Michael Bailey post match

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,247]

His review, very interesting the way he's started it - defending himself over the " break of trust " comments 

 

 

[WD40 720]

The breach of trust comments were directed at the Pinkun I believe for breaking the story about US investments. SB on Twitter says the club were approached for comment, didn’t want the story going out and tried to offer an interview with SW as an alternative to EDP breaking the story, EDP refused of course (investment a much bigger story), and club  now claiming breach of trust. The hide of it. 

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,247]

5 minutes ago, WD40 said:

The breach of trust comments were directed at the Pinkun I believe for breaking the story about US investments. SB on Twitter says the club were approached for comment, didn’t want the story going out and tried to offer an interview with SW as an alternative to EDP breaking the story, EDP refused of course (investment a much bigger story), and club  now claiming breach of trust. The hide of it. 

See I thought that too, but after watching MB I do wonder if it's a blanket statement where they've included the Pinkun stuff in with something MB has written, possibly the transfer stuff of last summer? Where he said about DF only wanting 3 or 4 key signings but SW going out and getting in who he did and the being warned off of Sarge etc? 

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by GodlyOtsemobor

[WD40 720]

4 minutes ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

See I thought that too, but after watching MB I do wonder if it's a blanket statement where they've included the Pinkun stuff in with something MB has written, possibly the transfer stuff of last summer? Where he said about DF only wanting 3 or 4 key signings but SW going out and getting in who he did and the being warned off of Sarge etc? 

 

Who knows but reporters will report. I don’t know the ins and outs of what a normal media relationship should look like anyway. But the whole thing just adds to disconnect between fans and the club.

[KeiranShikari 1,409]

I don't think the 'breach of trust' is really the problem with Webber and the press. It's the previous criticism and he's using the investor stuff to hide.

[PeteRaven 33]

22 minutes ago, WD40 said:

The breach of trust comments were directed at the Pinkun I believe for breaking the story about US investments. SB on Twitter says the club were approached for comment, didn’t want the story going out and tried to offer an interview with SW as an alternative to EDP breaking the story, EDP refused of course (investment a much bigger story), and club  now claiming breach of trust. The hide of it. 

That’s an interesting theory. 

[Kingston Yellow 220]

49 minutes ago, KeiranShikari said:

I don't think the 'breach of trust' is really the problem with Webber and the press. It's the previous criticism and he's using the investor stuff to hide.

Agree with you.  Plus Webber’s arrogance and belief that he’s beyond reproach.  Which he absolutely is not.  

He’s clearly no longer allowed to speak directly in a Q&A format with journalists given he has zero tact, diplomacy, or emotional intelligence.  He’s a complete liability in front of the camera, which is contributing to the division with the fans that the board are in denial about.
 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Kingston Yellow

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

59 minutes ago, WD40 said:

The breach of trust comments were directed at the Pinkun I believe for breaking the story about US investments. SB on Twitter says the club were approached for comment, didn’t want the story going out and tried to offer an interview with SW as an alternative to EDP breaking the story, EDP refused of course (investment a much bigger story), and club  now claiming breach of trust. The hide of it. 

I don’t know whether that is true in every detail, but there is an obvious point. By parading those seven men in the directors’ box any embargo or hoped-for deal the club might have had or wanted to have was instantly rendered in practice obsolete.

It was an action, whether the media team at Carrow Road realised it or not, that created a ‘who are those guys?’ question that the media had to investigate and report on. If the club wanted the deal kept under wraps it should not have allowed them out in plain sight of thousands of fans and the watching journalists. And the EDP in particular would have looked very stupid if it had answered that question,

As said before, Richens was not the right person to comment on the rupture between the club and the EDP. The club’s head of media would be the person to answer questions.
 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I thought at the time Michael Bailey was already on it when the pink un broke the story and stole his thunder. 

That could be wrong but I remember something like that.

[Monty13 2,229]

4 hours ago, WD40 said:

The breach of trust comments were directed at the Pinkun I believe for breaking the story about US investments. SB on Twitter says the club were approached for comment, didn’t want the story going out and tried to offer an interview with SW as an alternative to EDP breaking the story, EDP refused of course (investment a much bigger story), and club  now claiming breach of trust. The hide of it. 

I’d say the issue is regardless of whether the breach of trust thing was aimed at Bailey, the Pinkun or both, they both seem to be getting the same treatment from the club.

It’s unbelievably petty. Journalists can, will and should give their honest thoughts and opinions on what the club is doing. It very much seems like all either party is likely to have done is written things the club didn’t want them to or didn’t like. If that’s the case it’s pathetic.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

11 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’d say the issue is regardless of whether the breach of trust thing was aimed at Bailey, the Pinkun or both, they both seem to be getting the same treatment from the club.

