hibs.net Messageboard

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 48 of 48
  1. #31
    @hibs.net private member JimBHibees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Amityville
    Posts
    22,334
    Quote Originally Posted by Glory Lurker View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Mail and Express are bought by people who hate foreigners, Scotland and low house prices.
    Is the mail not now depressingly one of the largest selling newspapers in scotland?


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #32
    @hibs.net private member McSwanky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by HomeTeam View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Some buy the Sun for a look at the tits and the sports pages then skim over the stories to scan for more women to look at then have another read at the sports pages.

    Apart from that the content is divisive and fear mongering.
    For me, that's the worrying thing. Although many people buy these papers for the Sport and 'others,' the skimming of the other sections will very quickly depict a nasty warped view of the world which, over time, becomes the norm in some people's eyes.

    Grrr.

  4. #33
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vanerama
    Posts
    30,142
    I've had many debates with people who are dressed in famous brand label clothes and shoes, whilst enjoying branded drinks and snacks, about whether or not advertising actually influences our choices.

    Given that around £500,000,000,000 is spent on advertising globally each year (£20,000,000,000 in the UK alone), even without the obvious results in front of my eyes, those figures alone would suggest that advertising must be a worthwhile investment and that we're all influenced by it.

    Who had ever heard of Yokohama 5 years ago? Now, because of advertising, they're thought of as a leading tyre manufacturer along side Michelin, Pirelli, Good year etc. 20 years ago we mocked Samsung products.

    "Guinness is good for you" was a slogan invented in the 1920's purely for marketing purposes, but it was so successful, Guinness was often given to NHS in-patients to aid recuperation. So, advertising works.

    In terms of The Sun, and the right wing media as a whole , I believe they successfully manipulate they way people think about issues. There are countless examples.

    NHS tourism has a tiny effect on our resources, but it's regularly cited as one of the main reasons that hospitals are struggling.

    Straight bananas and curly cucumbers and any number of myths have all been spread by the media.

    I remember when the Civil Service pension schemes were under attack from the government. I heard junior Daily Mail reading workers spouting almost word for word, the line that although they'd paid into the scheme for 30 odd years, the country couldn't afford it.

    And now we seem to be swallowing the myth that article 50 has to be triggered because it is "the will of the people" and because we must uphold democracy. It's bollocks. Since when did democracy mean that people couldn't change their mind?

    In terms of The Sun itself, every political party (well, you know) would be happy to receive endorsement from The Sun because they are so influential. "It was the Sun that won it" after all. Tommy Sheridan's high profile support for a Yes vote was probably the reason the Sun stayed neutral, and I'm certain that the SNP were disappointed about that as it could be argued that the newspaper's support may have tipped the balance in favour.

    Also, it's human nature to look for danger so the fear of the unknown is a fertile ground for the right wing media to do its work. Project fear used that principle perfectly by scaring pensioners. Osborne tried it again during the EU referendum, but the fear of foreigners and the distrust of "experts" was too great, although his threat of an emergency budget was enough to make anyone want to stick one up him.

    So, in summary, I think that The Sun, and the others, use fear to set the agenda, they then reflect that fear on their pages, and intensify it as they see fit.
    Last edited by Hibbyradge; 07-02-2017 at 01:52 PM.
    Buy nothing online unless you click here first. I'm already £1,497.46 better off!



  5. #34
    Private Members Prediction League Winner Hibrandenburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Brandenburg
    Age
    51
    Posts
    8,345
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I've had many debates with people who are dressed in famous brand label clothes and shoes, whilst enjoying branded drinks and snacks, about whether or not advertising actually influences our choices.

    Given that around £500,000,000,000 is spent on advertising globally each year (£20,000,000,000 in the UK alone), even without the obvious results in front of my eyes, those figures alone would suggest that advertising must be a worthwhile investment and that we're all influenced by it.

    Who had ever heard of Yokohama 5 years ago? Now, because of advertising, they're thought of as a leading tyre manufacturer along side Michelin, Pirelli, Good year etc. 20 years ago we mocked Samsung products.

    "Guinness is good for you" was a slogan invented in the 1920's purely for marketing purposes, but it was so successful, Guinness was often given to NHS in-patients to aid recuperation. So, advertising works.

    In terms of The Sun, and the right wing media as a whole , I believe they successfully manipulate they way people think about issues. There are countless examples.

    NHS tourism has a tiny effect on our resources, but it's regularly cited as one of the main reasons that hospitals are struggling.

