Bale - £60m!

Best not bid for anyone then.

I seriously cannot believe this story has actually been published. It's so full of shit it's untrue.

We'll not get Christian Bale for £60 million.

I'll chop my own head off if we get either of Ronaldo or Bale, I can't believe anybody even entertains the idea.

Alcantara was a faint possibility, Fabregas slightly more so but we'll end up with a solid but unspectacular 2nd tier midfielder which will precipitate a number of explosive aneurysms on the forum.

Switch off from the speculation and embrace whatever steaming pile of shit* is stinking up the midfield in August.




*Figuratively or literally depending on Fletcher.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/foo...chester-United

Wonder who his pals are

Looks like the @#%&! has been hypnotised

Originally Posted by wiganste

Looks like the @#%&! has been hypnotised

he'd have to be to come here

Originally Posted by Bunker Buster

Who is he ?

Welsh lad, plays for Spurs. He's pretty good.

Originally Posted by wiganste

Looks like the @#%&! has been hypnotised

Needs to be made into a GIF like the Jones one with that dog and the cakes

Originally Posted by Alan

Needs to be made into a GIF like the Jones one with that dog and the cakes

That's what he looks like

Originally Posted by wiganste

Looks like the @#%&! has been hypnotised

dunno what it is with footballers these days. you can never tell where their neck stops and their head begins.

Originally Posted by taff

dunno what it is with footballers these days. you can never tell where their neck stops and their head begins.

They do neck exercises.

Originally Posted by Grimson

They do neck exercises.

Necksercise

Originally Posted by redstu7

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/foo...chester-United

Wonder who his pals are

Not a single reliable quote was seen that day.

When you write essays at school or University you have to cite your evidence with fully referenced sources.

The media shouldn't be able to sell stories without fully referencing their work IMO. Unnamed sources shouldn't be allowed either. @#%&!s.

Originally Posted by Neo

The media shouldn't be able to sell stories without fully referencing their work IMO. Unnamed sources shouldn't be allowed either. @#%&!s.

These 'articles' are written for mongs. And as long as mongs keep lapping them up and oozing pre-cum from shite they read on twitter then it will carry on. The major positives from not signing the likes of Alcantara is the utter depair these mongs feel when it doesn't happen.

Most modern newspaper "journalism" (not least about politics) is pretty much exaxctly the same, tbf.

Originally Posted by Neo

Not a single reliable quote was seen that day.

When you write essays at school or University you have to cite your evidence with fully referenced sources.

The media shouldn't be able to sell stories without fully referencing their work IMO. Unnamed sources shouldn't be allowed either. @#%&!s.

Are you under the impression that reporters write stories but choose to withhold their sources, presumably because there are no sources and they've just made it all up? 99% of the time, it's the source giving information on the expressed condition they not be named. If speaking off-the-record weren't allowed, there wouldn't be any stories at all, except match reports. Some might think that's a good thing, of course. But you can hardly blame the reporters. This is how people in football want it.

You get stories saying something like, 'players are understood to dislike the manager's training methods'. That's because some of the players went to a reporter and told him that, but insisted they not be named. Obviously they can't say that on the record; they'd get dropped, fined, and would get a reputation as troublemakers. But they want the message out there, so they use off-the-record remarks to make sure it happens. It benefits the players (or they think it does), it gives the reporter a juicy story...win-win.

It's not real journalism and it's not academic essays; it's just entertainment.

That is how it is meant to work, yes. But the suspicion that some hacks just make it up is stronger than ever.

Originally Posted by red in cumbria

That is how it is meant to work, yes. But the suspicion that some hacks just make it up is stronger than ever.

It doesn't even have to be as direct as grimson has said. It can be the journo asking a club official if they like so and so player, they say 'yes he's a good player' and there's his 'club x targets so and so' headline.

That's what was said when I asked a sport journalist how he makes up his transfer stories.

Originally Posted by Grimson

Are you under the impression that reporters write stories but choose to withhold their sources, presumably because there are no sources and they've just made it all up? 99% of the time, it's the source giving information on the expressed condition they not be named. If speaking off-the-record weren't allowed, there wouldn't be any stories at all, except match reports. Some might think that's a good thing, of course. But you can hardly blame the reporters. This is how people in football want it.

You get stories saying something like, 'players are understood to dislike the manager's training methods'. That's because some of the players went to a reporter and told him that, but insisted they not be named. Obviously they can't say that on the record; they'd get dropped, fined, and would get a reputation as troublemakers. But they want the message out there, so they use off-the-record remarks to make sure it happens. It benefits the players (or they think it does), it gives the reporter a juicy story...win-win..

It's not real journalism and it's not academic essays; it's just entertainment.

so are we signing bale??