It’s unbelievably petty. Journalists can, will and should give their honest thoughts and opinions on what the club is doing. It very much seems like all either party is likely to have done is written things the club didn’t want them to or didn’t like. If that’s the case it’s pathetic.

Quite. It’s a reporters job to report/ knocking them for that seems childish and unreasonable 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

36 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

I’d say the issue is regardless of whether the breach of trust thing was aimed at Bailey, the Pinkun or both, they both seem to be getting the same treatment from the club.

It’s unbelievably petty. Journalists can, will and should give their honest thoughts and opinions on what the club is doing. It very much seems like all either party is likely to have done is written things the club didn’t want them to or didn’t like. If that’s the case it’s pathetic.

Journalists are actually a pretty arrogant breed who play with people's lives to sell stories. In the case of celebrities, their livelihood depends on publicity, so they have to court the press and play the presses game, up to and including public humiliation on a fairly frequent basis. 

Stuart Webber is not a celebrity. He doesn't need publicity for his job. If he gives an interview, it's because he thinks there's some other benefit to doing it. If suddenly there's a risk that those interviews are going to move from talking about the club to attacking him personally, then it's perfectly reasonable to tell them to jog on. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Monty13 2,229]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Journalists are actually a pretty arrogant breed who play with people's lives to sell stories. In the case of celebrities, their livelihood depends on publicity, so they have to court the press and play the presses game, up to and including public humiliation on occasions. 

Stuart Webber is not a celebrity. He doesn't need publicity for his job. If he gives an interview, it's because he thinks there's some other benefit to doing it. If suddenly there's a risk that those interviews are going to move from talking about the club to attacking him personally, then it's perfectly reasonable to tell them to jog on. 

Seriously Stuart, don’t you have better things to do on a Saturday night? 😂

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I thought at the time Michael Bailey was already on it when the pink un broke the story and stole his thunder. 

That could be wrong but I remember something like that.

I have a mole in the Athletic who says that as MB took a holiday at the time the story emerged through the EDP his bosses were unhappy that he had dropped the ball and not got in there first. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

4 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Seriously Stuart, don’t you have better things to do on a Saturday night? 😂

If only...

In all seriousness, I think the club is better off leaving media duties entirely to the players and manager during the season and leaving the strategic business conversations for off season. Making yourself accountable publicly when you don't need to be is just setting yourself up to be a whipping boy. 

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

It was actually quite refreshing to hear on canary call them mention that a video with carefully chosen questions and scripted answers, from a person not really affiliated in any way with supporter engagement kind of illustrates well the disconnect that exists but the club are in complete denial about. It all feels very contrived by the club and honestly feels more than a little insulting to our intelligence as a fan base. The supporters that actually tune into these kind of videos aren’t the stereotypical drinking fan who are satisfied with a pat on the head, they’re intelligent people who see past the BS. Honestly, the club need to stop peddling the ‘nothing to see here’ rubbish as it’ll only drive the wedge further 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Cracking up that MB immediately started praising Onel after he interrupted the video  and said he’d be watching the summary later 🤣

[WD40 720]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

I’d say the issue is regardless of whether the breach of trust thing was aimed at Bailey, the Pinkun or both, they both seem to be getting the same treatment from the club.

It’s unbelievably petty. Journalists can, will and should give their honest thoughts and opinions on what the club is doing. It very much seems like all either party is likely to have done is written things the club didn’t want them to or didn’t like. If that’s the case it’s pathetic.

Absolutely. It’s utterly pathetic. All the ‘ignore the noise’ rubbish. More like ‘try to create a vacuum where no noise can be made’. You’d expect if things improve, the ice thaws and Webber comes roaring back with his “I told you so’s”. 

[Pugin 601]

There seems to be fault (but nothing hugely irrepairable) on both sides.

Firstly, the club can only claim 'breach of trust' if information was gjven to media outlets on an off the record basis, and this confidential briefing was made public. Possibly this happened, but the evidence suggests not.

Secondly, and far, far more importantly, both sides seem to be variously sensitive to, and influenced by, the toxic verbal detritus that is posted on social media. STOP TAKING NOTICE OF IT. BOTH, SIDES, JUST STOP. Use you own intelligence, and don't be influenced by random and deceiptful nonsense. Show some maturity. Show sound judgement. Don't listen to social media voices as they are not a sensible median consensus. They speak with an extreme voice in a desperate attempt to gain attention.

And to Stuart Webber, stop being prickly. You are a cog in the wheel. You cannot control everything. 

[Monty13 2,229]

9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If only...

In all seriousness, I think the club is better off leaving media duties entirely to the players and manager during the season and leaving the strategic business conversations for off season. Making yourself accountable publicly when you don't need to be is just setting yourself up to be a whipping boy. 