    Straight bananas and curly cucumbers and any number of myths have all been spread by the media.

    I remember when the Civil Service pension schemes were under attack from the government. I heard junior Daily Mail reading workers spouting almost word for word, the line that although they'd paid into the scheme for 30 odd years, the country couldn't afford it.

    And now we seem to be swallowing the myth that article 50 has to be triggered because it is "the will of the people" and because we must uphold democracy. It's bollocks. Since when did democracy mean that people couldn't change their mind?

    In terms of The Sun itself, every political party (well, you know) would be happy to receive endorsement from The Sun because they are so influential. "It was the Sun that won it" after all. Tommy Sheridan's high profile support for a Yes vote was probably the reason the Sun stayed neutral, and I'm certain that the SNP were disappointed about that as it could be argued that the newspaper's support may have tipped the balance in favour.

    Also, it's human nature to look for danger so the fear of the unknown is a fertile ground for the right wing media to do its work. Project fear used that principle perfectly by scaring pensioners. Osborne tried it again during the EU referendum, but the fear of foreigners and the distrust of "experts" was too great, although his threat of an emergency budget was enough to make anyone want to stick one up him.

    So, in summary, I think that The Sun, and the others, use fear to set the agenda, they then reflect that fear on their pages, and intensify it as they see fit.
    Excellent post but I feel you're in for a lecture from Marinello59 about how the press only cater to their audience and have no influence on opinions

  6. #35
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vanerama
    Posts
    30,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Excellent post but I feel you're in for a lecture from Marinello59 about how the press only cater to their audience and have no influence on opinions
    Funny you should mention him 😉
    Buy nothing online unless you click here first. I'm already £1,497.46 better off!



  7. #36
    Testimonial Due Glory Lurker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Miles from in the know
    Posts
    1,820
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBHibees View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Is the mail not now depressingly one of the largest selling newspapers in scotland?
    I don't know, but if it is it goes quite a way to explaining the outcome of IndyRef!

  8. #37
    Coaching Staff snooky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Down East
    Posts
    8,678
    SUN journalists apparently has been banned by Liverpool FC.
    And how have the SUN reacted? With a quote that the move was "bad for fans and bad for football".
    Given the lies that it headlined after the tragedy at Hillsborough, they really should just crawl into a hole and stay there rather that come out with such a flippant retort.
    Disgusting newspaper from front page to back.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-38933817

  9. #38
    Scottish Cup Victory - Witness 2016 Scouse Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Age
    49
    Posts
    14,225
    Quote Originally Posted by snooky View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    SUN journalists apparently has been banned by Liverpool FC.
    And how have the SUN reacted? With a quote that the move was "bad for fans and bad for football".
    Given the lies that it headlined after the tragedy at Hillsborough, they really should just crawl into a hole and stay there rather that come out with such a flippant retort.
    Disgusting newspaper from front page to back.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-38933817
    I love the black cabs in Liverpool that are emblazoned with "Don't buy the Sun" also the newsagents that simply refuse to sell it.
    "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain
    an advantage, then he should be."

  10. #39
    Testimonial Due Smartie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,645
    (Playing devil's advocate a bit here, so please - hear me out).

    What exactly is the point in this ban, and who does it benefit at this time?

    The people of Liverpool the city as well as the people at Liverpool FC absolutely have an axe to grind with the paper and I think they're entitled to hold the grudge they do.
    I think it is only reasonable for newsagents to refuse to stock the paper and if taxi drivers choose to bear those slogans then that is their right.

    But why should Liverpool FC ban the Sun journalists now? Why not 28 years ago? Why not, at any point in between when the Sun have made this a bigger problem than it needed to be? The last valid reason they'd have had to ban the Sun was when they failed to make the verdict last year front page news. But why now?

    I think for them to ban the Sun now punishes the wrong people. From top to bottom (well, apart from Mr Murdoch and a handful of individuals) the staff at the Sun are all new, and probably had nothing to do with the awful decisions that were made at the time.

    I've long thought that the actions of the Sun at that time were indefensible. I detest the current Sun editorial line and it's hard right wing stance on practically everything. It is divisive, unnecessary and is currently a force of evil (which it can be from time to time). I hated the line it took in the 1980s on subjects such as the miners strike and I hate that it seems to be similar today, so I don't buy it, although there have been times when I have.

    I passionately disliked the way we were treated by the Daily Record in the aftermath of the cup final, but I disagree with banning papers that you disagree with. It rarely makes a club come out in a good light (see Rangers and their tangles over the past few years when the media do something they don't want them to do).

