Idiot hack embarrassed on Chelsea TV

Spazdarn

Any readers of football365 may have already seen this but delighted this douche got pulled up over his bull****...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt9elfwV8cU

That_Guy

Fackin' aaaaaaaaaaaaaav it.

That_Guy

Also: "They told me that privately"

Yet it's ok to write about it in a national newspaper???

Jog on.

Johner

G'wan Gigi.

Essien

Why am I being silly?

Because you are!

MD1990

The Presenter owned the clown

~Rebel~

Thats just fantastic!

Really reminds me of something from either Brasseye, or this guy;

when he appears on Knowing Me Knowing You, with Alan Partridge

Mitch Connor

Press people never reveal their sources - if they did they may as well give up their career as no one would ever speak to them again.

superfrank

If only we got more of these Clowns on TV...Sickening that they can publish this kind of Rubbish!1

Peyton Manning

YouTube blocked here. Any kind scholar care to summarise?

JPA

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Press people never reveal their sources - if they did they may as well give up their career as no one would ever speak to them again.

Yes, the "real" press.

But football journalists can make up any old bs and claim a "source" told them.

Fuhrer

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Press people never reveal their sources - if they did they may as well give up their career as no one would ever speak to them again.

They'd also have to admit to making up a lot of stuff too.

pickarooney

Class performance by the presenter!

lordgoat

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Press people never reveal their sources - if they did they may as well give up their career as no one would ever speak to them again.

JPA wrote: »

Yes, the "real" press.

But football journalists can make up any old bs and claim a "source" told them.

I'd agree with this, he probably got a half assed answer to a question like "would it be better if jose hadn't left?" or some other such bollocks and ran a story on it. He can't name a source but she was right to call him on it...

More than likely i'd say she was told to call him on it.

YouTookMyName

2 sets of tits and only the presenter has nice ones.

MrStuffins

A lot of the time these "journalists" can make up whatever they want.

And although this guy is probably a clown....... i'd have loved if some Chelsea players rang up and said "We said it".

That would've shown that cheeky cow!

Kidchameleon

Your one is a pushy yoke. I wonder what the reaction would have been had Andy Gray been that pushy with a woman...

Brian017

"A dressing room source? Is that a player? Is it a locker? is it a flip-flop?'' LOL

Spazdarn

He said several players said it to him, then it was a locker room source, which would imply one person, and the stumbling and pathetic way he retorted made him look like a right dope...

I love being drip fed footballing rumours but It'd be a nice change if a large proportion of them weren't groundless.

Paparazzo

Great to see someone question one of these "journalists". Mediawatch makes a show of them daily!

v3ttel

I'd pay to see her interview Andy Gray!

eagle eye

Who is the idiot hack in that video, the blonde imo. Martin Lipton is one of the few decent writers with the rags.
Nice response by Lipton here.

Silent Carlo not all to blame as Roman fiddles while Chelsea burn

History, they say, repeats itself. First as tragedy. Then as farce.

But what keeps on happening at Chelsea is not funny at all. And, at some stage, the man responsible has to got stand up and accept his culpability.

Not Carlo Ancelotti, although the Italian did not help himself.

Ancelotti is complicit, unquestionably, for acquiescing in the folly of last summer's transfer policy, the idea that a huge hole left by five experienced players could be filled by kids out of the Academy, for doing nothing as Ray Wilkins was sacked in November, for swallowing on the big selection call at Old Trafford.

The Italian, though, is merely the latest patsy, the latest fall-guy. Like Luiz Felipe Scolari, Avram Grant and Claudio Ranieri before him.

The one to blame was sitting in the front row of the Old Trafford directors' box on Tuesday night, slipping away just as Portuguese referee Olegario Benquerenca performed the Last Rites on Chelsea's season, six weeks before the end of term party was scheduled to take place at Wembley.

Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich. The man who built the modern Chelsea.

And the man who, by accident not design, is undermining the foundations of everything he has erected.

