The Sun Banned


Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol:

Spavin as wtdog.

You may not have been aiming that at me, but for the record, I wasn't backing 'a f***ing tabloid'. I was outlining the various possibilities, and stating what I feel would and wouldn't be justified by a football club against a newspaper in these.

The Sun and Daily Heil are a load of wank...banning them I think would be a good idea...well done SAFC
 
:lol:

Spavin as wtdog.

You may not have been aiming that at me, but for the record, I wasn't backing 'a f***ing tabloid'. I was outlining the various possibilities, and stating what I feel would and wouldn't be justified by a football club against a newspaper in these.

In all the possibilities you're confident that the club's actions were 'ridiculous'.

What if the club knew a Sun journo saw the teamsheet ahead of time, asked his editor not to publish it, the editor agreed and they published it anyway. That's a possibility - and certainly a more likely one than The Sun's claim that they "guessed". Given that the paper had handed an advantage to an opponent, do you think they club's actions would be ridiculous in that situation too?

Papers are seedy little cesspits ran by arseclowns. In the absence of information, I'll side with the club.[DOUBLEPOST=1396115838][/DOUBLEPOST]
Did a the Sun naming our team result in the defeat, or do we have the worst Prem League Sunderland side in ages?

Absolutely no one whatsoever is making that claim.
 
In all the possibilities you're confident that the club's actions were 'ridiculous'.

What if the club knew a Sun journo saw the teamsheet ahead of time, asked his editor not to publish it, the editor agreed and they published it anyway. That's a possibility - and certainly a more likely one than The Sun's claim that they "guessed". Given that the paper had handed an advantage to an opponent, do you think they club's actions would be ridiculous in that situation too?
All those except the circumstances I had outlined only moments before- I thought the context might be clear enough but obviously not.

Have The Sun claimed they guessed? I was under the impression that the journalist had implied they had info that they based the team on, just nothing they'd been given in confidence.

If they've broken their word then a limited sanction is fine in my eyes. If not, then it's not. I couldn't care less what media outlet it is.
 
All those except the circumstances I had outlined only moments before- I thought the context might be clear enough but obviously not.

Have The Sun claimed they guessed? I was under the impression that the journalist had implied they had info that they based the team on, just nothing they'd been given in confidence.

If they've broken their word then a limited sanction is fine in my eyes. If not, then it's not. I couldn't care less what media outlet it is.

They claimed in print that it was guesswork, but the (now deleted) Tweet used language along the lines of "I'm hearing...".

Sounds very much to me like they've been caught out. Fuck em. I see nothing to suggest that the club has done anything other than kicked a tabloid up its arse for being a shitehawk, and yet this is a thread full of people gleefully sticking the boot in to SAFC.
 
Yet another example of this board being absolutely all over any tiny reason to have a pop at the club.[DOUBLEPOST=1396105980][/DOUBLEPOST]

How many Sun journos report on our club, exactly?

And why, when we don't know the full story, are Sunderland supporters immediately backing a f***ing tabloid over the club?

It's not a case of taking sides man. Just because I support the club doesn't mean I have to think everything we do is right. If Poyet really wants nobody to know the team, we should work harder to keep it quiet. Banning reporters is bad craic, and screams of us acting petulantly.

Aside from the questionable moral stance (banning reporters is poor in all but the most severe cases) it's also a bit of a PR blunder. I don't read the Sun myself however it's comfortably the most popular paper in the UK. To alienate it over something so petty is daft.
 
They claimed in print that it was guesswork, but the (now deleted) Tweet used language along the lines of "I'm hearing...".

What? In the piece on the back page today? Doesn't mention guesswork or anything like that.

Since the club hasn't given any reasons for this it's hard to know what to think. If the journo has broken a confidence (which he denies) then they should say so. Without this information no-one including yourself can 'gleefully' take any stance, reasonably.
 
