General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

fyfe79 · 30-12-2020 03:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

He congratulated Des Kelly for the injuries to his players. Let's not rewrite history...

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/nov/28/jurgen-klopp-bt-sport-des-kelly-injuries-liverpool-schedule-brighton

It's arguably worse than the Leeds one because, of course, he instigated the row, he wasn't responding to a point...and it's childish nonsense.

Des Kelly is not a pundit. In any case, Klopp immediately clarified that he meant the TV company Kelly worked for. But you know that, of course.

30-12-2020 03:19PM

fyfe79 wrote: »

Des Kelly is not a pundit. In any case, Klopp immediately clarified that he meant the TV company Kelly worked for. But you know that, of course.

So you are standing on a distinction between pundits and interviewers!

That's...weak.

But you know that, of course.

He did add clarification, he could hardly stand over such stupidity.

Nijmegen · 30-12-2020 03:23PM

The Premier League must be thanking their lucky stars for Leeds' social media manager and are trying to line up a few more like it, good distraction from the spate of Covid cases and postponed matches.

fyfe79 · 30-12-2020 03:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are standing on a distinction between pundits and interviewers!

That's...weak.

But you know that, of course.

He did add clarification, he could hardly stand over such stupidity.

He is not a pundit, he is an interviewer. Yes, there's a distinction. Do you think Des Kelly is on a similar contract with BT to each of the pundits who come in?

Everyone knows the likes of Kelly are spokespeople for TV companies. Everyone knows pundits are not spokespeople for TV companies.

It's why Klopp said "you" to Kelly when blatantly speaking about BT. Kelly represents BT. To pretend not to see that is just so you can have a pop at Klopp. You're a Leeds fan, I get it.

~Rebel~ · 30-12-2020 03:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are standing on a distinction between pundits and interviewers!

That's...weak.

But you know that, of course.

He did add clarification, he could hardly stand over such stupidity.

I don't get your point at all - he didn't add clarification a week later or something, he made a point, which was then clarified immediately. Like, literally seconds. Absolutely nobody could come away from that interview thinking Klopp thought Des Kelly was responsible for injuries.

<edit>
In any event, this is a total false equivalency. As I said above, direct digs on social media have a far far far far higher uptake on followup 'actions'. It's literally exactly why social media has evolved into his giant thing.

ThunbergsAreGo · 30-12-2020 03:29PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I don't get your point at all - he didn't add clarification a week later or something, he made a point, which was then clarified immediately. Like, literally seconds. Absolutely nobody could come away from that interview thinking Klopp thought Des Kelly was responsible for injuries.

What about when Klopp had a go at Keane?

In a day where a pandemic cancels another game its mental this is what's getting attention

DM_7 · 30-12-2020 03:34PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So you are standing on a distinction between pundits and interviewers!

That's...weak.

But you know that, of course.

He did add clarification, he could hardly stand over such stupidity.

Klopp having a go at a faceless corporation is nothing like a faceless twitter account taking swipes at actual people.

The latter has a significant impact on an actual person. That appears to be the distinction missed here.

A football clubs media resources have a significant reach with supporters of the club who feel a strong emotional attachment to the club. A pundit has reach in terms of people hearing their views but in no way do they have the ability to cause people to react in such a negative and targetted way towards a football club that will harm 'it'.

Deise_2012 · 30-12-2020 03:35PM

Spurs match off.

Could a few teams be clever and start doing this to get a rest?

Chardee MacDennis · 30-12-2020 03:37PM

Deise_2012 wrote: »

Spurs match off.

Could a few teams be clever and start doing this to get a rest?

The fixture build up could be a nightmare come the end of the season, would be very risky if true

30-12-2020 03:39PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Absolutely nobody could come away from that interview thinking Klopp thought Des Kelly was responsible for injuries.

Actually, sections of the media did exactly that, referred to Klopp, Kelly and injuries...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jurgen-klopp-congratulates-des-kelly-23084078

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/liverpool/klopp-takes-aim-at-wilder-and-reporter-as-injuries-mount-39803687.html

The point is, clubs, managers, players have a go at pundits, journalists and interviewers. The whole "well doing it on air is fine, but doing it in a tweet is unacceptable" is IMO dancing on the head of a pin.

~Rebel~ · 30-12-2020 03:39PM

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

What about when Klopp had a go at Keane?

In a day where a pandemic cancels another game its mental this is what's getting attention

You can talk about whatever you want to talk about.

