from the fact both players were going to City. The, 'very much alive,' phrase is in appallingly bad taste for obvious reasons to everyone apart from Mr Samuel.
Seems the article is just slanted to try to seem some sort of alleged unethical activity by City.
(2) CORNELIUS:
"Cornelius, like Sala, was supposed to score the goals to keep Cardiff in the Premier League. He was a dismal flop, failing to find the net in any of his 11 games."
True he made 11 appearances but the majority were as a subsititute. He was subsequently injured for 5 months never regaining fitness to appear for City again. This is poorly researched and allows a perceived opinion to over-ride facts. Again it could be inferred that Samuel is being economical with the truth to try to make out some unethical activity by City.
Contrast his writing with the excellent investigative reporting by the recent Telegraph article and chalk and cheese come to mind.
StT.
<><
Re: Daily Mail's Martin Samuel does a hatchet job on City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I can't say for certain, but I believe the 13/14 season was about six weeks/two months old when Vincent Tan first mentioned his dissatisfaction with the Cornelius transfer - I've not been able to find anything to confirm that though.
As for your second question, yes you are right.
You are correct Bob, the painter and decorator being employed as chief scout was after 6 weeks and obviously an effort to get MM to resign.
Re: Daily Mail's Martin Samuel does a hatchet job on City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve the Tea
Just two initial responses showing that Mr Samuel has shown himself up by seeking to dovetail his article into an agenda he has.
(1) BAMBA:
"Bamba went from starting the 2016-17 season as Leeds United captain to having his contract cancelled after four games, meaning he joined Cardiff as a free agent. This seems a very peculiar situation, but clearly no need for alarms — particularly as Bamba has arguably been Cardiff's best player, certainly this season, and is very much alive."
"Are they [City] asking the same questions about Bamba's deal [SP: as Sala deal]? Are they asking why Leeds would cancel the contract of their captain and let him go to a rival from the same division?"
What is so peculiar with his move to Cardiff City or the fact that on Sept 1st 2016 Leeds released him (Wikipedia)? What's peculiar that he subsequently trained at Derby (Wikipedia)? What's peculiar that he subsequently didn't sign for City until Oct 2016? Why need City question anything over Leeds' releasing of Bamba. What is Samuel insinuating here? The Bamba and Sala moves have nothing in common, despite Samuel trying to insinuate they did, apart from the fact both players were going to City. The, 'very much alive,' phrase is in appallingly bad taste for obvious reasons to everyone apart from Mr Samuel.
Seems the article is just slanted to try to seem some sort of alleged unethical activity by City.
(2) CORNELIUS:
"Cornelius, like Sala, was supposed to score the goals to keep Cardiff in the Premier League. He was a dismal flop, failing to find the net in any of his 11 games."
True he made 11 appearances but the majority were as a subsititute. He was subsequently injured for 5 months never regaining fitness to appear for City again. This is poorly researched and allows a perceived opinion to over-ride facts. Again it could be inferred that Samuel is being economical with the truth to try to make out some unethical activity by City.
Contrast his writing with the excellent investigative reporting by the recent Telegraph article and chalk and cheese come to mind.
StT.
<><
But the Daily Mail sports section is excellent!
Re: Daily Mail's Martin Samuel does a hatchet job on City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Harry Monk
When I moved from one employer to another, no one offered me a relocation fee or offered to pay for my transport to my new work place. How I travel in my own time is also a choice for me and not my employer, and I don't have to tell them how I'm doing it either.
But if your prostitute brought you an unlicensed taxi for your ride home, would your insurance cover it?
And if you where on company travels, you don't think it would both smudge the company name and reflect badly on you and your prostitute? After all, they had their name tied with prostitution. A bit deep, I know. And I don't think you are a 15 million asset, how ever good you are.