If a paper wants news all they have to do is call someone in the club. Banning them is a bit useless since the invention of the telephone.
The majority of his controversial, fascism leaning actions were after leaving England as a player. He was genuinely fine at Swindon, but as we're a PL club we were always going to be under a lot more scrutiny (that's the deal, you want to be in with the big boys you have to take the spotlight on you). Add to that Miliband stepping down and the Durham miners thing, but aye The Sun shouldn't have mentioned it at all. It wasn't newsworthy :roll: and it wasn't just the Sun it was all media.

Seriously man, people need to get their heads out their arses and realise that the media couldn't give a fuck about us one way or another. They will report on us and give opinions which aren't swayed by bias or agenda. Get over yourselves.

Let's not re-open old wounds but let me assure you PDC was a fascist all his life and he had tattoos about it even when playing for west ham.
I simply think that when he took over at Sunderland the tabloid saw an opportunity to spike up sales and you know, between money and decency, fk decency. The Sun giving him an in-depth interview a while ago was their way to make up for it.
As they have destroyed him in the name of a sales spike, they'll have him back around soon for the same reasons: he's entertaining and entertainment sell.
 
It's not a case of taking sides man. Just because I support the club doesn't mean I have to think everything we do is right. If Poyet really wants nobody to know the team, we should work harder to keep it quiet. Banning reporters is bad craic, and screams of us acting petulantly.

Aside from the questionable moral stance (banning reporters is poor in all but the most severe cases) it's also a bit of a PR blunder. I don't read the Sun myself however it's comfortably the most popular paper in the UK. To alienate it over something so petty is daft.

It is a case of taking sides - siding against the club, at every available opportunity. This forum is anti-Sunderland at the best of times, but since the Hull game it has gone absolutely apeshit. It's as if the positivity of the final has sent people into a boiling rage that they can't shake.[DOUBLEPOST=1396126518][/DOUBLEPOST]
What? In the piece on the back page today? Doesn't mention guesswork or anything like that.

Since the club hasn't given any reasons for this it's hard to know what to think. If the journo has broken a confidence (which he denies) then they should say so. Without this information no-one including yourself can 'gleefully' take any stance, reasonably.

It does. It claims the ban is because they "correctly predicted" the team. When the team was Tweeted, it was presented as 'I'm hearing' - or words to that effect, it's deleted.

So the paper now claims that they predicted / guessed. It seems that the club thinks otherwise, as did the journalist.

The club isn't the best PR machine, but I think they're right to keep their council on this. Starve The Sun of the oxygen of publicity it's trying to stoke.[DOUBLEPOST=1396126627][/DOUBLEPOST]
If a paper wants news all they have to do is call someone in the club. Banning them is a bit useless since the invention of the telephone.


Let's not re-open old wounds but let me assure you PDC was a fascist all his life and he had tattoos about it even when playing for west ham.
I simply think that when he took over at Sunderland the tabloid saw an opportunity to spike up sales and you know, between money and decency, fk decency. The Sun giving him an in-depth interview a while ago was their way to make up for it.
As they have destroyed him in the name of a sales spike, they'll have him back around soon for the same reasons: he's entertaining and entertainment sell.

The papers use the club and vice versa. It's a relationship that is at best mutually beneficial, at worst parasitical.

The club has now decided that this specific relationship no longer benefits them. Why so many are so keen to side with the paper is beyond me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It does. It claims the ban is because they "correctly predicted" the team. When the team was Tweeted, it was presented as 'I'm hearing' - or words to that effect, it's deleted.

So the paper now claims that they predicted / guessed. It seems that the club thinks otherwise, as did the journalist.

The club isn't the best PR machine, but I think they're right to keep their council on this. Starve The Sun of the oxygen of publicity it's trying to stoke.
Predicted does not mean guessed based on no information, as you know.

I don't think they should keep their counsel at all. I think if they've got a good explanation, I would like to hear it so I can support them. The journalist has been giving his side all day on twitter, and there's currently no information to refute it. There's a prosecution case and no defence, if you like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top