Daniel Taylor buries Dalglish, NYTimes demands owners action

I answer only to Klan leader Kenny.

Daniel Taylor..

Ed wrote:no but racism is a more serious matter than adultery imo.

For me it would depend on the severity of the racism. In this case..no way.

Dr. Ján Ĩtor wrote:theyd already split up

Mmmm maybe it started whilst they were still together? I don't remember. The main gripe was that they were doing it whilst Bridge's child was in the house wasn't it?

There's no point in trying to condemn him for that article. It's harsh, but contains the truth and I admire him for being brave enough to speak up on the issue.

Dan wrote:Daniel Taylor..

If got the chance, he would suck Ferguson cock.

But Ferguson has banned him from his press conferences.

Jordo wrote:

Dan wrote:Daniel Taylor..

If got the chance, he would suck Ferguson cock.

But Ferguson has banned him from his press conferences.

Has he?

Dalglish is too much of an icon for Liverpool for the owners to go public without his knowledge and consent. NY Times are dreaming if they think the owners are stupid enough to go to the press condemning the actions of their manager. If anything is being done it is being done behind the scenes, and will continue to be done behind the scenes.

Pissing off Liverpool supporters has proven costly for many people, and their owners just happen to be financial geniuses who have no intention of getting on their bad side unless they feel it is absolutely necessary.

Lux wrote:I don't remember all of this happening when Bridge didn't shake Terry's hand.

Difference? People knew Terry was guilty then so they accepted it.

Now they assume Suarez is guilty and go way over the top. Not saying what he did was the right thing to do...but I wouldn't want to shake the hand of someone who got me banned for 8 games, especially if you're innocent. All just guesswork though...

Actually it would be more like if Bridge stuck out his hand and Terry refused to shake it.

Dan wrote:

Jordo wrote:

If got the chance, he would suck Ferguson cock.

But Ferguson has banned him from his press conferences.

Has he?

Daniel Taylor, recently promoted to be The Guardian's chief football writer, has been covering the Manchester clubs since 2000. F365 spoke to him about what it's like trying to report on Sir Alex Ferguson, and other issues up north...

Despite the promotion, are you still banned from Alex Ferguson's press conferences?
Oh yeah - I've been banned since 2007. I wrote a book about him, which was a two-year diary of the 2005/6 and 2006/7 seasons, and it's about covering them, press conferences, all the little anecdotes that you get and all the stuff you don't see in the papers - chasing him around the world basically, trying to give a perspective about what it's like to be in the United press camp.

I wrote to him about six months before it came out - or rather, I wrote to the United press office for his attention, and I got a letter back from them saying 'Good luck with it, lots of stuff to go on etc', but it turned out they hadn't actually showed it to Fergie. So when the first book reviews came out, which obviously picked out a few of the anecdotes where he lost his temper, he saw it as some sort of huge deception on my part, even though I'd written to him. It's not ideal, but once he's made his mind up it's difficult to get him to change it.

The weird bit is that the book - which he's never read- is called 'This Is The One; The Uncut Story Of A Football Genius', so getting banned for calling him a football genius is odd. I would say this I suppose, but there's never been anyone who's said it's a hatchet job.

He got a press officer to read it on his behalf, who gave it this professional, over-the-top report with sub-headings and everything, and the recommendation of this report was that there's nothing wrong with it, and it's completely fair, and he basically said 'I'll ban him anyway'.


Is being banned from his press conferences a massive problem for your work?
Well, at the moment I'm banned, The Daily Mail reporters are banned, the Associated Press are banned, The Daily Mirror are banned, The Independent are banned, The Daily Star are banned, so there's only four papers that are allowed in there - The Sun, The Express, The Times and The Telegraph, so he's manoeuvred it so a lot of the people who ask questions he doesn't like are moved out. The AP were banned for asking a football question about Ryan Giggs.

It's not ideal, because you can't ask your own questions, but it's just the way he works. I suppose we're used to it, but it's not the end of the world because his press conferences are deliberately bland. A lot of us think he deliberately goes off and talks about a subject that he knows is relatively harmless and irrelevant for the newspapers because it takes up a lot of the time for his press conferences.

It's a shame, because obviously you want to work closely with the managers you cover, but it doesn't have a great impact.


In a way, does it give you a bit more freedom, because you don't really have to worry about p*ssing him off?
A bit, but while this might sound a bit corny, I always tried to do it fairly anyway. When I was in his press conferences I always tried to criticise him when I thought he needed criticising and praise him when he needed praising, and it's the same afterwards.

The only thing that's a bit difficult is that if you criticise him after you've been banned, you will always have 'You're only saying that because you're banned' thrown at you. Fergie's done that himself, because The Guardian did a story about Bebe and how a lot of the training ground staff were taken aback at how 'raw' he was. So basically Fergie went into his press conference and said it was vicious reporting from two people who have an agenda because they're banned.

