ozleicester Posted 24 March 2015 Share Posted 24 March 2015 Interesting quote on the phone in tonight "For the record, the platform is Nigel Pearson's on BBC Radio Leicester, if he wants to come and join us and wants to talk to us, absolutely no problem with that whatsoever. I would happily have him in the studio as we have had in numerous different seasons, to come and celebrate success or reflect on a difficult season." Pearson and the players are willing to speak to RL, just not to Ian, and RL know that, so why don't RL publicise the fact that it's their choice not to get someone else to interview them? Bizarre. Im surprised you take this attitude to it. Stringer said and did some things that Pearson didnt like (and if reports are correct, he has every right to be unhappy about them). But, as you are someone in the media, doesnt it bother you that a club manager (or anyone in a publicly relevant position) is allowed to dictate who he speaks to? I would have thought goes against your journalistic basics? i realise that LCFC is not a a public company or a government dept so they can decide these things and there is nothing anyone can do...., but surely you would feel uncomfortable about the concept? When people will only talk to certain people or sections of the media, or decide who can or cant attend press conferences, it suggests to me that they have something to hide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 24 March 2015 Share Posted 24 March 2015 Im surprised you take this attitude to it. Not sure what you mean. It just seems strange to me that RL mention that NP doesn't speak to them when they've taken the decision not to speak to him. Curious as to why they haven't been more transparent. Stringer said and did some things that Pearson didnt like (and if reports are correct, he has every right to be unhappy about them). But, as you are someone in the media, doesnt it bother you that a club manager (or anyone in a publicly relevant position) is allowed to dictate who he speaks to? I would have thought goes against your journalistic basics? i realise that LCFC is not a a public company or a government dept so they can decide these things and there is nothing anyone can do...., but surely you would feel uncomfortable about the concept? When people will only talk to certain people or sections of the media, or decide who can or cant attend press conferences, it suggests to me that they have something to hide? Does it bother me that a club dictates who they speak to? In principle, yes. But it's not like they've banned an entire organisation. Put it this way, I couldn't have many complaints if I'd acted over a long period of time in the way the club would say Ian has. Do I think NP has anything to hide? No. If he did, he wouldn't offer to talk to anyone from that organisation. The club has provided more access to RL (and the Mercury) this season than they're actually required to under Premier League guidelines. As a journalist, you should try and build a healthy working relationship with a football club. That doesn't mean you constantly suck up to them but you should act responsibly. If you do have that working relationship, when difficult questions need asking, then you have some goodwill in the bank and can ask fairly and without agenda and the club understands that. Some things sit uncomfortably with me; for example, if RL say "we won't be dictated to as to who ask the questions, our lead commentator is the one who asks the questions" (which is their right of course) then why did they send a member of management to the press conference the day after the sacking/non-sacking? I know there have been high level conversations between RL and LCFC to try and resolve it but both parties have dug their heels in. It saddens me greatly because I have a lot of love for both and I wish it was resolved and everything was rosy. What tends to get overlooked in the whole IS/NP thing is that it was the players who made the first decision to boycott one person in the media. They would say this is because of the way he has dealt with them over a period of time and his attitude towards their boss. What disappoints me as well is that RL management allowed the situation to get to where it was before the ban kicked in. I can't believe they didn't foresee what was clearly brewing. There are no winners in this and that's sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozleicester Posted 24 March 2015 Share Posted 24 March 2015 Not sure what you mean. It just seems strange to me that RL mention that NP doesn't speak to them when they've taken the decision not to speak to him. Curious as to why they haven't been more transparent. Does it bother me that a club dictates who they speak to? In principle, yes. But it's not like they've banned an entire organisation. Put it this way, I couldn't have many complaints if I'd acted over a long period of time in the way the club would say Ian has. Do I think NP has anything to hide? No. If he did, he wouldn't offer to talk to anyone from that organisation. The club has provided more access to RL (and the Mercury) this season than they're actually required to under Premier League guidelines. As a journalist, you should try and build a healthy working relationship with a football club. That doesn't mean you constantly suck up to them but you should act responsibly. If you do have that working relationship, when difficult questions need asking, then you have some goodwill in the bank and can ask fairly and without agenda and the club understands that. Some things sit uncomfortably with me; for example, if RL say "we won't be dictated to as to who ask the questions, our lead commentator is the one who asks the questions" (which is their right of course) then why did they send a member of management to the press conference the day after the sacking/non-sacking? I know there have been high level conversations between RL and LCFC to try and resolve it but both parties have dug their heels in. It saddens me greatly because I have a lot of love for both and I wish it was resolved and everything was rosy. What tends to get overlooked in the whole IS/NP thing is that it was the players who made the first decision to boycott one person in the media. They would say this is because of the way he has dealt with them over a period of time and his attitude towards their boss. What disappoints me as well is that RL management allowed the situation to get to where it was before the ban kicked in. I can't believe they didn't foresee what was clearly brewing. There are no winners in this and that's sad. Cheers... To be honest, i think that Stringer has been pretty clear about it, when ive heard it discussed on the