Ferguson Ends BBC Ban

[Neil Young]

neil, i hope you are appreciating that yet another joke has been "reinforced" today.

Missed that. What happened, what happened?

[little dave hedgehog]

it's on this page ffs basket.

[Neil Young]

In that case you'll have to explain. I don't get it and if it has anything to do with this then I can't see that pic.

[baitman]

on a totally unrelated subject...

http://www.hearthealthyonline.com/heart-disease-overview/heart-health-qa/magnets-pacemaker_1.html

http://www.first4magnets.com/

http://www.parcelforce.com/

[Liverpel]

Have we banned anyone

Is The S#n banned?

[CJ]

obivously i meant appart from the sun

i was thinking more about did we ban anyone during the suarez case etc

[Shaggy]

United fan and The Times Manchester reporter James Ducker commits professional suicide.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-game/?blogId=Blog0fd8cd80-ce7f-4236-9e9b-6bae16c25d58Postd53b397b-31ce-4ca3-a5cd-d680725e7ff7&shareToken=a79ab1153aaba760a85586c037693829

(Times link free to view until 2pm)

Banning journalists for doing their jobs shows Ferguson has forgotten his union values

JAMES DUCKER

Sir Alex Ferguson is rightly proud of his family’s working-class roots. His father, Alex Sr, was a worker at the Fairfield shipyard in Govan and his son would later name his Cheshire home after it. Ferguson himself was a toolmaker, initially for a company called Wickman Lang’s before transferring to Remington Rand, an American firm which was famous for its typewriters and electric shavers.

It was there that Ferguson first became active in his trade union – the Amalgamated Engineering Union – and during his six years at Remington, he was involved in two significant labour disputes; the first was in the spring and winter of 1960 over engineering apprentices’ poor rates of pay, an unofficial action that would eventually affect the whole of Britain, and the second four years later over the controversial sacking of a man called Calum Mackay, who had been Remington’s long-standing union convener.

Ferguson, still only 22 in 1964, would take over from Mackay as the toolmakers’ shop steward, and although there is some debate over the extent of his leadership of that particular dispute, the man himself was unequivocal about his role. “Nobody else was stepping forward to organise the protest against what had been done to Calum, so there was no option but for me to accept the job and get the troops out on strike,” Ferguson would later write in his autobiography, Managing My Life.

Fresh from securing a historic treble of Premier League title, FA Cup and Champions League with Manchester United in 1999 and a knighthood from the Queen, Ferguson would also come to reflect that his membership of a trade union and the decision to rail against “the kind of injustice done to our shop steward” was less about “me being anti-Establishment” and more a question of fairness.

“Any proper trade union background is about the fairness of how the worker is treated and that was uppermost in my mind,” he said.

“There were many things that I disliked about trade unionism in my time before I became a professional footballer. The continual strikes, which were for no benefit, had no rhyme or reason and which helped to destroy the union, were totally counter-productive.

“It was the fight for the unfairness of things that always got to me. I was prepared to stand up against the unfairness of things and I think the reason for knighting someone like myself is because of the fairness of the British people.”

Establishing a clear line on Ferguson’s stance on fairness and perceived injustices as far as the rights of workers are concerned is necessary when examining the United manager’s decision last month to ban two more journalists from his weekly Friday press conferences at the club’s Carrington training ground.

The sight of Ferguson excluding reporters and newspapers from his personal fiefdom is nothing new. Indeed, it has been such a frequent occurrence down the years that barely an eyelid tends to be batted when the news circulates, and in those cases where a salacious untruth has been reported, Ferguson’s behaviour has sometimes been met with a degree of understanding.

But the decision to ban Mark Ogden, the Daily Telegraph’s Northern Football Correspondent, and Paul Hetherington, of the Daily Star Sunday, resonated because it was seemingly the first time Ferguson has meted out such a punishment for writers reporting factually accurate stories.

The pair had discovered through sources that Rio Ferdinand had suffered an injury in training and wrote on Sunday August 18 that the defender would miss United’s opening game of the new Barclays Premier League season away to Everton the next day. Ferdinand was duly absent, with Ferguson having to draft Michael Carrick into central defence as United slumped to a 1-0 defeat.

By way of defending his actions, it is thought Ferguson argued that the leaking of Ferdinand’s injury handed David Moyes, his Everton counterpart, a tactical advantage and that in the interests of protecting his team, he had no choice but to exclude the journalists responsible for the story.

It is not an entirely unreasonable explanation from a man whose mistrust of leaks and desperation to keep information “in house” has bordered on the obsessive. The extent to which Ferguson has managed to successfully exert almost total control at Old Trafford is one of the rewards of longevity and a significant factor in his profound success.

Yet there is exerting control and there is undermining the very principles you have held dear for much of your life, and by banning two journalists for doing their jobs properly, Ferguson is guilty of the kind of unfairness and injustice he once protested against.

That is not to say being omitted from a Friday press briefing is anything like as serious a matter as a worker losing his job on unfair grounds, just as United fans could not care less how Ferguson conducts himself so long as his team continue winning.

But the intention is not to draw sympathy but to illustrate the rank hypocrisy at the core of Ferguson’s actions in this case, one considered so disconcerting that it has been met with uneasiness by many at Old Trafford and even found itself on to the pages of Private Eye.

Ferguson is no stranger to venting his spleen when something happens that he does not like or, moreover, something happens that he considers a direct threat to United. In so many ways, that is an admirable quality. But raging against an authority, official or a referee - unpleasant as it may be for that person - does not prevent them from being able to do their job. Banning a reporter for doing their job properly does, though.

There is much to admire about Ferguson. Often lost amid this image of the United manager as some sort of fire-breathing tyrant is a man capable of great compassion and warmth. When a fellow reporter who regularly covers United suffered a stroke a few years ago, Ferguson took the time out to record a personalised video message wishing him a swift and speedy recovery.

“There’s a lot there to like,” Hugh McIlvanney, the esteemed sports writer and Ferguson’s collaborator on Managing My Life, has said. “He is often misrepresented. He has a huge heart. Alex is one of those guys who, if you were in real trouble, you can be certain would come to the call. When he’s had problems in his own life, that pronounced sense of justice and loyalty has often been at the root of them. Those who know Alex best, like him best, in my experience. I have never met anyone who knew him really well and thought he was a s***. At the same time you have to realise that, in Alex’s mind, if you are not with him, you are against him.”

The journalists who dared to write an accurate injury story were not against him. They were doing their jobs properly. There was a time when Ferguson would have acknowledged that, and perhaps been appalled at the unfairness of somebody trying to prevent them from continuing to do so.

[Alex]

Just read that. He's got some balls for going after him. Certainly busts the Myth that all of them are in his pocket. He is bang on the money too. Miserable old scrote.

[Neil Young]

I meant to post the Private Eye snippet he refers to. No need now - that article says it all and more.

[Exiled_red]

Good article

[Kenneth]

I could have some sympathy with his reaction if banning them from press conferences was a way of limiting leaks, but clearly it it's irrelevant to that issue. It's just punitive.

Mole hunting is a pretty brutal game though eh.

[Shaggy]

Good read.

http://eircomsports.eircom.net/News/Ferguson-influence.aspx

Ferguson fights his corner until he owns the ring

18:13, 02 Nov 2012
Miguel Delaney

Last week wasn't the first time Alex Ferguson got a little too involved in one of his sons' careers. When Jason Ferguson worked as an agent, for example, there were numerous stories about how the Manchester United manager would attempt to bully young trainees into signing for his son's company. Indeed the book that claim comes from, Michael Crick's acclaimed 2003 biography The Boss, even features an entire chapter devoted to the manager's relationship with his boys. As one family associate argues, "there's certainly an element of arrogance: he's the big man, so it won't do for his son not to be someone big too. It's an ego thing." Reading it now, it's difficult to stop the mind drifting back to King Lear.

Within the chapter, an unnamed Premier League manager offers a different comparison. "I would liken him to the mafia – if you affect his welfare in any way, no matter how good the reason is, he'll come for you."

Preston North End, who recently sacked Darren Ferguson as manager, will know the feeling. Look at how they massacred his boy. And look how he responded: by recalling the loan players that may well have helped them avoid relegation. The most curious aspect of the whole affair, however, was the decision of Stoke City boss Tony Pulis to do exactly the same. "Like a puppet dancing on a string," as Mario Puzo once put it. Puzo based some of The Godfather on King Lear and the image, then, given by that unnamed manager is an obvious one: of Ferguson, just like on the film's poster, with his hand on all those strings.

Whatever United's critics might say, Ferguson isn't that insidious, of course. But he may well be that unconsciously influential. The entire episode raises new questions about how powerful Ferguson really is in the game. Not only did it illustrate the skewed effects his loaning programme can have (an average of 18 players a season) as well as the actual sway he holds over a cabal of managers, but it comes quickly after the authorities' difficulties in reprimanding him for his treatment of the media and referees. As one official within the game told the Sunday Tribune, "The mere sound of his voice goes an awful long way. It does sometimes seem as if he operates according to a different set of rules".

Ferguson may not exactly be pulling the strings, but he is usually pushing things in the direction he wants. And forcefully. In that, he's a phenomenon unprecedented in the English game. Sure, at the height of Liverpool's dominance there were questions about the unconscious effect Anfield had on referees. And, at the beginning of it, the so-called socialist Bill Shankly used to collude with Matt Busby to keep their players' wages down so as to maintain control. Both men, meanwhile, used to enjoy the audience of many other coaches in the game.

But neither could cause the quakes that Ferguson does. Referees' chief Ian Blanchard admits: "As a manager and as a person he has a very influential role in this country when it comes to football. People listen to him."

Most obviously, people like Pulis. Along with Harry Redknapp, Steve Bruce, Sam Allardyce, David Moyes, Roy Hodgson, Ian Holloway and Alex McLeish, the Stoke manager makes up a group of managers who are always curiously loud in their support or praise of Ferguson. He has also managed to bewitch previous dissidents like Roberto Martinez and Jose Mourinho. A new friendship has even been forged with Arsene Wenger.

