Defoe's Wages

[Perth_Campsie_Ger 18,032]

26 minutes ago, Dan Deacon said:

So unless someone complains you can write what you want?

@Perth_Campsie_Ger sucked off @Goggsy

You are the one sending guys videos of your feet.

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

So that's 65k, 90k, 100k and 135k p/w that he's on so far. 😂

Love the way we got about our business now no leaks and the bastards are spewing wondering how our finances are 😂

[beararse 6,408]

38 minutes ago, The Dude said:

He would have to have a source for it to be published at all.

Stuff is regurgitated because there's an assumption that everyone meets the same bar for publishing a story and does so within the IPSO guidelines. There's good reason why there's often no indication of who the source is. Journos have an obligation to protect the identity of any sources they have. Legally, they can't be compelled to identify a source. If you simply name your sources then there's no future info off them. It doesn't need to be scandalous or libellous to require a source. The very first clause of the editors code is about the accuracy of a story. There was one upheld just last week involving a flute band becuase their picture was used beside a story and they felt the implication was that it meant they were directly involved. Neither libellous not scandalous but still an upheld complaint by IPSO. I can safely say that NOBODY wants to have an IPSO ruling against there name because it fucks you over if/when you look to move to another outlet.

Any retraction/clarification/apology should generally be published with the same prominence as the original story.

This is there/isn’t there, was there/wasn’t there a source discussion could go on forever.

Truth is there are no guarantees the source is correct, whether it’s deliberately misleading or simply by misinterpretation/hearsay.

So, there might well have been a source, just not an entirely reliable one?

It’s hardly Watergate so no need for anyone to get their knickers in a fankle.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,892]

1 hour ago, beararse said:

This is there/isn’t there, was there/wasn’t there a source discussion could go on forever.

Truth is there are no guarantees the source is correct, whether it’s deliberately misleading or simply by misinterpretation/hearsay.

So, there might well have been a source, just not an entirely reliable one?

It’s hardly Watergate so no need for anyone to get their knickers in a fankle.

 

All of that's fair enough tbh. 

But a different slant is that the press have had a field day with us and taken absolute liberties over the last few years. Lies galore.

Here is something being presented as factual, based on nothing we can tell from the article, which has been jumped on by the msm across Scotland. When folk read it and it appears on so many outlets, people will assume if to be true as surely all those papers couldn't be wrong....

I doubt it's true, I don't really care either way, I'm just saying when there's an agenda (how can the ebt cheats afford this?) then it's worth looking into where it comes from and how it got to be so. To try to appreciate the truth or otherwise.

Dude is saying there must be a source for it to be published. I disagree. That's about it really.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

All of that's fair enough tbh. 

But a different slant is that the press have had a field day with us and taken absolute liberties over the last few years. Lies galore.

Here is something being presented as factual, based on nothing we can tell from the article, which has been jumped on by the msm across Scotland. When folk read it and it appears on so many outlets, people will assume if to be true as surely all those papers couldn't be wrong.... 

I doubt it's true, I don't really care either way, I'm just saying when there's an agenda (how can the ebt cheats afford this?) then it's worth looking into where it comes from and how it got to be so. To try to appreciate the truth or otherwise.

Dude is saying there must be a source for it to be published. I disagree. That's about it really.

The Times have an agenda against Rangers now? FFS.

Dude works in the media and has a pretty reasonable understanding of how things make it to print and things don't.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,892]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

1. The Times have an agenda against Rangers now? FFS.

2. Dude works in the media and has a pretty reasonable understanding of how things make it to print and things don't.

1. The Scottish msm have had an agenda against Rangers. They have jumped on this article, their purpose is not to suggest we've got our finances so strong as can afford this. Your question is pretty stupid tbh.

2. Yes I know. Youre the guy that says retractions or apologies get generally get aired with similar prominence to offending articles when it clearly doesn't happen. And stating that authors must have sources and expect folk just to take it as fact. Journalism in this country is a trade for cunts, employing cunts. Most of whom are Rangers hating cunts.

[.Williamson. 82,869]

Don't want to get too ahead of myself here but going on today's result it doesn't seem like he's going to have much impact 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

1. The Scottish msm have had an agenda against Rangers. They have jumped on this article, their purpose is not to suggest we've got our finances so strong as can afford this. Your question is pretty stupid tbh. 