forum, he was upfront and honest that it was him that Pearson had a problem with (even if he wasnt clear about why) "in principle" is the thing here for me. The BBC cannot allow themselves to be dictated to, it is the thin edge of one very large wedge imo. I dont think anyone has suggested that Pearson has anything to hide (at least not that ive taken seriously) this is just about providing the supporters of LCFC with information about the club they support. Agreed, incredible that the BBC management (and those at the club as well tbh) didnt see it coming and take steps to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattGamble92 Posted 24 March 2015 Share Posted 24 March 2015 Geoff -how come you've had to tell Stringer you dont have a problem with him? And who are we likely to hear on the football forum again sooner, you or Nigel On a serious note, as much as i have been extremely critical of Stringer on this thread for his unprofessionalism, arrogance and the way in which hes used his personal agenda, i cant fault the way he dealt with the man at the end of todays programme. No matter what you think of Matt Elliott's commentary/punditry this season (i for the record also think hes been too on the fence), to ring up and tell him to resign and ask for Youngy back screamed of one of those Alan Young disciples who (quite freakishly) tweet him every single week asking when hes back on Radio Leicester, while constantly insulting Elliott. I dont care how on the fence Matt is, hes more of a legend to this club than Young will ever be and he isnt just a fan of the club because he wants a job/facebook fanbase. Bang out of order caller and they dealt with him well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noggin Posted 28 March 2015 Share Posted 28 March 2015 Stringer may have said a couple of times that it's him the players and manager have a problem with rather than RL, but he should be more open as to why. We all seem to have heard what he did, he should discuss it on air and either confirm or deny his actions, and then it's out in the open. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 You'd think the average radio presenters tenure is much more than that of a Premier League managers, but even if we get through another 3 managers I'll still want him gone, pure poision. And I wonder what he thinks when he reads this thread, no way a man with his ego doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattGamble92 Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 You'd think the average radio presenters tenure is much more than that of a Premier League managers, but even if we get through another 3 managers I'll still want him gone, pure poision. And I wonder what he thinks when he reads this thread, no way a man with his ego doesn't. Agreed. He probably thinks we are all wrong and he is above us all because he got to the 2nd week of apprentice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shade Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-550069/Apprentice-contestants-dumped-wife-says-paying-15-minutes-fame.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4DD0gg Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Um that article is 7 years old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 I do think it's a bit unfair to judge a football commentator on his marital arrangements. Who are any of us to judge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shade Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 I do think it's a bit unfair to judge a football commentator on his marital arrangements. Who are any of us to judge? who decides what we can judge people on though, is it arbitrarily decided? we can judge nigel on being arrogant for A but we can't judge stringer on being insidious for B. I guess we either judge on everything using all available evidence, or judge on nothing. I'm not judge judy and executioner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artursteppe Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 A lot of people seem to think it is ok for Pearson to be arrogant, but not Stringer. Bizarre! I like Stringer, I bet he'd like to punch Pearson - I'd like to help him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 A lot of people seem to think it is ok for Pearson to be arrogant, but not Stringer. Bizarre! I like Stringer, I bet he'd like to punch Pearson - I'd like to help him! Still waiting for someone to actually give justification for calling Pearson arrogant, given arrogance is the quality of overconfidence in your own abilities, and nothing he's really done has given that impression... Or is this just one of your buzzwords to justify your irrational hatred of him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jet64 Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Aside from the NP debacle the football commentary itself is terrible. Endless talking over the action and then there's the (long-winded) interjections from Matt during play instead of at free-kicks or throw-ins etc. Meanwhile the crowd "ooh" and "ahh" in the background whilst I am left second-guessing what's happening. How anyone listens is beyond me. It's like torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Aside from the NP debacle the football commentary itself is terrible. Endless talking over the action and then there's the (long-winded) interjections from Matt during play instead of at free-kicks or throw-ins etc. Meanwhile the crowd "ooh" and "ahh" in the background whilst I am left second-guessing what's happening. How anyone listens is beyond me. It's like torture. You mean you don't like his anecdotes about who made and what's in the sandwiches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pleatout Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Last season, I listened whilst watching the game, for the scores from the other games. he does have a small problem over confusing players. The best example last season when he confused De Laet with er Schlupp!! The man is some sort of *rse. Not claiming to be ITK but I understand the senior management of the club and RL have been in discussion about the behaviour of RL staff for well over 12 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 who decides what we can judge people on though, is it arbitrarily decided? we can judge nigel on being arrogant for A but we can't judge stringer on being insidious for B. I guess we either judge on everything using all available evidence, or judge on nothing. I'm not judge judy and executioner! Stringer's marital arrangements have nothing to do with how he does his job, therefore it's irrelevant and unnecessarily personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 