Media Bandwagon.

[morty 0]

I have found it quite disturbing how the media seem to be rounding on David McNally.Is it just all about their perception of how nice Chris Hughton is? I didn''t see any other chairmen criticised despite actually sacking their managers, surely Fulham''s chairman deserves some scrutiny?I don''t think the guy has done anything wrong, he was honest and open about Hughton''s position.Essentially the media''s intervention has made it impossible to sack Chris Hughton now, a power I don''t think they should be allowed to have.

[The Walking Man 13]

The media are just London-centric sheep. It''s lazy journalism and to be fair, that''s exactly why newspapers are dying. The BBC & ITV (and to a lesser extent sky) need to be careful too because independent internet sites often offer far more valuable insights than the likes of Danny Mills et al.

[morty 0]

[quote user="The Walking Man "]The media are just London-centric sheep. It''s lazy journalism and to be fair, that''s exactly why newspapers are dying. The BBC & ITV (and to a lesser extent sky) need to be careful too because independent internet sites often offer far more valuable insights than the likes of Danny Mills et al.[/quote]Its extremely lazy, but it is also potentially very damaging to the image of our club, and scrutiny we could do without.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="morty"]I have found it quite disturbing how the media seem to be rounding on David McNally.

Is it just all about their perception of how nice Chris Hughton is? I didn''t see any other chairmen criticised despite actually sacking their managers, surely Fulham''s chairman deserves some scrutiny?

I don''t think the guy has done anything wrong, he was honest and open about Hughton''s position.

Essentially the media''s intervention has made it impossible to sack Chris Hughton now, a power I don''t think they should be allowed to have.
[/quote]

 

Totally agree Mr Morty but impossible to sack?  Does McNally even do impossible?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jimbo Canary"]

[quote user="morty"]I have found it quite disturbing how the media seem to be rounding on David McNally.Is it just all about their perception of how nice Chris Hughton is? I didn''t see any other chairmen criticised despite actually sacking their managers, surely Fulham''s chairman deserves some scrutiny?I don''t think the guy has done anything wrong, he was honest and open about Hughton''s position.Essentially the media''s intervention has made it impossible to sack Chris Hughton now, a power I don''t think they should be allowed to have.[/quote]

 

Totally agree Mr Morty but impossible to sack?  Does McNally even do impossible?

[/quote]Not impossible obviously, but extremely difficult. I don''t doubt that McNally would do it, but if the current fuss is anything to go by, the press would demand his head on a stick.

[Warren Hill 0]

If we wanted to sack him I don''t think media perception would come into it.

 

As you point out, we''ve stuck by Hughton when others would have had an itchy trigger finger long ago, that must be more of a fillip to the manager than any contrived words would have been in response to loaded questions in an interview.

 

I agree that McNally was clear and open and I agree with him that you simply HAVE to be aware of the markets you operate in, this isn''t just true of managers but also coaches and players. Hughton himself doesn''t seem to have a problem with what was said and has handled himself impeccably. The apparent furore because McNally didn''t appear to give assurance of job security is ridiculous, he even qualified it to a degree by explaining that managers don''t just get sacked, they can up and leave too (Lambert) and for that reason you have to keep tabs on the market at all times.

 

Just a quiet football news week maybe? It''ll soon be forgotten when Mourinho has his next outburst at Wenger or something.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Warren Hill"]

If we wanted to sack him I don''t think media perception would come into it.

 

As you point out, we''ve stuck by Hughton when others would have had an itchy trigger finger long ago, that must be more of a fillip to the manager than any contrived words would have been in response to loaded questions in an interview.

 

I agree that McNally was clear and open and I agree with him that you simply HAVE to be aware of the markets you operate in, this isn''t just true of managers but also coaches and players. Hughton himself doesn''t seem to have a problem with what was said and has handled himself impeccably. The apparent furore because McNally didn''t appear to give assurance of job security is ridiculous, he even qualified it to a degree by explaining that managers don''t just get sacked, they can up and leave too (Lambert) and for that reason you have to keep tabs on the market at all times.

 

Just a quiet football news week maybe? It''ll soon be forgotten when Mourinho has his next outburst at Wenger or something.