2. Yes I know. Youre the guy that says retractions or apologies get generally get aired with similar prominence to offending articles when it clearly doesn't happen. And stating that authors must have sources and expect folk just to take it as fact. Journalism in this country is a trade for cunts, employing cunts. Most of whom are Rangers hating cunts.

Papers regularly use stuff from other papers. It's really not uncommon whatsoever. So why did the original author write it? Is he part of the agenda? There's nothing that was in either the Sun or the Record's article that wasn't the Times' one.

2. I said "should", at least quote me right ffs, IPSO normally specify where retractions should be published and more often than not it is of similar prominence to the original article. The sources thing is largely no different to most other countries. If something is published, there's an assumption that it meets the relevant standard. No paper or news outlet in the world is going to out their sources for no reason whatsoever. Many - including quite a few of mines - will only give information on condition of anonymity. I've had to set up meetings/phone-calls with my editor and sources before getting approval to go to print on a story.

It's amazing how many industries are apparently full of Rangers hating cunts yet at the same time Rangers supporters are apparently the majority in Scotland. If it is that way, why does no cunt bother their arse to try do something about rather than bleating about it on internet forums?

 

[KBOO72 4,410]

6 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Don't want to get too ahead of myself here but going on today's result it doesn't seem like he's going to have much impact 

He needs service. We didn't really play well with that new formation in the first half and never really created anything clear cut for him. The one just before half time was about as good as it got, nice little pass from Jack but it was on Defoes weaker foot and he screws it wide. I think there was enough signs to be positive about, his off the ball movement is terrific and he still seems to be sharp with it aswell as having that little burst over 5 yards that'll get him into scoring positions. 

I think he'll do just fine if our service for him improves. Fitting him into the team is the biggest problem for me right now. 

[.Williamson. 82,869]

1 minute ago, KBOO72 said:

He needs service. We didn't really play well with that new formation in the first half and never really created anything clear cut for him. The one just before half time was about as good as it got, nice little pass from Jack but it was on Defoes weaker foot and he screws it wide. I think there was enough signs to be positive about, his off the ball movement is terrific and he still seems to be sharp with it aswell as having that little burst over 5 yards that'll get him into scoring positions. 

I think he'll do just fine if our service for him improves. Fitting him into the team is the biggest problem for me right now. 

Better to cut him loose early mate and try get a replacement in 

[big blue Fin 3,724]

On 19/01/2019 at 11:09, Inigo said:

Pretty sure I saw someone say his FULL wage at Bournemouth was 65k.

Paper has either made an arse of it or is purposely misleading. 

A Scottish paper (emphasis on the pape) being deliberately misleading in a story about Rangers, surely not.

Bhusybdm, sorry my tongue was so far into my cheek there.

I can see him being on 65k in the Premiership but even so that leaves us paying a big chunk of money, I just hope he lives up to the hype.

[KBOO72 4,410]

2 minutes ago, .Williamson. said:

Better to cut him loose early mate and try get a replacement in 

Probably right, get that 287k a week wages off the bill ASAP. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, big blue Fin said:

A Scottish paper (emphasis on the pape) being deliberately misleading in a story about Rangers, surely not.

Bhusybdm, sorry my tongue was so far into my cheek there.

I can see him being on 65k in the Premiership but even so that leaves us paying a big chunk of money, I just hope he lives up to the hype.

The Times isn't a Scottish paper though.

[.Williamson. 82,869]

Just now, KBOO72 said:

Probably right, get that 287k a week wages off the bill ASAP. 

I didn't watch any of the game but looking at the scoreline and his name being absent it doesn't say much to me 

[big blue Fin 3,724]

4 minutes ago, The Dude said:

The Times isn't a Scottish paper though.

Apologies I thought it was a Scottish paper which had been quoting his wages however aren't there a few lefty rhepublican types working for that grand old lady of Fleet Street nowadays?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,892]

18 minutes ago, The Dude said:

1 Papers regularly use stuff from other papers. It's really not uncommon whatsoever. So why did the original author write it? Is he part of the agenda? There's nothing that was in either the Sun or the Record's article that wasn't the Times' one.

2. I said "should", at least quote me right ffs, IPSO normally specify where retractions should be published and more often than not it is of similar prominence to the original article. The sources thing is largely no different to most other countries. If something is published, there's an assumption that it meets the relevant standard. No paper or news outlet in the world is going to out their sources for no reason whatsoever. Many - including quite a few of mines - will only give information on condition of anonymity. I've had to set up meetings/phone-calls with my editor and sources before getting approval to go to print on a story.