To be honest, I think Stringer is a reasonable commentator and a very poor interviewer. But I'm not sure anything has happened which, if Pearson were a little more quick-witted, he couldn't have used to his advantage. For instance, why not challenge Stringer a little more articulately? Why not say 'look, you could have quizzed me on the reasons for my substitutions, or my changes to the team selection, or asked for a football manager's expert analysis of a situation, why then do you persist in asking a question which you already know the answer to, over and over?' Or, even, 'do you prepare your questions in advance or do you run out of things to say and then come back to the same question again and again?' To simply sulk and refuse to speak to somebody implies that you don't feel you can get the better of him, and I think Stringer would be a very easy opponent to get the better of. But I don't see that any fundamental rules of professionalism have been contravened by Stringer, other than - in an interviewing capacity - not being especially good at his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadt Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Wouldn't it be a bit ermm...arrogant if Pearson tried to humiliate Stringer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facecloth Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 I think Stringer comes across as very immature. I'm all for people enjoying their jobs, but he just comes across like he's messing about all time. I also think he's got it in his head that he's some kind of tabloid journalist, chasing the next big scoop. What he should remember is that first and foremost he's a commentator who for two hours every weekend is meant to inform Leicester fans who can't make it what's occurring on the pitch, not what he's got in his sandwiches or who's turn it is to get the next cuppa. Secondly he's an interviewer and broadcaster on a local radio station, not as I said before a tabloid journalist chasing his next big scoop. He needs (or needed, it's probably a bit late now) to get on with that job, treat the people he's interviews with respect and stop looking for a story that's not there, and then when the story he wants starts to break, he'll be one of the first to know, because people would trust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Why would Nigel Pearson want to bother 'getting the better' of some local radio 'star'? He's a football manager, I'm glad he decided to step away from the situation and save everyone a lot of pointless rabble (apart from on this thread with all the 'BUT DE FNS DEZERVE 2 HEAR DE MNGERS OPNYUNS'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Wouldn't it be a bit ermm...arrogant if Pearson tried to humiliate Stringer? Is it arrogant to humiliate someone? I'm not sure. Especially if what you say is right! It might be confrontational, but I don't think it's arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 Why would Nigel Pearson want to bother 'getting the better' of some local radio 'star'? He's a football manager, I'm glad he decided to step away from the situation and save everyone a lot of pointless rabble (apart from on this thread with all the 'BUT DE FNS DEZERVE 2 HEAR DE MNGERS OPNYUNS'). I think everybody who invests in something, however much or little, has the right to learn a little about whatever it is they're investing in. In truth, we get that from the Mercury, from the national media, from the club itself. It's not a case of what fans deserve, it's the fact that the norm in football, and at Leicester, is for a little extra information to be shared via local radio and, right now, it isn't. If you're interested in what Pearson has to say, which I am, and value his opinion, which I do, then presumably you'd like to hear more of it. That's all. I'm not screaming about rights, or what we deserve. And if you tend to take Pearson's side over Stringer's, and wish to hear more from a manager you respect, why wouldn't you want Pearson to articulately put Stringer in his place and, in the process, get the benefit of hearing his expert analysis week-in week-out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 I think Stringer comes across as very immature. I'm all for people enjoying their jobs, but he just comes across like he's messing about all time. I also think he's got it in his head that he's some kind of tabloid journalist, chasing the next big scoop. What he should remember is that first and foremost he's a commentator who for two hours every weekend is meant to inform Leicester fans who can't make it what's occurring on the pitch, not what he's got in his sandwiches or who's turn it is to get the next cuppa. Secondly he's an interviewer and broadcaster on a local radio station, not as I said before a tabloid journalist chasing his next big scoop. He needs (or needed, it's probably a bit late now) to get on with that job, treat the people he's interviews with respect and stop looking for a story that's not there, and then when the story he wants starts to break, he'll be one of the first to know, because people would trust him. Some good points in that for any broadcaster at any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 29 March 2015 Share Posted 29 March 2015 I think everybody who invests in something, however much or little, has the right to learn a little about whatever it is they're investing in. In truth, we get that from the Mercury, from the national media, from the club itself. It's not a case of what fans deserve, it's the fact that the norm in football, and at Leicester, is for a little extra information to be shared via local radio and, right now, it isn't. If you're interested in what Pearson has to say, which I am, and value his opinion, which I do, then presumably you'd like to hear more of it. That's all. I'm not screaming about rights, or what we deserve. And if you tend to take Pearson's side over Stringer's, and wish to hear more from a manager you respect, why wouldn't you want Pearson to articulately put Stringer in his place and, in the process, get the benefit of hearing his expert analysis week-in week-out? I think most fans would like to hear the manager and players interviewed on RL every week. RL have the option to do the interviews - Jason could do it, he's there at every game - but it's their choice (and of course their right) not to do it. That said, they can't really complain that they don't have their own LCFC interviews if they choose not to do them. My guess is that they dug their heels in in December, expecting Pearson to soon be sacked, and taking that stance has boxed them into a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.