[/quote]Do you think McNally would have been better off saying nothing at all? Did the fans or the media pressure him into feeling he needed to speak out?I agree, it is all ridiculous, and I am glad that Hughton appears to be taking it all in his stride.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Out of the transfer windows managerial sackings are the only rumours the media has to play with. McNally''s interview was a very unusual step - it is very rare to see a CEO participate in an interview in such a way. Personally I don''t see why he did it, a statement would have been a better move in my eyes, and wouldn''t have kicked up such a fuss.

 

Obviously McNally wouldn''t have said anything in that interview that Hughton didn''t already know, and I''m 99% sure all the questions were pre-approved by the man himself. As a man of great experience of using the media you might wonder if McNally knew doing that interview would draw the attention to himself and actually take the focus away from CH and the team - if McNally briefed Hughton before the interview (which I''m sure he did) nothing he said would have added pressure on the manager, beyond the already massive amount of pressure he is under.

 

I also think the ''slipping into the bottom three'' quotes from a previous interview have been taken out of context, in no way do I think it meant as soon as Norwich dropped to 18th or below McNally was going to sack Hughton - for me McNally meant if Norwich were in the bottom three come the end of the season.

 

Also, Sky have messed up to BT - they lost the first pick games for the second half of the season resulting in ''Super Sunday'' having both Norwich and Villa as televised games for 2 weeks running - they are looking for anyway possible to squeeze a narrative out of these games and ''manager on the edge'' was an obvious approach after McNally''s interview.

[Shaun Tilly Lace 0]

Our sports hacks and pundits are rather fond of a good bandwagon, they love them just as much as a good cliche, it saves taxing their brain cells on original thought. I don''t think McNally and the board will be swayed by what any of these talking heads think; they shouldn''t be, anyway, as all of these sh.ite storms blow over in a very short time when a new bandwagon appears just crying out to be jumped on.

[Your mother 0]

Perhaps the McNally interview was just quid pro quo with local media: I''ll give you an interview if you stop writing unfavourable pieces. Possibly not as blatant as that but a "I''ll scratch your back" type approach. The link-bait hysteria of the non-local media then does what it does and twists anything McNally says in to an attention seeking headline. "Hughton must win: one game to save his job" attracts rather more clicks/views than "CEO does his job".If it isn''t that then I do wonder why McNally gave the dreaded vote of confidence spiel without actually saying those particular words.And for another example of something from nothing, look at headlines on Hughtons comments re Louis Van Gaal.  "Blasts", "hits-out at" all designed to garner clicks and views. "Reasonable man makes valid point" doesn''t quite cut it.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,510]

[quote user="Your mother"]Perhaps the McNally interview was just quid pro quo with local media: I''ll give you an interview if you stop writing unfavourable pieces. Possibly not as blatant as that but a "I''ll scratch your back" type approach. The link-bait hysteria of the non-local media then does what it does and twists anything McNally says in to an attention seeking headline. "Hughton must win: one game to save his job" attracts rather more clicks/views than "CEO does his job".If it isn''t that then I do wonder why McNally gave the dreaded vote of confidence spiel without actually saying those particular words.And for another example of something from nothing, look at headlines on Hughtons comments re Louis Van Gaal.  "Blasts", "hits-out at" all designed to garner clicks and views. "Reasonable man makes valid point" doesn''t quite cut it.

[/quote]I think David McNally''s interview was a massive success in many respects. He gave an in-depth, rational and considered analysis of where we are as a club. He didn''t say CH was safe come what may and made a few valid criticisms, but equally defended him in some areas and made it absolutely clear that the squad was working for the manager. After that interview, the anti-Hughton sentiment seemed to calm down considerably. Also, having enough in the interview for the national press to seize on and criticise McNally seems to have caused a lot of fans to round the wagons and go into siege mode against the national press/Mills when there were quite a few fans criticising him before.

[Bury Green 0]

Perhaps theres still a hangover from his fabled trip to the West Country to dispatch Gunn?

one thing I''m absolutely sure of is if our Chief Executive thinks its time to act and his fellow directors support him accordingly then act he absolutely will.

What grates more than anything with the circus of ''Media Whores'' is their complete and total myopia when it comes to understanding how a decision is taken at boardroom level. If indeed the contract of the manager was terminated it certainly wouldn''t just be the Chief Executives decision, far from it, but it would be his responsibility to deal with.

