Expect to see more of Fergie next year

Bandit12

Bandit12 wrote: »

Disgraceful that he's got away with it for this long.

Would you say the same if it was a Liverpool manager refusing to do interviews with The Sun "newspaper"?

Glico Man

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you say the same if it was a Liverpool manager refusing to do interviews with The Sun "newspaper"?

How can you even bring that into this. There is no comparison.

Fergie doesn't give interviews to the bbc because panorama did a show that made his son look like he uses daddy's influence to get things done and is being petty and childish about it

Liverpool players, managers and fans don't read, give interviews to or touch the s*n for reasons we all know

PHB

I really don't think tehres any comparisons between Fergie's reasoning and the Sun's reasoning, but it highlights the simple point that ultimately people, and clubs, should be allowed speak to who they want to speak to. If the clubs have a problem with their managers they can tell them what to do, and indeed I've often felt that Man Utd should instruct Fergie to talk to BBC, however, they don't, so if your employers doesn't make you, I dont see why anyone else should be making you.

aaronh007

aaronh007 wrote: »

How can you even bring that into this. There is no comparison.

Fergie doesn't give interviews to the bbc because panorama did a show that made his son look like he uses daddy's influence to get things done and is being petty and childish about it

Liverpool players, managers and fans don't read, give interviews to or touch the s*n for reasons we all know

Being "petty and childish" is one way of putting it. Sticking to his guns and standing up for what he believes in is another way. Depends on your perspective. Taking a sample line of your post above, there are people who believe.....

Fergie Liverpool FC doesn't give interviews to the bbc Sun because panorama did a show that made his son look like he uses daddy's influence to get things done they ran an article vilifying LFC supporters and LFC is being petty and childish about it

FWIW, I don't believe it. I think they're scumbags, but the situation is comparable, imo. It's a matter of principle.

If the FA forced LFC to give interviews to the Sun, how do you reckon that would go down?

curry-muff

All thats gona happen is there will be press conferences with bbc present, doesnt mean Sir Alex actually has to answer to them.

thegen

Might have to start going to pub to watch MOTD. At least there I wont be able to hear the rantings;)

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

FWIW, I don't believe it. I think they're scumbags, but the situation is comparable, imo. It's a matter of principle.

Its a matter of principle on the one hand, yet i very much doubt that Alex refuses to accept the money coming in from the BBC purchasing the rights to an entertainment package (which includes highlights footage of the games, and now reaction from the managers).

Nalz

Bandit12 wrote: »

Disgraceful that he's got away with it for this long.

= sums this thread up

therecklessone

aaronh007 wrote: »

How can you even bring that into this. There is no comparison.

Fergie doesn't give interviews to the bbc because panorama did a show that made his son look like he uses daddy's influence to get things done and is being petty and childish about it

Liverpool players, managers and fans don't read, give interviews to or touch the s*n for reasons we all know

Should the Sun pay hundreds of millions of £s for access to clubs and their employees in the way that the BBC, Sky and ESPN do then I'd expect Liverpool to cooperate tbh.

PHB wrote: »

so if your employers doesn't make you, I dont see why anyone else should be making you.

The BBC as rights holders and the PL as the body responsible for negotiating the collective broadcast rights on behalf of the clubs can agree any conditions they wish. Man Utd are constituent members of the PL (as are Blackburn and Spurs) and are entitled to an equal say, but ultimately they are required to abide by group decisions.

Clubs are happy to suckle at the teat of the broadcast media, it is fair that the broadcast media demand something in return.

Mr.Nice Guy

therecklessone wrote:

The BBC as rights holders and the PL as the body responsible for negotiating the collective broadcast rights on behalf of the clubs can agree any conditions they wish. Man Utd are constituent members of the PL (as are Blackburn and Spurs) and are entitled to an equal say, but ultimately they are required to abide by group decisions.

Clubs are happy to suckle at the teat of the broadcast media, it is fair that the broadcast media demand something in return.

How can you say the BBC and the PL can agree any conditions they wish? What about a person's basic human rights? Can they be walked all over through a contract between two corporate entities? I would doubt it. According to the European Union:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

The idea of forcing someone to do something against their wishes is ludicrous. Are boycotts now on the verge of becoming illegal?

The broadcast media are getting the football match highlights and a reaction from someone at the club. If the individual they want to speak to at the club doesn't want to speak to them, that's tough.

I would actually encourage Fergie if forced to do this, assuming he doesn't want to fight this through the courts, to do what was suggested on the thread earlier and give the most bland mundane interviews MOTD has seen.

Deleted User wrote:

Would you say the same if it was a Liverpool manager refusing to do interviews with The Sun "newspaper"?

Great point. Spot on.

therecklessone

Sweet Mother of Jesus, the reaction of some people to this development alternates between the ridiculous and the downright insulting...insulting to the memory of people who have suffered genuine deprivation of their human rights, who have died for their human rights. All that is happening here is somebody is being asked to stop stamping his feet on the ground cos junior was called a bad name.

Alex Ferguson is employed by Manchester United. His employers are required to meet certain conditions of their membership of a sports body (the PL) and of their commercial dealings, and as their employee he must perform certain tasks consistent with his contract of employment.

Being told to talk to a media outlet by your employer is not a breach of your human rights, but I'll alert Amnesty International just in case...:rolleyes:

FatherTed

Jeez, it's not the biggest deal in the world ffs. And why isn't this in the Man Utd thread?

Mr.Nice Guy

The only insult here is towards the easiest target in the English game. Being forced to speak to someone whom you do not wish to speak to IS a denial of basic human rights. People have the right to speak to (and refuse to speak to) whoever they so choose.

If the BBC had insulted a member of my family I don't think I'd be too keen on speaking to them either.

Also I'm pretty sure it is not in Sir Alex's contract of employment that he must commit to the task of speaking to the BBC. This is a new stipulation that it seems the club have accepted, but it remains to be seen whether or not Fergie will approve of it. He can just as easily abide by the terms and yet effectively keep a stony silence assuming he wants to.

Considering the history of the boycott in this country it's amusing to see how much hostility it provokes on here when Fergie engages in it but I suspect it's less about the principle, and more about the man involved in it which is a pity - but hardly surprising.

therecklessone

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The only insult here is towards the easiest target in the English game. Being forced to speak to someone whom you do not wish to speak to IS a denial of basic human rights. People have the right to speak to (and refuse to speak to) whoever they so choose.

Quick test:

When you arrive in work tomorrow tell your boss you are refusing to speak to anyone else in your workplace as a basic exercise in freedom of expression.

Post back the results when you've finished signing on.

p.s.

Considering the history of the boycott in this country it's amusing to see how much hostility it provokes on here when Fergie engages in it but I suspect it's less about the principle, and more about the man involved in it which is a pity - but hardly surprising.

Ferguson is not the only manager affected by this, so quit your fúcking whining.

RasTa

therecklessone wrote: »

Ferguson is not the only manager affected by this, so quit your fúcking whining.

lol that's a bit over the top.

Mr.Nice Guy

therecklessone wrote: »

Quick test:

When you arrive in work tomorrow tell your boss you are refusing to speak to anyone else in your workplace as a basic exercise in freedom of expression.

Post back the results when you've finished signing on.

p.s.

If a person in my workplace insults a member of my family I assure you I will want nothing to do with him/her. If the boss wants an explanation I'd gladly explain. There's nothing wrong with standing up for your family as far as I'm concerned. I doubt I'd be fired on such a matter of principle.

therecklessone wrote:

Ferguson is not the only manager affected by this, so quit your fúcking whining.

That's charming stuff. Thanks for that. I wonder what would happen if I made that comment in your direction? :rolleyes:

I'm not whining, I'm just sticking up for the man. I admire his stance on this matter. Is that alright?

~Rebel~

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If a person in my workplace insults a member of my family I assure you I will want nothing to do with him/her. If the boss wants an explanation I'd gladly explain. There's nothing wrong with standing up for your family as far as I'm concerned. I doubt I'd be fired on such a matter of principle.

Actually it would be closer to a situation where, say, a chap from a company your company does business with insulted your family, and now you refused to speak to anyone who works for that company, regardless how little they had to do with the initial insult, or even if they didn't work for the company at the time.

For example, I deal with UPS on a fairly regular basis. Now, if one of those ups guys were to insult my family, i would tell him to get fuked. I would also probably never use UPS for my own personal use again. But i would be fired if i refused to deal with anyone in UPS again when working on behalf of my company. (i would like to clarify noone in UPS has ever insulted my family, dont wanna be tainting their reputation!)

Quint

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The only insult here is towards the easiest target in the English game. Being forced to speak to someone whom you do not wish to speak to IS a denial of basic human rights. People have the right to speak to (and refuse to speak to) whoever they so choose.

If the BBC had insulted a member of my family I don't think I'd be too keen on speaking to them either.