    There's a bit of me that views the continued feud between the Sun and the city of Liverpool with a bit of unease. The Sun had good sources for their stories, the kind of sources any editor would trust. They were stitched up by figures high up in South Yorkshire Police like everybody else, and some of the anger that has been directed at the Sun should have been saved for the police, who were (in my opinion) the true villains of the piece and the anger held for who were basically "messengers" (albeit careless, crass, insensitive ones) distracted attention away from who was most culpable in the whole affair - the police.

    I don't think the Sun's statement today is unreasonable.

    At some point bridges will have to be built and people will need to move on. Criminal proceedings against the real perpetrators will help more than anything. But this smacks to me as pandering to an angry mob and I don't really know what good it will do.

  11. #40
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    32
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Smartie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    (Playing devil's advocate a bit here, so please - hear me out).

    What exactly is the point in this ban, and who does it benefit at this time?

    The people of Liverpool the city as well as the people at Liverpool FC absolutely have an axe to grind with the paper and I think they're entitled to hold the grudge they do.
    I think it is only reasonable for newsagents to refuse to stock the paper and if taxi drivers choose to bear those slogans then that is their right.

    But why should Liverpool FC ban the Sun journalists now? Why not 28 years ago? Why not, at any point in between when the Sun have made this a bigger problem than it needed to be? The last valid reason they'd have had to ban the Sun was when they failed to make the verdict last year front page news. But why now?

    I think for them to ban the Sun now punishes the wrong people. From top to bottom (well, apart from Mr Murdoch and a handful of individuals) the staff at the Sun are all new, and probably had nothing to do with the awful decisions that were made at the time.

    I've long thought that the actions of the Sun at that time were indefensible. I detest the current Sun editorial line and it's hard right wing stance on practically everything. It is divisive, unnecessary and is currently a force of evil (which it can be from time to time). I hated the line it took in the 1980s on subjects such as the miners strike and I hate that it seems to be similar today, so I don't buy it, although there have been times when I have.

    I passionately disliked the way we were treated by the Daily Record in the aftermath of the cup final, but I disagree with banning papers that you disagree with. It rarely makes a club come out in a good light (see Rangers and their tangles over the past few years when the media do something they don't want them to do).

    There's a bit of me that views the continued feud between the Sun and the city of Liverpool with a bit of unease. The Sun had good sources for their stories, the kind of sources any editor would trust. They were stitched up by figures high up in South Yorkshire Police like everybody else, and some of the anger that has been directed at the Sun should have been saved for the police, who were (in my opinion) the true villains of the piece and the anger held for who were basically "messengers" (albeit careless, crass, insensitive ones) distracted attention away from who was most culpable in the whole affair - the police.

    I don't think the Sun's statement today is unreasonable.

    At some point bridges will have to be built and people will need to move on. Criminal proceedings against the real perpetrators will help more than anything. But this smacks to me as pandering to an angry mob and I don't really know what good it will do.
    I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.

    I understand what you've said about the potential justification for the stories carried by The Sun at the time of Hillsborough (albeit I don't agree), but I think the more pertinent point is that The Sun's despicable behaviour was not limited to that story, or the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They maintained their position and refused to apologise when any self-respecting investigative journalist (or human being) would have been way past the point of simply questioning matters.

    I would guess a lot of people in Liverpool look at the way The Sun conducts itself these days and sees a "newspaper" which simply hasn't changed. Even putting the editorial position aside, in recent years it has regularly printed stories which it knew, or ought to have known, were untrue. Either the same "mistakes" are still allowed to happen, or the owners and staff actively engage in a reckless belligerency in an attempt to make money.

    The staff who work for The Sun, journalists and others, are not immune from being held responsible for the The Sun's output. The story of the Nigerian lady who gave birth to quadruplets, mentioned earlier on this thread, was featured in a recent episode of the excellent documentary "Hospital". I'd be amazed if anyone watched it without feeling intense sadness and compassion for the lady, her children and the situation she was forced into. I accept that the job of journalists can sometimes be to look beyond these initial instincts and get to the "story", but The Sun's approach was simply callous. I re-read the online article linked to in this thread after watching the episode and it really made me think about the OP. If The Sun is representative of society, in any more than a purely superficial way, we're in trouble.

