Daily Telegraph anti-football

[Jazzie]

If there was a problem, I'm sure Kewell couldn't be bothered sending an email to that newspaper. He would find other ways of dealing with it.

I think the terrograph are digging themselves into a hole they can't get out of. They should put up or shut up.

 

[goingtoadisco]

Why would Kewll bother ?

This is all very dodge.

 

[dibo]

Why is it impossible that a Socceroo might have emailed the Terrorgraph, aside from not wanting it to be true? From the nightclub owner's own account, Cahill was acting like a dick. The rest of the story from the email is frankly pretty plausible.

where did he say this ??? you sure it wasnt the bouncer, considering the owner said his side of the story to 442 and the sun-herald

so if it's genuine i reckon it's probably one of those two (as they're the ones who have been around 'as long as anyone bar schwarzer') - kewell's been around since 1996, emerton 1998. frankly, they're in the ballpark and i don't think i'd rule them out over some sloppy phrasing.

hmm, emerton wouldnt know, he probably wasnt even there, so really, there is only kewell, who i would doubt would do this to cahill

Answering in two parts, the nightclub owner said that Cahill was intoxicated and that his bar staff did the right thing at law in refusing him service. He didn't say he did anything criminal or anything like that, but he agreed that there had been a disagreement between cahill and the bar staff.

But when Cahill returned the following night without Salvato, a junior manager at the bar insisted strict Australian drinking laws meant bar staff were unable to serve him.

"If you look even slightly intoxicated, we are not allowed to serve you," explained Salvato. "Tim didn't understand this because he lives in England where you can drink as much as you like."

The situation became heated when the doorman intervened."

...

He added: "It was a nothing incident that should never have happened. Tim was just partying and then left. No punches were thrown and nothing else happened. There was no 'disgrace' or 'shame'.

That's not a big story, but it is still 'Socceroo intoxicated and refused service in Kings Cross nightspot'.

For the second part, the purported email refers to a general attitude or pattern of behaviour among the players. It's not talking about that incident as much as a trend.

Just coming back to something...

Why is it impossible that a Socceroo might have emailed the Terrorgraph, aside from not wanting it to be true?

The 'Socceroo' stated that he had been in the squad as long as Schwarzer! That goes back to 1993. No-one goes back that far. The nearest (without checking further) may be Kewell, Emerton .. think about it!

Re-reading the article, he doesn't say that at all -

He says:

"For Mark to say that he totally believes what Tim says when he wasn't even there just goes to show how far some people will go to stick their head in the sand. Mark has been in the team for as long as I have and this sort of thing has always been part of every camp except when Guus (Hiddink) was in charge.

Even Rhys Williams could say 'Mark has been in the team for as long as I have' and he couldn't be contradicted. So that opens it up quite a bit - basically it's going to be a player who's seen a few managers.

It can't be Emerton because he wasn't here for the April matches and so couldn't comment specifically on any incident then (unless he's been recuperating in Sydney rather than Blackburn), but aside from that if it's a genuine email it could be from any of a range of people.

 

[midfielder]

Two things concern me about the email ... first assume a Socceroo did feel some top players needed to be brought into line... does anyone think he would sent it onto a RL jurno in a paper that has produced one headline story after another during the last week... second I could set up a hot mail account and say I am Kevin Rudd or Pim can even the email be verified as being correct....

 

[goingtoadisco]

well they said it was verified by phone call.

 

[Marquee]

Dibo, in regards to Emmo (im not saying it was him) he has been doing rehab in Sydney. Was on the coast for a while at Hill St. and was at a few socceroo trainings.

 

[serious14]

Dibo - not too often I would call you naive, but in this case..... after the mud those c*nts have slinged at the code for years, and the ridiculously personal nature of this latest 'attack', you _really_ think that they would betray the entire team in such a way??

I mean, you debunked the theory yourself.  Emerton made his debut in '98 and Kewell in '96.  No other News Limited paper in the country has run with this..... or the story itself since it started.  And if this is a _football_ issue, why isn't John Taylor or Tom Smithies covering it??

As a Liverpool supporter, I thought you'd understand the sort of muck raking shite that the Murdoch stable can engage in, surely??  I guess 98% of supporters in the country (go read the other forums threads on this topic and see what I mean) are wearing tin foil hats this time??