Mind you if something as pig shit thick as Adrian Durham can derive an income from practicing the art of spouting rubbish then what can you expect?

[......and Smith must score. 1,334]

[quote user="morty"]I have found it quite disturbing how the media seem to be rounding on David McNally.Is it just all about their perception of how nice Chris Hughton is? I didn''t see any other chairmen criticised despite actually sacking their managers, surely Fulham''s chairman deserves some scrutiny?I don''t think the guy has done anything wrong, he was honest and open about Hughton''s position.Essentially the media''s intervention has made it impossible to sack Chris Hughton now, a power I don''t think they should be allowed to have.[/quote]Good point Morty although it''s unusual for the Chief Exec to get the flak rather than the owner or Chairman.I suppose McNally''s '' hard man '' image does him no favours with the media because if he''s p*ssed them off in the past they''ll be delighted to get the chance to put the boot in now. I agree that the criticism is a bit harsh, especially in hindsight following the death of his father, but to be fair none of us including the media knew about that at the time.There''s probably a few sports editors feeling a bit sheepish today though.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

David McNally flirts with Hughtons future. Performances and results improve. Coincidence? Noone saying McNally has pulled a master stroke?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]David McNally flirts with Hughtons future. Performances and results improve. Coincidence? Noone saying McNally has pulled a master stroke?[/quote]

 

It''s all a bit bizarrre, in a world where Fulham sack their manager and sack the replacement a couple of months later (was he just a caretaker?  Do I even care ?) or Sunderland get in Di Canio close to the end of the season and sack him a few games into the next season, and let''s not even mention Cardiff (oops), how can the press criticise a CEO for giving a clear and rational explanation of the position of the manager when the team is just above the relegation zone, and when most of the managers in the bottom half of the table have already been changed this season.

 

It may well have helped by diverting press attention away from Hughton, although I doubt this was the intention given it''s such a stupid reaction by the press.

 

I''m pretty sure if McNally (with the Board) decide at any point Hughton must go, they won''t be swayed by media comment beforehand - just as they haven''t been pushed into sacking him by the excessively negative views of some supporters to our performance so far this season.

[Tumbleweed 106]

McNally was between a rock and a hard place. he was getting stick for not being more visible and stepping in when concern was mounting. I thought his interview was good, he cannot say the CH is one game from the sack as that would destabilise nor can he come out and say he is safe because our situation as becoming perilous (and still is to some extent). is it wrong to say they are thinking of what their Plan B would be? Of course not- all good businesses will have contingency planning and succession planning. Just because he has said the openly does not undermine CH. I agree with the OP that the press have taken a deliberately unfavourable view of this, presumably to create a "story".

[a1canary 0]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="The Great Mass Debater"]David McNally flirts with Hughtons future. Performances and results improve. Coincidence? Noone saying McNally has pulled a master stroke?[/quote]

It''s all a bit bizarrre, in a world where Fulham sack their manager and sack the replacement a couple of months later (was he just a caretaker?  Do I even care ?) or Sunderland get in Di Canio close to the end of the season and sack him a few games into the next season, and let''s not even mention Cardiff (oops), how can the press criticise a CEO for giving a clear and rational explanation of the position of the manager when the team is just above the relegation zone, and when most of the managers in the bottom half of the table have already been changed this season.

It may well have helped by diverting press attention away from Hughton, although I doubt this was the intention given it''s such a stupid reaction by the press.

I''m pretty sure if McNally (with the Board) decide at any point Hughton must go, they won''t be swayed by media comment beforehand - just as they haven''t been pushed into sacking him by the excessively negative views of some supporters to our performance so far this season.

[/quote]

Spot on ICF. This has really only blown up since that plank Mills opened his rent-a-gob. He''s the footballing equivalent of Katie Hopkins who only gets heard because he "speaks his mind" which in media land translates as "loves sh$t stirring". Us fans, apart from the inevitable clueless few, know that McNally''s stewardship of this club has been nothing short of exemplary. Sure there have been episodes that may have been handled differently, maybe around the Lambert situation, but i don''t think they could have stopped him leaving. And now he faces a super high pressure decision about the manager that is inteseley scrutinised. In then end, it''s a simple binary choice, and it''s impossible to say which is correct so it''s not fair to criticise him for the decision he takes, so long as it is backed with rational reasoning.