Also I'm pretty sure it is not in Sir Alex's contract of employment that he must commit to the task of speaking to the BBC. This is a new stipulation that it seems the club have accepted, but it remains to be seen whether or not Fergie will approve of it. He can just as easily abide by the terms and yet effectively keep a stony silence assuming he wants to.

Considering the history of the boycott in this country it's amusing to see how much hostility it provokes on here when Fergie engages in it but I suspect it's less about the principle, and more about the man involved in it which is a pity - but hardly surprising.

Seriously, are you trolling here? "Basic human rights"? Poor Fergie and 'Arry will be onto amnesty international, this is worse than Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest in Burma!
If Fergie or 'Arry feel so strongly about it, they can quit. Same thing anyone would do if they can't bear to work with someone who they're contractually obliged to.

therecklessone wrote: »

Sweet Mother of Jesus, the reaction of some people to this development alternates between the ridiculous and the downright insulting...insulting to the memory of people who have suffered genuine deprivation of their human rights, who have died for their human rights. All that is happening here is somebody is being asked to stop stamping his feet on the ground cos junior was called a bad name.

Alex Ferguson is employed by Manchester United. His employers are required to meet certain conditions of their membership of a sports body (the PL) and of their commercial dealings, and as their employee he must perform certain tasks consistent with his contract of employment.

Being told to talk to a media outlet by your employer is not a breach of your human rights, but I'll alert Amnesty International just in case...:rolleyes:

Bang on.

therecklessone

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I'm not whining, I'm just sticking up for the man. I admire his stance on this matter. Is that alright?

So where's your support of Redknapp and Allardyce? If it's all about the human rights why aren't rounding up Richard Boyd Barratt and the SWP to protest outside Television House?

Could it be because you've jumped into United-Defence-mode as soon as Ferguson's name was mentioned? Pretty pathetic tbh, all the more so because of the foundations you've based your claims on.

Mr.Nice Guy

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Actually it would be closer to a situation where, say, a chap from a company your company does business with insulted your family, and now you refused to speak to anyone who works for that company, regardless how little they had to do with the initial insult, or even if they didn't work for the company at the time.

For example, I deal with UPS on a fairly regular basis. Now, if one of those ups guys were to insult my family, i would tell him to get fuked. I would also probably never use UPS for my own personal use again. But i would be fired if i refused to deal with anyone in UPS again when working on behalf of my company. (i would like to clarify noone in UPS has ever insulted my family, dont wanna be tainting their reputation!)

Well considering the guy we are talking about here, i.e. not George Burley, it would be more akin surely to the most influential employee in your workplace telling UPS where they can go, and in such circumstances I doubt a firing would take place.

It's a bit like Sinn Fein today boycotting their seats at Westminster. It is a matter of principle for them, and regardless of anyone's thoughts on them, I think it's fair to say they have the right to refuse to take their seats there. Should they be forced by the British government to turn up each Wednesday and speak to a parliament that they don't want to engage with? I don't think so anyway.

Quint wrote:

Seriously, are you trolling here? "Basic human rights"? Poor Fergie and 'Arry will be onto amnesty international, this is worse than Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest in Burma!
If Fergie or 'Arry feel so strongly about it, they can quit. Same thing anyone would do if they can't bear to work with someone who they're contractually obliged to.

No, why should he have to quit a job he loves because a company he hates - which deals with his club - is forcing him into a corner on this particular matter? The bottom line here is there is an acceptance that people have basic human rights such as freedom of expression, and I regard forcing someone to speak with person(s) they don't wish to speak to as an infringement upon them. That is my view.

therecklessone wrote:

So where's your support of Redknapp and Allardyce? If it's all about the human rights why aren't rounding up Richard Boyd Barratt and the SWP to protest outside Television House?

Could it be because you've jumped into United-Defence-mode as soon as Ferguson's name was mentioned? Pretty pathetic tbh, all the more so because of the foundations you've based your claims on.

It's not about jumping to United's defence. I'll admit I am jumping to Sir Alex's defence because, as I've stated already, I agree with his stance towards the BBC and support him on this. I would say the same about Sinn Fein as well using the analogy I gave above, even though I have no affinity to that party. It is about the PRINCIPLE.

If Redknapp and Allardyce are acting on the principle they believe in then yes I would support them too. I am guessing their boycott isn't down to their frustration with Last of the Summer Wine still being on the air.

There's no need for the aggressive tone in your posts towards me just because I hold a viewpoint that you don't happen to share.