 

[snowroo]

It really seems hard to believe that any Socceroo would cut his own throat by dogging a teammate no matter what personal issue arises but to send an e-mail to a paper and within that paper a rugby league journalist who constantly sh*ts on our game would be ridiculous. I doubt that would ever happen considering those here and abroad during the last few weeks would be insulted at the attempts by media to lessen their own appeal which directly equates to sponsorship both of the game and on a personal level along with present and future income both within Australia and abroad. It doesn't add up and certainly looks like an attempt by journalists with no morals and an arrogant untouchable 'don't question me' attitude with tele editor Neil Breen obviously incensed by the article in today's Tele of Alan Jones putting him well and truly on the defencive last week.

I hope the FFA now launch a private investigation of the e-mail matter and if found to be false take the Tele to court. This has got to stop for Football to take it's rightful place in Australian sport. Above the knuckle dragging raping, sexually assaulting, druggie, girlfriend glassing, drink driving, patron bashing, street pissing, group sex engaging, drug dealer associating scumbags of the NRL.

News Ltd was so upset to lose the Weet-Bix ads but they had better get use to it as advertisers and large Corporations side with politics and others with more overall power than Rupert.


Perhpas Rudd could have the Federal police investigate the Telegraph about Football e-mails along with his own. Far more important IMO.

I just have to keep thinking that with every rediculous report most sensible people will realise the stupidity of most of the claims and if you read comments within the paper even the supporters of the NRL are sick to death of the sensationist reporting that is bringing down all popular sports in the country.

 

[marinersman]

http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/australia/news-ltd-bias-what-bias-196111

News Ltd: Bias, what bias!
21 June 2009 | 13:28 - SBS EXCLUSIVE: Philip Micallef

No agenda against football ... Daily Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph executive sports editor Phil Rothfield
Australian football fans would have every reason to feel as if they are in no man's land at the moment.

The Socceroos have just qualified for their second straight World Cup, Australia has launched a bold bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup and the fifth A-League starting shortly is preparing to welcome two new teams.

Yet the overall mood of the fans at large is not as exhilarating as it should be. A lingering anger and sense of injustice lies just beneath the surface.

The reason for this despondence is that the game has received a bit of a hammering from sections of the media in the last few weeks.

Whether it's the Socceroos' style of play, the controversial attitude of national coach Pim Verbeek, the standard of the A-League or now the Tim Cahill Case, football has had to endure a constant, vitriolic attack from the media.

News Limited, as publisher of The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, has been in the forefront of this and not surprisingly has come in for plenty of criticism for its perceived bias against the game.

Many fans believe that the "two Teles" are the founder members of Australia's anti-football "mafia".

But are they right? Executive sports editor Phil Rothfield kindly accepted our invitation to defend the two papers in a frank "question and answer".

TWG: Football has made great strides forward the last few years in its bid to rid itself of its dark past. What's your view of the game's image and its position in Australian sport's landscape?


PR: "The game has made unbelievable progress since the last World Cup. They've launched the A-League which is a very good competition for what it is. I've been to a couple of games and I've enjoyed the family atmosphere. The game has done very well but I still think there are a lot of problems behind the scenes that a few people in soccer are not prepared to address."

There is a perception among football fans that News Limited, particularly the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph, has an agenda against football because it is not in the interest of the organisation that football keeps rising in this country. What do you say to that?


"I deny an agenda against the game at all. If you see Saturday's paper Andrew Webster went down to see Frank Lowy and wrote a positive piece in a double page spread about the FFA chairman's passion and hopes of delivering the World Cup to Australia. I have known Ben Buckley for a long of time and I speak to him probably three, four times a year. I presume you are referring to the Tim Cahill story when you suggest we have an agenda against soccer."

No, not at all, the Cahill story is only one of many over the years.

"I honestly believe the Cahill affair has been a cover-up from the FFA. We spoke to the head of security at the Trademark Hotel that night who confirmed that there was a very serious incident there. Look, we are not here to look after the public relations of any sport. There is one problem I do have with soccer in Australia. I believe many soccer writers in this country see themselves as the guardian angels of the game. They are very reluctant to tackle officials when there are problems."

But the whole gist of the story is based on the claims of a unnamed witness and bouncer. Both claims have been blown out of the water by the night club's management.

"I don't know about the story being blown out of the water. I've had several calls from people who are in the know who claim that staff were threatened at the night club. And to be honest I think the night club has covered it up and so has the FFA. This guy who has been a head of security at Kings Cross for many years is not going to make up the story. The headlines about the whole thing are not what football fans want to read every day. Look at the scrutiny rugby league and cricket players are under. When we sign up to be journalists we have a responsibility to search for the truth and tell the full story to the best of our ability and not just write about Tim Cahill scoring two goals. That's all we're doing."

Yes, but the Daily Telegraph had a heading to a story saying "Cahill banned from club" on the basis that the bouncer merely said he was not welcome at the club. That's hardly being banned, is it!

"Look, I've checked this with the head of security. His name is Dave Millward. They told me Cahill would not be welcome as long as his bouncers were at the door."

So why was this not written into the story?

"Tim Cahill would not get past  the door if this guy is on duty. Well, it's the same thing, isn't it ... being unwelcome and being banned.

Not really.

"Well, I read it as being banned."

Football people get a very good coverage from Fox Sports, SBS and Fairfax. Why would any football fan buy the Telegraph, whose coverage of the game is at best unsatisfactory?

"I genuinely believe that we have the best soccer coverage of the main newspapers in Australia. Just because we don't publish what the FFA wants us to print all the time doesn't mean our coverage is unsatisfactory . The most passionate of fans might agree with what you're saying but I can assure you that the general public - and I'm not here just to put out a paper for soccer fans - gets a fair coverage of the game. Last year we had three soccer writers and you've done a bit of work for us too."

Yes, but for all the space you give football, one cadet journalist would have been enough, wouldn't it?

"No, I disagree with that. By the way you keep referring to the game as 'football'. Why are the Socceroos not called 'Footballroos' then!"

Very simple, mate. The Socceroos are a brand and you don't change the names of brands.

"But don't you think that for most people in Sydney going to the football means going to the rugby league!"

Probably. But other organisations do not run into problems referring to "soccer" as football. Anyway, newspapers are doing it tough at the moment. In this present economic climate is it wise for News Ltd to alienate itself from many football followers by its perceived biased coverage of the game?

"Look, for a start I do not work for a newspaper. I work for a news organisation which is equally internet and newspapers. We are the fastest growing sports website in the country. In sport we break more stories on our website than any other organisation. Yes, newspapers are struggling a little bit but we do not deliberately try to upset soccer fans. We just do our best to provide a level coverage of the game. When Sydney FC and Newcastle won the league title we celebrated their success with them and we are strongly behind Central Coast, too. Yet all the football people do is hammer us for the negative stories we write. We are entitled to run those stories. I could just do without some of the death threats from the lunatics."

But you cannot deny that the perception exists that News Ltd is anti-football. You guys have an image problem.

"We probably do have a problem with our image among soccer fans. But how  can we not highlight the unattractive brand of football the Socceroos are playing, for example."

So can we expect a decent coverage of the World Cup next year?

"Our coverage will be bigger and better than last time. Obviously the space we will throw at it will be determined by advertising support. Nobody supported the A-League when it started as we did. We had an eight-page liftout and had the full backing of the FFA. The Sydney Morning Herald throws a lot of space at rugby union because they get a lot of money from rugby advertising, we give rugby league plenty of space because we get a lot of money from rugby league advertising. If we get the same level of support during the World Cup we'll do the same with soccer. It's a magnificent event, probably equal to the Olympic Games. We'll do special editions and our website updating stories 24/7.''

 

[midfielder]

well they said it was verified by phone call.

You may be right but I don't you think you would confide in a Football journalist ... it just smells of something funny to me.

 

[serious14]

"I genuinely believe that we have the best soccer coverage of the main newspapers in Australia."

............................the scary part is I think he actually believes what he's saying.

 

[Marquee]

I think one of the worst outcomes of the whole saga involve those who only believe what they hear. In the past few days, I have had a few people say to me "Did you hear what Tim Cahill did?". I then spent the next few minutes explaining that the story was fabricated from nothing and it's a beat up. The unfortunate thing is for those who do know the full story like we do, and haven't heard Alan Jones' rant or read the articles from the night club owner and Schwarzer.

Hopefully eventually the truth surfaces but in the meantime there will be those who the Terror will fool.

 

[dibo]

Dibo - not too often I would call you naive, but in this case..... after the mud those c*nts have slinged at the code for years, and the ridiculously personal nature of this latest 'attack', you _really_ think that they would betray the entire team in such a way??

A player may feel that people going out on the drink from camp before matches are betraying the team. If they feel it's a culture building (or re-building) within the side and that it threatens the success of the side they may then feel they need someone to shine a light on it.

The attack's personal, sure, but so are most of these things. Non-story or not, were this a story about an NRL player there'd be people whooping with joy and hailing the death of the code. A bit of perspective doesn't go astray.