Abramovich's vision for the club he bought from Ken Bates in 2003 has always been a simple one - Barcelona in blue shirts.

He wants a team that doesn't just win, but does so with a swagger, with a wow factor, a team that takes the breath away.

Winning football, by itself, is not sufficient. Even as Chelsea were romping to their second successive title under Jose Mourinho, the complaints about the functional style of the Special One's team were seeping out.

A Carling Cup and FA Cup Double in 2007, runners-up in the league and Champions League semi-final heartache was dismissed as "not good enough". Abramovich had spent nearly £400million. He demanded more.

It was why he had left Ranieri a dead man walking for a season, almost as if he was willing the Italian to fail to justify jettisoning him after a year.

And so it has gone on. The rift with Mourinho - who only became the Chosen One when Sven Goran Eriksson played Chelsea off against the FA - widened to inevitable breakdown.

All the while Abramovich switched between being an absentee landlord for long periods and then returning like a whirling dervish, wanting to know the ins and outs of everything, totally hands on. Utterly inconsistent.

In came Grant, against the Israeli's own wishes, knowing that the three-year contract, even from a man he still calls a friend, counted for nothing.

Grant lost a Carling Cup Final, took the Premier League race to the final day, came within one John Terry slip of bringing Abramovich his Holy Grail in Moscow. Out within three days.

Abramovich had already decided he wanted Ancelotti, twice a Champions League winner with Milan, travelling for clandestine meetings which the Italian subsequently described as making him feel like James Bond, such was the subterfuge involved.

But Ancelotti declined, feeling a loyalty to Silvio Berlusconi, and Abramovich, taking counsel from then-chief executive Peter Kenyon, appointed the Brazilian who had been England's nemesis in three successive tournaments.

We were told he was behind the Brazilian, ready to bankroll him. But only half-way, prepared to bring in Deco but not outbid the new kids on the financial block, Manchester City, for Robinho.

It started brightly but soon faded, Scolari's rift with Didier Drogba seeing the Ivorian join the three-man deputation, along with Michael Ballack and Petr Cech, who went to the top. Goodbye Big Phil, enter Guus.

Hiddink, we were told, was the man Abramovich really wanted. Scolari was Kenyon's choice, not his. He had been let down again.

But Hiddink only came because it was a fixed term deal. Less than three months. He did not want any longer and, if the truth be told, would have been branded a failure for only delivering the FA Cup had he been judged by the standards of his predecessors.

And so, finally, Ancelotti. He had survived eight years under Berlusconi by adopting the line of least resistance and followed that pattern.

He accepted Wilkins as his assistant, was happy to have his hands tied in the transfer market, encouraged the more attack-minded game Abramovich desired.

And despite a wobble stilled only when John Terry called a clear the air meeting after Mourinho came, saw and conquered at the Bridge in the Champions League, he delivered a record 103 league goals and the first Double in the club's history.

It should have strengthened the Italian. Instead, he was emasculated, putting up no barriers to the absurd policy which was all about legitimising the enormous sums spent on the Cobham development farm, insisting publicly he agreed, deny the squad was left top and bottom heavy, with a gaping chasm in the middle.

But the truth was undeniable and by mid-winter, when Ancelotti finally admitted he had an effective squad of 16, nine of whom - Hilario, Paulo Ferreira, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Benayoun, Florent Malouda, Nicolas Anelka and Drogba - would be 30 or older by the end of the campaign, the die had been cast.

Enter, again, Abramovich, Last summer he had refused to sanction more than £35m on Fernando Torres or in excess of £20m for David Luiz. So in January he paid £71m for the pair.

One, ineligible, could not play in the Champions League. The other seemingly too shot to play at all.

The chickens finally came home to roost at Old Trafford. But the cockerel took no responsibility.