~Rebel~

they are paying for the right to have him speak at the end of the day. If I hear something about United rejecting a portion of this cash, then I might have some time for the boycott, but while Alex spends this money with one hand, and wags his finger with the other, I cant have the same respect for his 'stand'.

Quint

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well considering the guy we are talking about here, i.e. not George Burley, it would be more akin surely to the most influential employee in your workplace telling UPS where they can go, and in such circumstances I doubt a firing would take place.

It's a bit like Sinn Fein today boycotting their seats at Westminster. It is a matter of principle for them, and regardless of anyone's thoughts on them, I think it's fair to say they have the right to refuse to take their seats there. Should they be forced by the British government to turn up each Wednesday and speak to a parliament that they don't want to engage with? I don't think so anyway.



No, why should he have to quit a job he loves because a company he hates - which deals with his club - is forcing him into a corner on this particular matter? The bottom line here is there is an acceptance that people have basic human rights such as freedom of expression, and I regard forcing someone to speak with person(s) they don't wish to speak to as an infringement upon them. That is my view.



It's not about jumping to United's defence. I'll admit I am jumping to Sir Alex's defence because, as I've stated already, I agree with his stance towards the BBC and support him on this. I would say the same about Sinn Fein as well using the analogy I gave above, even though I have no affinity to that party. It is about the PRINCIPLE.

If Redknapp and Allardyce are acting on the principle they believe in then yes I would support them too. I am guessing their boycott isn't down to their frustration with Last of the Summer Wine still being on the air.

There's no need for the aggressive tone in your posts towards me just because I hold a viewpoint that you don't happen to share.

Is this the same freedom of expression that Jaap Stam didn't have when he wrote his book?

NaiveMelodies

therecklessone wrote: »

Well I'll tell you this, the next time you decide to comment on moderation on-thread I'll be handing out an infraction to you, so if anything you'll save yourself that.

I've done you a favour, I've reported the post and we'll see what the lads decide.

Now be a good lad, and quit your fúcking whining.

Jeez louise, your some legend!
I dont get upset when i get infracted, although i do enjoy reading some of the more sensible posters opinions.

Anyway, Ferguson wont be made talk to the beeb, simple as.

NaiveMelodies

Quint wrote: »

Is this the same freedom of expression that Jaap Stam didn't have when he wrote his book?

What was lacking in freedom of expression there?

He expressed himself freely, but also undermined his manager publicly.. the manager then used his managerial rights to sell the player.

keane2097

Quint wrote: »

Is this the same freedom of expression that Jaap Stam didn't have when he wrote his book?

Jaap's book is hardly a good example of someone not being able to express themselves - what more could he possibly have said?

thegen

only1stevo wrote: »

What was lacking in freedom of expression there?

He expressed himself freely, but also undermined his manager publicly.. the manager then used his managerial rights to sell the player.

Ferguson did exactly as you said but afterwards admitted he got it wrong in selling Stam. His ego had suffered a dent and he got rid of the problem to quick.

ArmaniJeanss

~Rebel~ wrote: »

they are paying for the right to have him speak at the end of the day. If I hear something about United rejecting a portion of this cash, then I might have some time for the boycott, but while Alex spends this money with one hand, and wags his finger with the other, I cant have the same respect for his 'stand'.

This is the nub of it for me.
Each club can a) negotiate an opt-out for this part of the contract (even if this means accepting a 5/10% reduction in your shareout of the money involved) or refuse to sign the contract at all or b) sign the contract, take the money, and obey the terms of the contract you freely signed.

kida

problem solved let Utd negotiate their own rights

kryogen

therecklessone wrote: »

Ferguson is not the only manager affected by this, so quit your fúcking whining.

not exactly the right tone for a mod is it? arent you supposed to diffuse situations rather then flame them?

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Its a matter of principle on the one hand, yet i very much doubt that Alex refuses to accept the money coming in from the BBC purchasing the rights to an entertainment package (which includes highlights footage of the games, and now reaction from the managers).

Well this won't be coming into effect until next season (2010 - '11), so to
write him off as hypocritical 9 months before it effectively takes place is a big step. The deal was only announced 3 days ago.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

they are paying for the right to have him speak at the end of the day. If I hear something about United rejecting a portion of this cash, then I might have some time for the boycott, but while Alex spends this money with one hand, and wags his finger with the other, I cant have the same respect for his 'stand'.

Do you have the same respect for Liverpool players, fans, managers who are boycotting the Sun yet happily do interviews for/pay a subscription to a TV company owned by the same scumbag?