    On a more practical note, you've mentioned the "need" to move on. Whilst there is probably a broader discussion to be had about that sentiment, there is only ever a need to move on together, if both parties need each other. The people of Liverpool have never and will never need The Sun. They do not need to move on together and, if it's easier for the people of Liverpool to seek to move on from the events of Hillsborough without The Sun in their lives, shops, Club and city, then that probably answers the point you've raised as well.

  12. #41
    Coaching Staff Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Vanerama
    Posts
    30,142
    This revealing, and somewhat worrying, article may help answer the original question.

    Rupert Murdoch’s invisible presence shows his dark magic is back . . .

    https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...y_to_clipboard
    Buy nothing online unless you click here first. I'm already £1,497.46 better off!



  13. #42
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    46
    Posts
    16,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.

    I understand what you've said about the potential justification for the stories carried by The Sun at the time of Hillsborough (albeit I don't agree), but I think the more pertinent point is that The Sun's despicable behaviour was not limited to that story, or the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They maintained their position and refused to apologise when any self-respecting investigative journalist (or human being) would have been way past the point of simply questioning matters.

    I would guess a lot of people in Liverpool look at the way The Sun conducts itself these days and sees a "newspaper" which simply hasn't changed. Even putting the editorial position aside, in recent years it has regularly printed stories which it knew, or ought to have known, were untrue. Either the same "mistakes" are still allowed to happen, or the owners and staff actively engage in a reckless belligerency in an attempt to make money.

    The staff who work for The Sun, journalists and others, are not immune from being held responsible for the The Sun's output. The story of the Nigerian lady who gave birth to quadruplets, mentioned earlier on this thread, was featured in a recent episode of the excellent documentary "Hospital". I'd be amazed if anyone watched it without feeling intense sadness and compassion for the lady, her children and the situation she was forced into. I accept that the job of journalists can sometimes be to look beyond these initial instincts and get to the "story", but The Sun's approach was simply callous. I re-read the online article linked to in this thread after watching the episode and it really made me think about the OP. If The Sun is representative of society, in any more than a purely superficial way, we're in trouble.

    On a more practical note, you've mentioned the "need" to move on. Whilst there is probably a broader discussion to be had about that sentiment, there is only ever a need to move on together, if both parties need each other. The people of Liverpool have never and will never need The Sun. They do not need to move on together and, if it's easier for the people of Liverpool to seek to move on from the events of Hillsborough without The Sun in their lives, shops, Club and city, then that probably answers the point you've raised as well.

  14. #43
    Testimonial Due Smartie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.

    I understand what you've said about the potential justification for the stories carried by The Sun at the time of Hillsborough (albeit I don't agree), but I think the more pertinent point is that The Sun's despicable behaviour was not limited to that story, or the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. They maintained their position and refused to apologise when any self-respecting investigative journalist (or human being) would have been way past the point of simply questioning matters.

    I would guess a lot of people in Liverpool look at the way The Sun conducts itself these days and sees a "newspaper" which simply hasn't changed. Even putting the editorial position aside, in recent years it has regularly printed stories which it knew, or ought to have known, were untrue. Either the same "mistakes" are still allowed to happen, or the owners and staff actively engage in a reckless belligerency in an attempt to make money.

    The staff who work for The Sun, journalists and others, are not immune from being held responsible for the The Sun's output. The story of the Nigerian lady who gave birth to quadruplets, mentioned earlier on this thread, was featured in a recent episode of the excellent documentary "Hospital". I'd be amazed if anyone watched it without feeling intense sadness and compassion for the lady, her children and the situation she was forced into. I accept that the job of journalists can sometimes be to look beyond these initial instincts and get to the "story", but The Sun's approach was simply callous. I re-read the online article linked to in this thread after watching the episode and it really made me think about the OP. If The Sun is representative of society, in any more than a purely superficial way, we're in trouble.

    On a more practical note, you've mentioned the "need" to move on. Whilst there is probably a broader discussion to be had about that sentiment, there is only ever a need to move on together, if both parties need each other. The people of Liverpool have never and will never need The Sun. They do not need to move on together and, if it's easier for the people of Liverpool to seek to move on from the events of Hillsborough without The Sun in their lives, shops, Club and city, then that probably answers the point you've raised as well.
    All very fair points.

    I don't feel at all comfortable defending the Sun, because it is a paper I have no time for and as I said I can't defend the indefensible, which McKenzie's actions were.

    The Sun have done plenty to antagonise the club, the city of Liverpool and the victims' relatives over the years that would have been deserving of this ban, but nothing much of late has changed - in my opinion - in order for this to be relevant now, and it smacks a bit of appeasing an angry mob (albeit one who are justifiably angry).