He is accountable publicly, he can’t decide he’s not 😂 ….although he’s trying.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

50 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

He is accountable publicly, he can’t decide he’s not 😂 ….although he’s trying.

How? What sanctions does the public have if he refuses to speak to the press?

He stopped doing interviews some time ago with no negative effects for him.

Edited October 30, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Jim Smith 2,314]

There has not been a breach of trust. It’s just that certain people at the club do not like/cannot take criticism. It started with the owners who you will note always give any interviews they do to national outlets and seem to have done so for some time. 

Webber, however, appears even more prickly and aside from possibly Goreham, the local media boys are being given the absolute bare minimum. Note there is always a member of the media team standing over Smith and the players now when doing interviews.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Journalists are actually a pretty arrogant breed who play with people's lives to sell stories. In the case of celebrities, their livelihood depends on publicity, so they have to court the press and play the presses game, up to and including public humiliation on a fairly frequent basis. 

Stuart Webber is not a celebrity. He doesn't need publicity for his job. If he gives an interview, it's because he thinks there's some other benefit to doing it. If suddenly there's a risk that those interviews are going to move from talking about the club to attacking him personally, then it's perfectly reasonable to tell them to jog on. 

Some other benefit such as raising the profile of his mountain climbing exploits for example? Which is what started this descent into acrimony even though some others in the media were already being snubbed. 

[Monty13 2,229]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How? What sanctions does the public have if he refuses to speak to the press?

He stopped doing interviews some time ago with no negative effects for him.

Because he is judged by supporters on his performance and what he says and does, or doesn’t. 

The idea you think there has been no negative affects of his relationship with the press is hilarious.

I presume you also think there was no negative affects of the interviews he has done?

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,247]

1 hour ago, Monty13 said:

Because he is judged by supporters on his performance and what he says and does, or doesn’t. 

The idea you think there has been no negative affects of his relationship with the press is hilarious.

I presume you also think there was no negative affects of the interviews he has done?

The only people that negatively affect anything to do with the club is us, didn't you know? 😉

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

It started with the owners who you will note always give any interviews they do to national outlets and seem to have done so for some time. 
 

I don't think that's true. I could be wrong but I think the last one was the Times interview that you love to quote as a Bible but has actually been superceded with other interviews. Even one to a fans group that you don't seem to want to recognise even though you can actually hear what they say rather than read what a journo has written.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ulfotto 623]

There is clearly fault on both sides but people just need to move on both sides. The club needs to open themselves up to criticism from the local media.

The issue I assume is that there is probably too much media competition around Norwich and not all of them can survive pinkun, athletic, tnc, alongcomenorwich, my football writer, the club own channel throw in the nationals the amount of consumable content around Norwich has never been higher. I would assume archant is most at risk and therefore maybe doesn’t play by the rules

[TIL 1010 4,722]

I am told the media are not welcome to attend the forthcoming AGM as they were also not at the recent EGM and don't hold your breath on Webber or Dean Smith being in attendance either.

[Monty13 2,229]

53 minutes ago, Ulfotto said:

There is clearly fault on both sides but people just need to move on both sides. The club needs to open themselves up to criticism from the local media.

The issue I assume is that there is probably too much media competition around Norwich and not all of them can survive pinkun, athletic, tnc, alongcomenorwich, my football writer, the club own channel throw in the nationals the amount of consumable content around Norwich has never been higher. I would assume archant is most at risk and therefore maybe doesn’t play by the rules

I think that’s a massive assumption personally.

I trust Bailey. In the video he’s made it clear he believes he’s not done anything wrong. I’ve heard in previous Pods he’s made it clear the relationships with club soured because he wrote things they didn’t like.

The Pinkun antagonised the situation with that headline but again if you listen to their Pod I believe it was apparently after months of being denied an interview to ask legitimate questions.

Until the club lays out their actual complaints, rather than hiding behind vague accusations of betrayal, I’m yet to see what was wrong other than writing and saying things the club didn’t want them to or didn’t like.

[chicken 2,604]

20 hours ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

See I thought that too, but after watching MB I do wonder if it's a blanket statement where they've included the Pinkun stuff in with something MB has written, possibly the transfer stuff of last summer? Where he said about DF only wanting 3 or 4 key signings but SW going out and getting in who he did and the being warned off of Sarge etc? 

Did he say that it was DF that wanted 3-4? I thought his article said that was the initial and primary goal going into the transfer window but several of those deals didn't materialise with players turning us down for wages or clubs turning down offers. Billing, Ajer and Armstrong being the three most obvious, but King and Cahill supposedly also turning us down too.