It's amazing how many industries are apparently full of Rangers hating cunts yet at the same time Rangers supporters are apparently the majority in Scotland. If it is that way, why does no cunt bother their arse to try do something about rather than bleating about it on internet forums?

 

1. He likely wrote it as Defoe is fairly topical in football. It's your industry why do you think he wrote it? Do you think there's truth in it and if not is it malicious or is his source likely to be inaccurate? If something is inaccurate is it right that they are repeated to within an inch if their life by others. In fact, that last bit is rhetorical, your in with the shit so I can predict that one.

2. Should, but in reality are not.

There's that assumption of yours again.

What preventions are in place to stop an article being presented as fact, or as coming from a credible source, from making print?  And I'm not talking about fear of recriminations from being caught out, I'm talking about actual filters to stop it from happening? What procedures are in place as an industry minimum requirement? You say it's needed, so what guarantees rather than assumptions are there?

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

1. He likely wrote it as Defoe is fairly topical in football. It's your industry why do you think he wrote it? Do you think there's truth in it and if not is it malicious or is his source likely to be inaccurate? If something is inaccurate is it right that they are repeated to within an inch if their life by others. In fact, that last bit is rhetorical, your in with the shit so I can predict that one.

2. Should, but in reality are not.

There's that assumption of yours again.

What preventions are in place to stop an article being presented as fact, or as coming from a credible source, from making print?  And I'm not talking about fear of recriminations from being caught out, I'm talking about actual filters to stop it from happening? What procedures are in place as an industry minimum requirement? You say it's needed, so what guarantees rather than assumptions are there?

1. Exactly that. Defoe is topical and is a big story. I don't see where reporting we're paying half of his wages could be viewed as malicious. His source may well be inaccurate. Without seeing the player's contract there will be an element of risk that you're being sold a pup however that will be weighted against the previous info the source has given you. If they've given you 100 bits of info and each one has been correct, there's little reason to doubt piece 101 in the absence on any contradictory information.

2.The preventions will vary from place to place. The BBC should have one of the tightest as they generally require a source to be corroborated by a second (and sometimes third) source before running with it.

Most times you'll give any party the chance to rebut any story before going to print. (Every Rangers story I've broken, bar one, has seen me spend a day or two in conversations with folk at Ibrox over the veracity of the information before either going to print or making alterations). There are no absolute guarantees until there's an official line from the club etc. If every story is held until there's an official line it becomes PR rather than journalism.

[The Dude 20,026]

15 minutes ago, big blue Fin said:

Apologies I thought it was a Scottish paper which had been quoting his wages however aren't there a few lefty rhepublican types working for that grand old lady of Fleet Street nowadays?

The story was originally run by the Times before being lifted by the Scottish media.

[Prso's headband 35,669]

Being a relatively normal person my normal guess is he’s on 65k a week at Bournemouth and we’re paying probably 30% of it saving Bournemouth about 1.5 million over the 18 months. 

Being rational will never catch on

[Tiger Shaw 30,675]

16 hours ago, HuistraHairDo said:

Absolute bedlam 

I canny wait mate, lost my boy at Ibrox on the 29th after pumping the tramps, will need handcuffs for when we win 55 🤣

[HuistraHairDo 12,505]

8 minutes ago, Tiger Shaw said:

I canny wait mate, lost my boy at Ibrox on the 29th after pumping the tramps, will need handcuffs for when we win 55 🤣

I lost a day bud can’t remember anything after about 4 o’clock that afternoon.

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

We’re not paying him £65k a week but we are paying a sizeable salary to him. It’ll be funded by Pena and another one or two leaving. 

 

[Billy1984 6,314]

1 minute ago, eskbankloyal said:

We’re not paying him £65k a week but we are paying a sizeable salary to him. It’ll be funded by Pena and another one or two leaving. 

 

Good

[TBagalag 722]

24 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

We’re not paying him £65k a week but we are paying a sizeable salary to him. It’ll be funded by Pena and another one or two leaving. 

 

The Sunday Post was reporting £35k a week. While I don’t think it will be as much as that, it’s definitely closer to the mark than this £65k pish.

[bluchoo 846]

4 hours ago, .Williamson. said:

Don't want to get too ahead of myself here but going on today's result it doesn't seem like he's going to have much impact 

45 minutes after not playing for months, in a meaningless friendly, in a system thats new to him with players hes never played with before and he is in danger of being written off already

😂😂 place cracks me up sometimes