He never does. Just demands a new farmer. And so, it seems, it continues.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/opinion/blogs/mirror-football-blog/Martin-Lipton-s-Chelsea-verdict-Roman-Abramovich-not-Carlo-Ancelotti-must-shoulder-most-of-blame-for-Champions-League-exit-article723193.html

mike65

"no quotes, no story"

3hn2givr7mx1sc

What evidence does she have that he's lying?
She was a bit harsh, imo. Fúckin bitch too.

Officer Giggles

no journalist evr reveals their source its like a basic rule for them, would you ever tell someone info if you knew they would same it came from you, there is more than one player at chelsea that would prefer if the special one was still there, they won a load of trophies when he was so why wouldnt you want that, the presenter was being a bit ott in fairness

Blatter

I'm sure at least Terry, Lampard, Cech and Drogba would want Mourinho back, so I don't think he's wrong.

As people have said already, you don't reveal your sources as a journalist and she was out of line attempting to pressurise him like that.

wandatowell

Obviously she was told to turn the screw on him as she is employed my Chelsea TV. She was asking questions that she knew he couldnt/wouldnt answer yet she persisted. What did she expect???? For the guy to start naming names??? Idiot.
There's a reason she's working on Chelsea TV after all. In fairness its more of the typical shambolic PR crap chelsea spout about the place.

Also the journo should have expected to be pulled up on his piece and should of had a reply ready. He looked very unprepared.

Bodhisopha

She was out to do him and nailed him good. But, a bit needless nonetheless, everyone knows what these rags are about, is she out to change the world? Good luck.

djfitzerjnr

Am I the only we one that thinks this isen't any bit funny at all, and just shows what we already know, that football journalists just make thinks up having a 'source' just so they can say "we broke the news first" if it does happen months later.

MrStuffins

News Flash lads, not naming your source does not mean there isn't one!

Pepe LeFrits

A bit pointless really, whether he's telling the truth or not he's hardly going to name his source(s), and all the above will really do is make positive media coverage less likely. Besides, Chelsea employed arch-hack Simon Greenberg (of Evening Standard, NOTW fame) as the head of their PR for 5 years. Having their anchorman rail against tabloid journalism is a bit rich.

chelseavera

wandatowell wrote: »

Obviously she was told to turn the screw on him as she is employed my Chelsea TV. She was asking questions that she knew he couldnt/wouldnt answer yet she persisted. What did she expect???? For the guy to start naming names??? Idiot.
There's a reason she's working on Chelsea TV after all. In fairness its more of the typical shambolic PR crap chelsea spout about the place.

Also the journo should have expected to be pulled up on his piece and should of had a reply ready. He looked very unprepared.

Taken in isolation, as I'm sure this is for most of you, this may appear to be OTT by Gigi, but as a Chelsea TV subscriber, I might try and put the whole thing into context.
She presents this programme every week, with differernt journos each week. Some of them regulars (like Lipton) some less so like Patrick Barclay. There will have been previous episodes where her challenge was almost as robust, and Lipton and the likes of Sam Wallace, would have been on the receiving end.
From a Chelsea Supporter point of view, I enjoy watching her challenge them, as the most written about club at the moment, there's a percentage of it thats just untrue and even more thats just lazy journalism. She railed against Shaun Custis, who was very dismissive about our youth set up, and he eventually admitted he never watched the FA youth Cup (current holders- and indeed semi-finalists in 3 of the last 4) and her other bugbear is stories without sources.
This one I suspect is Lipton putting 2+2 together and making a full back page story of it. No-one doubts that some of the players (and most of the supporters) would welcome back The Special One ... but the point remains, he could have written that based on the same hunch that I have - and no source other than that. Player after player have come out in the past few weeks and said that they want Ancelotti to stay - but that's not going to sell newspapers!

So, essentially, watching this week after week, a lot of it is banter, sometimes they have their sources, sometimes not, but for Chelsea Fans, its nice to see them squirm from time to time. He'll be back, they all come back.

PS - I'd love to see Gigi take on Andy Gray!