    The cry is "justice for the 96". Is justice going to be served by this ongoing feud between a city and a newspaper? I'm not so sure that it is, and that this is developing into a sideshow of its own. The disgraceful incompetence of the police on the day and the unspeakably awful cover-up that happened after are the biggest wrongs that need to be righted and that must come through pursuing those guilty through the courts.

    Kelvin McKenzie should be dragged into court and have vigorously extracted from him what he heard and from whom in order for him to run with the story. That, will aid the "justice for the 96" cause.

    There is a danger that justifiable anger could turn into something different, and I am concerned that actions like this ban are suggestive of that.

  15. #44
    Testimonial Due Smartie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Age
    39
    Posts
    4,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Future17 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think, to an extent, you've answered your own question with regard to the point of the ban. I obviously can't speak to the inner workings of LFC or the reason(s) this decision has been made, however, I would say there's a strong likelihood that the editorial position of The Sun is at odds with the values and principles held by the majority of people associated with the Club.
    I'm not sure about this bit though. I'd be amazed if American owners of a Premier League football club are drastically at odds with the values and principles held by a huge media corporation.

    If they are drastically at odds, maybe they will give Mr Murdoch his hundreds of millions of pounds of Sky money back?

  16. #45
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    46
    Posts
    16,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Smartie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure about this bit though. I'd be amazed if American owners of a Premier League football club are drastically at odds with the values and principles held by a huge media corporation.

    If they are drastically at odds, maybe they will give Mr Murdoch his hundreds of millions of pounds of Sky money back?
    I think the new owners are happy to encourage a perception that LFC do 'The right thing', whether you think it's false or not. Similarly, that Lovren interview I posted yesterday is quite political, and not what you normally see on a club site. They have a 96 in small letters on the back of their shirt. Boycotting Sky is obviously not going to happen but I'd expect more 'more than just a club' antics from them going forward. And nothing wrong with that if you can get away with it.
    Last edited by hibsbollah; 11-02-2017 at 01:13 PM.

  17. #46
    Scottish Cup Victory - Witness 2016 Scouse Hibee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Age
    49
    Posts
    14,225
    Quote Originally Posted by hibsbollah View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the new owners are happy to encourage a perception that LFC do 'The right thing', whether you think it's false or not. Similarly, that Lovren interview I posted yesterday is quite political, and not what you normally see on a club site.
    What new owners? Been there since 2010
    "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain
    an advantage, then he should be."

  18. #47
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    46
    Posts
    16,209
    Quote Originally Posted by Scouse Hibee View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What new owners? Been there since 2010
    Well OK, I'm getting on a bit so six years seems like six months but the point stands.

  19. #48
    Testimonial Due Future17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    "Galactidos!"
    Age
    32
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Smartie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All very fair points.

    I don't feel at all comfortable defending the Sun, because it is a paper I have no time for and as I said I can't defend the indefensible, which McKenzie's actions were.

    The Sun have done plenty to antagonise the club, the city of Liverpool and the victims' relatives over the years that would have been deserving of this ban, but nothing much of late has changed - in my opinion - in order for this to be relevant now, and it smacks a bit of appeasing an angry mob (albeit one who are justifiably angry).

    The cry is "justice for the 96". Is justice going to be served by this ongoing feud between a city and a newspaper? I'm not so sure that it is, and that this is developing into a sideshow of its own. The disgraceful incompetence of the police on the day and the unspeakably awful cover-up that happened after are the biggest wrongs that need to be righted and that must come through pursuing those guilty through the courts.

    Kelvin McKenzie should be dragged into court and have vigorously extracted from him what he heard and from whom in order for him to run with the story. That, will aid the "justice for the 96" cause.

    There is a danger that justifiable anger could turn into something different, and I am concerned that actions like this ban are suggestive of that.
    I agree with most of what you say, but I don't think anyone has equated the ban to "justice". It's punitive, but righteous and potentially cathartic for the people affected. What's the problem with that? What are your concerns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Smartie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure about this bit though. I'd be amazed if American owners of a Premier League football club are drastically at odds with the values and principles held by a huge media corporation.

    If they are drastically at odds, maybe they will give Mr Murdoch his hundreds of millions of pounds of Sky money back?
    I didn't say anything about the values and principles of the American owners; I mentioned the majority of the people associated with the Club. I take your point about the source of money etc. but the owners are not the Club at LFC - just like the owners are not the Club at HFC.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved