[Archived] Guardian article on Kean - unbelievable!

[Mc Love]

There is a lovely pic of Shebby and Kean accompanying the article. Times is subscription based, so cant read it.

[Stuart]

Olivers Kay and Holt getting mixed up?

Just checked and you may be right, I'll have to check further - which one is Emily Bishop's son?

Oh and I might need to buy a new voodoo doll!

[thenodrog]

Just checked and you may be right, I'll have to check further - which one is Emily Bishop's son?

Holt.

Heavily agenda'd smarmy little sh1t.

[jim mk2]

Excellent article by Oliver Kay in The Times today. Criticises The Observer blog and sympathises with fans.

It wasn't a blog; it was a newspaper article.

Good piece by Kay. For those who want to read it take out a Times subscription. Quality costs money.

[yoda]

It wasn't a blog; it was a newspaper article.

Good piece by Kay. For those who want to read it take out a Times subscription. Quality costs money.

Actually, real quality is cheaper

[Rovermatt]

Anybody want to have a stab at transcribing it (acknowledging Mr Kay of course)?

[thenodrog]

You'd be much better advised to subscribe and bin the weary Gruniad by far.

[Harrier7]

Spot on, Theno!

[Stuart]

Good piece by Kay. For those who want to read it take out a Times subscription. Quality costs money.

You'll be pleased to know I buy my copy of the Times old school format - just not so early in the morning - but if you asked me to paraphrase an article I'd read it it, I wouldn't say "nob off go buy your own".

Oh and there was me thinking the Times was a Tory paper...

[Harrier7]

You'll be pleased to know I buy my copy of the Times old school format - just not so early in the morning - but if you asked me to paraphrase an article I'd read it it, I wouldn't say "nob off go buy your own".

Oh and there was me thinking the Times was a Tory paper...

No, you are thinking of the Sunday Times.

[Paul Mellelieu]

It's a Murdoch paper, so I won't be giving it a penny.

[Rovermatt]

You'd be much better advised to subscribe and bin the weary Gruniad by far.

As someone who subscribes to Sky already, I have no intention of further swelling Murdoch's coffers.

I've seen the piece now and it's really quite good with respect to Venky's. Kean's involvement in the chaos is somewhat diluted however. One particularly puzzling quote shows that the writer fails to appreciate how Kean's been out of his depth from the very beginning:

'anger cannot focus on something so relatively trivial as his tactics or his motivational powers, neither of which were particularly lacking until the final weeks of last season'.

[thenodrog]

As someone who subscribes to Sky already, I have no intention of further swelling Murdoch's coffers.

Cherry picking I see. Obviously you are not all that concerned about Mr Murdoch.

[Rovermatt]

Cherry picking I see. Obviously you are not all that concerned about Mr Murdoch.

Concerned enough not to give him more of my money. Sky broadcasts (exclusively in many cases) a wide range of sport and other programming. If I want to avail of that I will. If I want to keep it at that I'll do that also.

[Baz]

Anybody want to have a stab at transcribing it (acknowledging Mr Kay of course)?

If you follow mr wild on twitter, you may be able to view it for free.

Oliver Kay describes Kean as a sideshow and Venkys as the key problem and their ownership as a fiasco.

[Stuart]

As someone who subscribes to Sky already, I have no intention of further swelling Murdoch's coffers.

I've seen the piece now and it's really quite good with respect to Venky's. Kean's involvement in the chaos is somewhat diluted however. One particularly puzzling quote shows that the writer fails to appreciate how Kean's been out of his depth from the very beginning:

'anger cannot focus on something so relatively trivial as his tactics or his motivational powers, neither of which were particularly lacking until the final weeks of last season'.

I agree. I read it yesterday and it started off really well in th first half but somehow drifted into cliché territory in the second.

Iirc it even said something on the lines of "if Kean is simply a Venky stooge then he deserves some sympathy" which I found bewildering. If he is a stooge then he's really only here for the money and notoriety.

Sympathy? Don't make me wretch.