As I said, it's not a massive problem - he doesn't do press conferences, and most of the press get post-match quotes by holding tapes up to MUTV in the press room - that's how bad it is.


In public, when it comes to the Glazers Fergie has a very 'company line' approach of never criticising them, but is there any suggestion that he does get frustrated with them behind the scenes?
Not from him, but would he ever admit it if there was? However, he broke the transfer record three times in seven years in the past, but now I think there's a stat which shows United's net spend is less than Stoke, Sunderland and Aston Villa since the Glazers took over.

He's criticised owners in the past for not giving him money to spend, and he's criticised Martin Edwards, but he won't have a bad word said about the Glazers, because obviously they pay him very well, but also it was him and his row with JP McManus and John Magnier about the horses that set off the chain of events for the Glazers to take over. Maybe one day he'll talk about it if he does another book, but maybe he won't because it will reflect badly on him.

Let's be honest though. Fergie bans everyone.

Fergie's such a cunt.

Laurencio wrote:Actually it would be more like if Bridge stuck out his hand and Terry refused to shake it.

Depends on if Suarez is actually guilty or not.

Lux wrote:

Laurencio wrote:Actually it would be more like if Bridge stuck out his hand and Terry refused to shake it.

Depends on if Suarez is actually guilty or not.

Not if Suarez has half a brain and realises that the media has already made its mind up. It doesn't matter if Suarez is guilty or not, he has to act based on the framework that is in place. That framework, that the rest of the world are abiding by, is that Suarez was found guilty by an independent commission and Liverpool did not appeal, which they could have according to rule K of the FA rules if they truly had evidence of the verdict being flat out wrong or without procedural logic and fairness.

Based on that, which is all that ever matters in PR, how the story is told. He is the guilty party. Doesn't matter if he didn't mean to racially abuse, doesn't matter if he said what he said without any racial intent, doesn't matter if a minority believes him to be innocent. Everyone could see how him not shaking Evra's hand would be perceived, everyone.

Laurencio wrote:Not if Suarez has half a brain and realises that the media has already made its mind up. It doesn't matter if Suarez is guilty or not, he has to act based on the framework that is in place. That framework, that the rest of the world are abiding by, is that Suarez was found guilty by an independent commission and Liverpool did not appeal, which they could have according to rule K of the FA rules if they truly had evidence of the verdict being flat out wrong or without procedural logic and fairness.

Based on that, which is all that ever matters in PR, how the story is told. He is the guilty party. Doesn't matter if he didn't mean to racially abuse, doesn't matter if he said what he said without any racial intent, doesn't matter if a minority believes him to be innocent. Everyone could see how him not shaking Evra's hand would be perceived, everyone.

Maybe. Not appealing and continuing to act innocent is a tricky path. I don't blame Liverpool....appealing would have gotten them even more bad press, and it would have been rejected simply because the decision is not based on evidence....so there is no real way to change the minds of anyone who's minds are made up. When it turns into "prove your innocent" when there's no evidence at all it's a losing fight. Does that really mean that they have to give in? Not really....and yeah they'll be slated for it but they don't "have" to conform to the media, or that "framework" or whatever other stuff you want to say they "have" to actually care about.

Lux wrote:

Laurencio wrote:Not if Suarez has half a brain and realises that the media has already made its mind up. It doesn't matter if Suarez is guilty or not, he has to act based on the framework that is in place. That framework, that the rest of the world are abiding by, is that Suarez was found guilty by an independent commission and Liverpool did not appeal, which they could have according to rule K of the FA rules if they truly had evidence of the verdict being flat out wrong or without procedural logic and fairness.

Based on that, which is all that ever matters in PR, how the story is told. He is the guilty party. Doesn't matter if he didn't mean to racially abuse, doesn't matter if he said what he said without any racial intent, doesn't matter if a minority believes him to be innocent. Everyone could see how him not shaking Evra's hand would be perceived, everyone.

Maybe. Not appealing and continuing to act innocent is a tricky path. I don't blame Liverpool....appealing would have gotten them even more bad press, and it would have been rejected simply because the decision is not based on evidence....so there is no real way to change the minds of anyone who's minds are made up. When it turns into "prove your innocent" when there's no evidence at all it's a losing fight. Does that really mean that they have to give in? Not really....and yeah they'll be slated for it but they don't "have" to conform to the media, or that "framework" or whatever other stuff you want to say they "have" to actually care about.

What are you talking about. If they could show that the decision was made without a shred of evidence, which you claim it was, it would be instantly rescinded as according to rule K. There's no "minds to change" or "prove he is innocent". You simply have to prove that the decision was procedurally unfair, biased, wrong, or without sufficient backing.

Of course they have to base their actions and decisions on what the rest of the world think. They don't live in a bubble. They have sponsors, investors, merchandise connections and a reputation to think about, and those things are heavily affected by what the public perceives.