Newcastle United

[Lee]

I'd like to see all three in a room knocking ten shades of **** out of eachother.

Gaggle of ******s.

[Bender]

Mike Ashley is willing to listen to offers to sell Newcastle United as he looks to bring an end to a troubled seven-year reign at St James' Park. (Daily Telegraph)

Meanwhile, Newcastle boss Alan Pardew, 53, has two games to save his job. (Daily Express)

[Shaggy]

Simon Hughes @Simon_Hughes__
Extraordinary statement on Newcastle's website. http://www.nufc.co.uk/articles/20140...281670_4138864 …

Newcastle United has today banned the Daily Telegraph with immediate effect following a report published in its paper yesterday (Thursday, 11th September), headlined 'Newcastle United For Sale As Ashley Eyes Rangers', as well as a follow-up article from the same reporter which appears in the Daily Telegraph today (Friday, 12th September).

The reports by Luke Edwards on 11th September, and again today (12th September), are wholly inaccurate and written with the intention of unsettling the Club, players and its supporters.

This is disgraceful journalism for which the Club and its supporters should receive a full and unreserved apology from those concerned.

The truth is Mike Ashley remains committed to Newcastle United.

For the avoidance of doubt, this means that for the remainder of this season and AT LEAST until the end of next season, Mike Ashley will not, under any circumstances, sell Newcastle United at any price.

The Club cannot be stronger in stating its position on this matter.

It is not acceptable for newspapers to print factually inaccurate reports that are damaging to the Club and to fail to check facts with Newcastle United ahead of publication and then expect to receive access to the Club.

Newcastle United will not tolerate this and will take such action as it deems appropriate.

The ban extends to all reporters working for, or freelancing on behalf of, the Daily Telegraph, as well as that cunt Luke Edwards in any capacity he may have working for the paper's sister title or on a freelance basis.

[Kenneth]

Luke Edwards is a cunt though.

[Muddled]

Fair play. I enjoy it when footballers out 'ITK's' on Twitter and I seem to enjoy it when the media are outed too.

[Chazza]

That cunt Luke Edwards

Obvious cost cutting measures by Ashley to cut down on catering costs in pressers given that hardly any press are allowed in.

[Muddled]

Back in October 2013, Luke Edwards said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/10409369/Were-sports-reporters-Mr-Ashley-not-media-partners-and-were-worth-more-than-you-think.html

[dom9]

It's a difficult one. I think. I don't know whose side most people might be on in this instance.

On the one hand at face value, clubs are trying to control their PR in the manner that resembles a dictatorship in a despotic or totalitarian republic. They want to control the message, at the expense of freedom of speech. The purest, most detestable example is that of Fergie at United. If there was a journalistic piece with which he took exception to, then it was curtains for an entire organisation in terms of access to news conferences, interviews or anything else, until the most grovelling of apologies were issued. Imagine if a government or other corporation acted in this way?

It sounds bad, right? Disproportionate, out of place. Plain wrong.

But then LFC has imposed similar sanctions against the S*n (I think). With immense justification of course, to us. They have printed demonstrable lies in the past. And access to the club from that publication (although not the wider Murdoch empire) have rightly been withdrawn, despite apologies and many changes of leadership and personnel in the past 25 odd years.

At what point is it acceptable to effectively censor the press, if at all?

[Boogs]

Isn't it simpler than that? The club are using one newspaper to release all the exclusive stories through and slowly banning all other newspapers.
I seem to remember reading that they are getting £££ from the rag because they are feeding them exclusives. One or two journos on twitter were furious .

[ChesterDave]

the "AT LEAST" comment would have me worried/delighted if I was a NUFC fan (depending on my Mike Ashley opinion). That to me is a massive arrow pointing to a get out date.

Rangers get promoted this year.

Next season Rangers qualify for 16/17 CL

Mike buys.

He already owns some of them and will no doubt buy more, imo

[Vermilion]

Is it really a true form of censoring though ?

It's not like they can't write about said clubs is it, the only difference is that they can't get it first hand, so maybe don't get the story at the same time other rags who attend pressers do.

It's not like these media outlets that are banned from grounds don't continue writing and giving their opinion on the clubs.

If it's just a story a manager doesn't like that gets them banned then of course it's very petty, as was the case with the majority of Fergies media bannings.

But if a paper or organisation prints blatant lies, which have an effect on the lives of people at said clubs, then i think they are well within their rights to punish that media outlet.

Lets be honest, there is too little accountabilty where these rags are concerned.

edit: Ashley, is just biding his time, he will drop Newcastle for Rangers as soon as someone gives him a fair'ish price, he'll then hope to use Rangers to advertise his other companies in the CL.

[ChesterDave]

It's not like they can't write about said clubs is it, the only difference is that they can't get it first hand, so maybe don't get the story at the same time other rags who attend pressers do.

Yeah but who wants to read Monday's news on Tuesday? Except maybe Bender

[Vermilion]

Yeah but who wants to read Monday's news on Tuesday? Except maybe Bender

It happens already, just with a different slant on the same stories tbh, lets be honest, most of the stuff is regurgitated, true exclsusives are a rareity these days, and i don't think that attending pressers gets one either, everyone sees it live these days.

[dom9]

Yes, I think it is censorship. If certain media outlets aren't allowed into press conferences, then they can't ask the questions that they want, and they have to rely on quotes from third party sources. The club are guilty of filtering the news through their own lense. That to me is a form of censorship.

[Vermilion]

Yes, I think it is censorship. If certain media outlets aren't allowed into press conferences, then they can't ask the questions that they want, and they have to rely on quotes from third party sources. The club are guilty of filtering the news through their own lense. That to me is a form of censorship.

It's a 'form' of censorship i agree, just not one that i think effects society or is that important tbh.

Also, they may not be there to ask the question they want, but in all honesty, few of them really report the answers they get correctly; or with any sort of neutrality, it's always with an angle to get people to bite on their web sites or rags, so not really such a big loss.