Indeed, Hodgson did little to dispel the doubts many Anfield regulars had before his first day when he curiously announced: "I know Sir Alex is not really a Liverpool man so I'm a bit concerned about my excellent relationship with him. I sincerely hope he forgives me and hopefully we can have a glass of wine together, maybe in secret."

This sort of thing goes beyond mere lip service though. The League Managers Association (LMA), for example, forms many of its initiatives and proposals by canvassing the opinion of its 92 members. And many of those often conform to Ferguson's thinking. As such, he indirectly drives a lot of what the LMA do.

An obvious question, of course, is why so many senior figures – themselves having reached the top of their profession by directing squads of grown men to compete with Ferguson's United – are so in thrall to him.

It's a far cry from two decades ago when, as many reporters who have covered Old Trafford beat testify, Ferguson wasn't far off meek as he sought to make friends and keep support. His Old Trafford success came at a particularly opportune time, however.

Not only did the trophies give him the breathing space to be much more bullish, the fact they came as English football underwent rapid economic expansion allowed him to make a financial monster out of Manchester United. The club could derail the whole Premier League were they to negotiate their own TV deal – which they're perfectly entitled to do.

All of this, as well as Ferguson's obvious expertise, have made him an elevated figure in the English game. Other clubs actively seek his advice when signing players or appointing new managers.

That may sound simplistic, but the actual effect can't be understated. Apart from a handful of top clubs, the majority of British sides are run in a woefully unsophisticated manner. One story emerged during the week of an established Premier League club exclusively drawing up their shortlist for a Director of Football out of a World Soccer list. In that sort of climate, a few words from Ferguson go an awful long way. It pays to stay in with him. Just look at the manner he recently made a point of actually recalling a Sky interviewer to defend Allardyce.

On a more human level then, there's also the fact that Ferguson is hugely charismatic and good company when off the clock. Every so often he'll take a group of north-west managers to dinner. Already friends with him, many then see him as a father-figure to learn from.

One of the perks of being on that side is getting entrusted with loan deals. The figures of where Ferguson's young stars have gone over the last five years (see panel) are enlightening themselves. Paul Sturrock may be surprisingly high but then he also played under Ferguson at the 1986 World Cup. There was little surprise, either, on Friday when it was announced Ole Gunnar Solskjaer's new club Molde were to benefit from Ferguson's philosophy.

For all the accusations of nepotism and favouritism, there's another way to look at his attitude to loans. Given that these young players represent the future of Manchester United, Ferguson is obviously going to prefer sending them to individuals or clubs he knows and trusts. He does have previous as regards recalling players though. When son Darren left Peterborough in November 2009, Ferguson immediately ordered goalkeeper Ben Amos back ahead of schedule.

In any case, it's not like the authorities can or would punish him for such petty behaviour – even if the likes of Rafa Benitez and Martinez have argued it's in accordance with a theme. But, while Benitez's infamous "facts" press conference may have been driven by a self-serving need to actively stand up to Ferguson, one insider claims there is a ring of truth to it. "He does get an easy ride from the authorities because he's so high profile and powerful."

Indeed, over 24 years in English football, Ferguson has only been fined by the FA three times. Not that that says much in particular, but when the United manager is involved in flashpoints he will often pre-emptively scorch the debate to prevent sanction.

A clear example was when he criticised the fitness of Alan Wiley but realised he had gone too far. On encountering a backlash, he immediately wondered aloud where there was a vendetta and questioned whether he would receive a fair hearing. By the end, Ferguson was understood to be "delighted" with the relatively lenient punishment he received.

As Martinez said to a Spanish paper at the time: "The reality is that they have almost begged his forgiveness for fining him. They would have hammered anyone else. He has a lot of control."

Clearly, there's nothing untoward about this control. It's not like Luciano Moggi at Juventus with Calciopoli. Rather, the exact same personality which has made Manchester United such a winning force has helped shaped affairs outside the club as well as inside it.

In constantly fighting his club's corner, he inadvertently occupies an awful lot more space. Preston now know that all too well.

[spud_gun]

'One story emerged during the week of an established Premier League club exclusively drawing up their shortlist for a Director of Football out of a World Soccer list'



Gawd i hope it wasn't us

[Phoenix07]

'One story emerged during the week of an established Premier League club exclusively drawing up their shortlist for a Director of Football out of a World Soccer list'



Gawd i hope it wasn't us

That caught my eye too. Tottenham and Man City have wanted DOF's too (the latter succeeding of course).

It wouldn't surprise me at all, since we're pretty amateurish at that level.

[S-RED]

over 24 years in English football, Ferguson has only been fined by the FA three times. Not that that says much in particular, but when the United manager is involved in flashpoints he will often pre-emptively scorch the debate to prevent sanction.

A clear example was when he criticised the fitness of Alan Wiley but realised he had gone too far. On encountering a backlash, he immediately wondered aloud where there was a vendetta and questioned whether he would receive a fair hearing. By the end, Ferguson was understood to be "delighted" with the relatively lenient punishment he received.

As Martinez said to a Spanish paper at the time: "The reality is that they have almost begged his forgiveness for fining him. They would have hammered anyone else. He has a lot of control."


says it all: sickening power