[perthblue02]

Worth remembering that when the attention is trying to be diverted from the man of "dignity" it is also being diverted from other people further up in the food chain. It must get really expensive sending lawyer letters out

[PAFELL]

If you follow mr wild on twitter, you may be able to view it for free.

Oliver Kay describes Kean as a sideshow and Venkys as the key problem and their ownership as a fiasco.

Unless he has blocked you.

[thenodrog]

Oliver Kay describes Kean as a sideshow and Venkys as the key problem and their ownership as a fiasco.

Correct. If you ever want to complain then go to the person whose name is over the door. Kean is a tumour, Venkys are the cancer.

[Rovermatt]

Correct. If you ever want to complain then go to the person whose name is over the door. Kean is a tumour, Venkys are the cancer.

This is true in theory. However, in my humble opinion, I think it's more complex for two reasons:

(1) I don't believe Venky's own the club and therefore they aren't anything other than an embarrassing distraction.

(2) I believe Kean has far more to do with club than simply being the manager. He is then, to use your imagery, a cancerous tumour, one that must be removed forthwith.

[Steve Moss]

(2) I believe Kean . . . is then . . . a cancerous tumour, one that must be removed forthwith.

This we agree on.

[Jock]

Oliver Kay did hint at 3rd party ownership in his article and he also mentioned a certain Agency linked to Rovers.

[philipl]

Oliver Kay did hint at 3rd party ownership in his article and he also mentioned a certain Agency linked to Rovers.

Yes I noticed that.

[philipl]

Dear Mr Lingard

Further to our previous correspondence, the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Editors’ Code of Practice.

The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raised. However, their decision is that there has been no breach of the Code in this case. A full explanation of the Commission’s decision is below.

Although the Commissioners have come to this view, they have asked me to send a copy of your correspondence to the editor to draw your concerns to the publication’s attention.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself - you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or on the PCC website at the following link:

http://www.pcc.org.u...dentreview.html

Thank you for taking this matter up with us.

Yours sincerely,

Commission’s decision in the case of

Lingard v The Guardian

The complainant considered that the newspaper had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. He was concerned that it had inaccurately stated that the current Blackburn Rovers owners - Venkys - had “put Rovers on a stable financial footing”. He stated that the club had been financially stable when it was not owned by Venkys, but had since lost £18million. He was also concerned that the newspaper had made a judgemental attack on Blackburn Rovers fans when it stated “without them [Venkys,] Rovers’ fans might have been looking at another Portsmouth or Rangers. Such is gratitude”. He considered that the author had printed his own opinions regarding the performance of the club’s “global advisor” without having used quotation marks. He was also concerned that the newspaper had not mentioned a meeting between local MPs, fans, a government minister and sports officials regarding the club. The complainant was also concerned that the article was an “unsubstantiated slur” on the Blackburn executive team, its former owners, the business community of Blackburn and the town’s political representatives.

The Commission addressed the complainant’s concern that the newspaper had not referred to a meeting between local MPs, fans of the club, a government minister and sports officials. However, the Commission made clear that the selection of material for publication was a matter for the discretion of individual editors, provided that such editorial decisions did not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code. It was for the Commission to decide whether readers would be misled by the article.

The Commission considered the complainant’s concerns under the terms of Clause 1. Under Clause 1, “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information” and are free to print individual comment, so long as it is clearly distinguished from fact. The Commission acknowledged that the complainant objected to the suggestion that Venkys had put Blackburn Rovers on a stable financial footing and to the implication that fans should be grateful to the Venkys group. It also understood that the complainant was concerned that the columnist had printed his own opinions regarding the club, its “global advisor”, and its fans without having put them in quotation marks. While the Commission understood the complainant’s concern, it had to consider that the disputed comments were made in the context of an online comment piece that was written in the first person. As such, it was satisfied that readers would be aware that the comments reflected the columnist’s own opinion of Venkys involvement with Blackburn Rovers and would not be significantly misled. It did not establish a breach of the Code.

Reference no. 123612

What a surprise I lost!

However, the reasoning of the Press Complaints Commission is Kean-esque to say the least.

[Mercer]

What a surprise I lost!

However, the reasoning of the Press Complaints Commission is Kean-esque to say the least.

At least you gave it a go !