I mean, you debunked the theory yourself.  Emerton made his debut in '98 and Kewell in '96.  No other News Limited paper in the country has run with this..... or the story itself since it started.  And if this is a _football_ issue, why isn't John Taylor or Tom Smithies covering it??

Re-read my last post:

Just coming back to something...

Why is it impossible that a Socceroo might have emailed the Terrorgraph, aside from not wanting it to be true?

The 'Socceroo' stated that he had been in the squad as long as Schwarzer! That goes back to 1993. No-one goes back that far. The nearest (without checking further) may be Kewell, Emerton .. think about it!

Re-reading the article, he doesn't say that at all -

He says:

"For Mark to say that he totally believes what Tim says when he wasn't even there just goes to show how far some people will go to stick their head in the sand. Mark has been in the team for as long as I have and this sort of thing has always been part of every camp except when Guus (Hiddink) was in charge.

Even Rhys Williams could say 'Mark has been in the team for as long as I have' and he couldn't be contradicted. So that opens it up quite a bit - basically it's going to be a player who's seen a few managers.

So in short, no, I didnt debunk the theory at all.

The reason why the story has run here is that the Daily Telegraph wanted to run it. They may well be pushing a barrow, but whats the surprise there? Having a barrow to push doesnt immediately rend anything you write utterly baseless. The initial story (that Cahill was involved in an incident at a Kings Cross nightspot where he was refused service) is agreed by everyone to be true. Cahill didnt like the attention and nor did much of the camp, but the subjects of stories dont get to choose whether or not they get written about and not liking a story doesnt make it a lie.

Easy answer on why Smithies and Taylor arent covering it is that if they cover it then theyll have a harder time trying to get Cahill et al to answer the phone. Theyll have someone write it who can claim to have nothing to lose in terms of access to players.

As a Liverpool supporter, I thought you'd understand the sort of muck raking shite that the Murdoch stable can engage in, surely??  I guess 98% of supporters in the country (go read the other forums threads on this topic and see what I mean) are wearing tin foil hats this time??

For sure, but the difference between this and things like the slander about reds fans pickpocketing the dead is that theres actually some fact in here. I dont like News Ltd., but Im not naive enough to believe that everything they do is wrong and everything our Timmy does is perfect.

Theyre in the business of selling papers. They sell them with stories like this. They dont particularly care about giving the full story if thats going to rub up against their agenda for the week, but theres enough truth to the first story to make it stand up, the subsequent stories have been different peoples accounts of the events. Theyve been unethical in that theyre not presenting both sides of the story, but *we* can put two and two together ourselves and we can easily see that there was something happening there. 

The Terror give a lot of column inches to football, though not as many as to the NRL. Their Football Fever liftout was pretty good and better than anything the Herald (my preferred paper by a long, long way) were doing at the time. They dont have a death to football agenda, they just want to write stories. As is the case with stories against NRL players, this wont damage the code. One-eyed fans simply close ranks and refuse to believe the story or discount it, and in this case in particular people can look at it and say is that the best youve got?

People need to simply worry less about these things. Theyll come and go, and as fans and as a sport as a whole weve got to just chill out and maybe toughen up a bit. If its such a non-story, dont give it the time of day.

 

[snowroo]

It would be such a shame if someone carried out the alleged threat. Such a real shame! I would want to know were he's buried so I could piss on his grave.

 

[Ithuriel]

This security guy, David Millward, apparently has done security work with the Manly Sea Eagles whilst they are out and about. I agree with Midfielder, something smells funny...

 

[dibo]

But what's funny? What's not true?

 

[snowroo]

It has been suggested by the administrator of a popular winter sports site with close personal links to present and emurging A-League clubs that many journalists, but obviously not all, have not wanted to write such negative stories about Football but have been told by people above them to do so. This may help explain Tom Smithies 'holiday' from the Telegraph I'm not sure. It has been suggested that many are just waiting for a change in the wind so to speak and think that is ineviatable. Lowry is obviously aware of the threat to growth by media and hope he has already started to weave his magic. Might also explain why the 'old guard' is so desperate.

 

[midfielder]

Its not online, but if you saw yesterday Teles paper version  you would have noticed yet another back-page piece on Cahill. But this time the article opposed almost everything the Tele had previously reported. (Found the article in the Courier mail today http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25661178-5003412,00.html)

The piece gave a lot of precious space to Frank Lowy, who pointed out how ridiculous it was for media to beat up the Cahill incident. The Tele even reported Lowy making some unflattering comparisons with rugby leagues notorious recent problems (unflattering for league, that is). The article was almost entirely about Lowys point-of-view, and the Tele included a lengthy interview with Lowy spread across two-pages inside.http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25661302-5006068,00.html

So what happened? Ive got two ideas:

1. Lowy finally decided hed had enough, rang up the editor-in-chief Gary Linnell (or, more likely, Linnells boss), and told him to end it. A phone call like that would carry implicit financial threats, even if Lowy was as engaging and courteous as he always is. Linnell agreed the coverage had been problematic, and asked Lowy for an exclusive interview on the World Cup bid. The interview led to yesterday's fawning story about how wonderful Lowy is, which gave the Tele an opportunity to improve its relationship with the FFA.

2. Pretty much the same as the scenario above, but theres a chance the Tele initiated the rapprochement, because of concerns about the publics reaction to its stories and - especially - Sanitariums decision to drop advertising. We have no idea how many complaints the Tele received, except that it received far more complaints than the number of negative comments they published online. Perhaps the reaction was enough to convince the Tele it had erred and needed to seek amends.

But that Football got a whole bunch of negative articles one after the other is beyond questionand it was a TerrOR thing but when advertisers pull advertising as a protest it is more than just a Football Full Moon whinge its starting to hit home

But why did it all start IMO it is over money and access to players a compassion of the adds taken between News and Fairfax the adds in Fairfax were half page stuff and in the TerrOR cigarette size I think the tiff is over but News have send an blunt message to FFA do not show the smh any favours that you do not give us Franks got the message .. and so have News that Football is not as easy to push around as they may have through TC will sue and win but that will be 5 or 6 years down the track

The email just has to many loose ends for me and we will see if there are any follow up claims during the week... if I have read the tea leafs correctly there will be none as News have got there message across... meaning long term it's good news as they must value football as a product to go to this much trouble...

 

[serious14]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,25664487-5016307,00.html

LET'S not crucify Freddy Fittler for going on a bender in Townsville.

If the Roosters' form this year isn't enough to drive a man to the drink, nothing is.

Has he disgraced the game? No.

Did he pee in the street? No.

Did he put on a stink with bouncers? No.

Did he behave worse than Tim Cahill? Certainly not.

Is it a bit foolish and irresponsible? Yes.

Freddy obviously had far too much to drink and made a goose of himself. He should probably be setting a better example. But let's not hang him.

The bloke has been under unbelievable pressure and no wonder he's had a blow-out.

I'm satisfied with his apology.

He fined himself $10,000 and fronted up to the media like a man.

Full stop, end of story.


This is the head coach of a so-called professional sporting organisation, half naked, shitfaced off his tits at 3 in the morning stumbling around a hotel trying to find his room - and we've got Rothfield (arseclown that he is) trying to defend such behavious with "he's under unbelievable pressure".  Imagine if it was Pim who had done it??  The uproar that would follow from Rothfield, Wilson and co. would be deafening.

And as for the Cahill comment..... no agenda here, no sir.  :-\

 

[serious14]

Easy answer on why Smithies and Taylor arent covering it is that if they cover it then theyll have a harder time trying to get Cahill et al to answer the phone. Theyll have someone write it who can claim to have nothing to lose in terms of access to players.

Mate, that's not an answer, that's nothing short of "a pissweak excuse from all concerned".  Last I checked, every NRL incident that the muckrakers write about is covered by NRL writers.  Why the double standards??  Also beckons the question as to why Taylor and Smithies don't cover the next NRL incident??

Have either Taylor or Smithies written a single word about any of this since it happened??  A cursory glance at the football stories on their website for the last couple of days show a Basketball and AFL writer doing the match report against Japan, the "Tim's sour grapes" piece being written by a League writer, Adam Mobbs, and the "exclusive" with the bouncer concerned on Friday was by David Riccio, a League and AFL writer.  Everything else is from the wire services.....

Now we wander over to The Age (Lynch doing his usual upstanding job) and the SMH (Cockerill and co.), and surprise surprise, it's football writers covering the football stories.  And even when they give a mention to the Cahill story (only to rubbish it as shithouse journalism, which is what it is), it's done in a story BY FOOTBALL WRITERS.  F*ck, even a look at the Herald Sun (Limited News' outlet in Melbourne) and the football writers are writing the stories there.

Why do these c*nts in Sydney think they can get away with it??