Again, it's a false equivalency. As I said above, direct digs on social media have a far far far far higher uptake on followup 'actions'.

I'm not even sure why it's Klopp that keeps getting picked - but any pundit or player or manager making any controversial comment during interview generates a certain amount of social media activity. Influencers/Influencer Groups speaking directly on social media generate many times more activity through comments/retweets/likes etc - and these direct comments are literally made to generate more comments and reactions. That's their purpose.

So a comment by Klopp, or Keane etc in a conversation generate comments as a byproduct. A comment from someone on social media exists to generate more interactions as its core purpose.

Like in this instance itself - the major spark for the abuse Carney has gotten wasn't actually her saying those things, but Leeds social media response.

y0ssar1an22 · 30-12-2020 03:40PM

DM_7 wrote: »

Klopp having a go at a faceless corporation is nothing like a faceless twitter account taking swipes at actual people.

The latter has a significant impact on an actual person. That appears to be the distinction missed here.

A football clubs media resources have a significant reach with supporters of the club who feel a strong emotional attachment to the club. A pundit has reach in terms of people hearing their views but in no way do they have the ability to cause people to react in such a negative and targetted way towards a football club that will harm 'it'.

the only distinction i draw is whether or not leeds were correct in criticising the comments.

those comments were fair for criticism or they were not. that should be the only thing in question here.

Deise_2012 · 30-12-2020 03:40PM

Chardee MacDennis wrote: »

The fixture build up could be a nightmare come the end of the season, would be very risky if true

Yeah I know, I doubt teams would actually go to that length. At this rate though, we're going to have massive problems trying to fit everything into the calendar. I'll be amazed if they manage to get the Euro's going

Shanotheslayer · 30-12-2020 03:41PM

Thus thread is dilapated did I use it right ?

y0ssar1an22 · 30-12-2020 03:41PM

Deise_2012 wrote: »

Spurs match off.

Could a few teams be clever and start doing this to get a rest?

thats why they need protocols that are transparent and are applied consistently.

thelad95 · 30-12-2020 03:44PM

I could be wrong but I'm beginning to get that impending sense (same as March when games began to get postponed e.g. City were meant to be playing Arsenal until Arteta and half the Arsenal squad tested positive after that idiotic olympiacos chairman) that the season is about to be suspended.

Fulham v Spurs off tonight while some of the lower leagues are turning into a bloodbath of fixture cancellations.

The bullishness of the FA at the start of the season regarding games going ahead as long as a team has a squad of 14 now seems like a vague threat to players and officials to rigidly follow protocols, or perhaps it just didn't properly take into account the vagaries of other squad members being considered close contacts meaning a team can easily be left without a full playing squad.

Could we see the season being played out in some form of bubble?

As for EURO 2020, I can see it being the Euros that never happened or else played in one city in a bubble type situation without fans.

DM_7 · 30-12-2020 03:49PM

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

the only distinction i draw is whether or not leeds were correct in criticising the comments.

those comments were fair for criticism or they were not. that should be the only thing in question here.

I am not suggesting Leeds as a club should not be allowed to respond. Just that use of twitter, in this way has a reach that directly leads to actions and generate a response at a level that I disagree with.

~Rebel~ · 30-12-2020 03:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, sections of the media did exactly that, referred to Klopp, Kelly and injuries...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jurgen-klopp-congratulates-des-kelly-23084078

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/liverpool/klopp-takes-aim-at-wilder-and-reporter-as-injuries-mount-39803687.html

Both those articles use that as a big attention grabbing headline, and then quickly point out that he didn't in fact mean Kelly personally. So no, they didn't come away from the interview thinking that's what Klopp meant.

The point is, clubs, managers, players have a go at pundits, journalists and interviewers. The whole "well doing it on air is fine, but doing it in a tweet is unacceptable" is IMO dancing on the head of a pin.

This I just firmly disagree with. There's a solid distinction. As I mentioned in other posts, the point is about intention and known-consequences. Obviously we can't say that no-one should say anything about anyone ever, but it's about having a basic level of understanding of the repurcussions of your actions.

A conversation is just that, an exchange of ideas between two people on the fly. The standard version of it we see in football is to a broad audience of people who will agree and disagree and mostly not really care. Direct abuse that occurs as a result is far more limited than from a social media interaction, and is a byproduct of the interaction.

A social media post is considered and thought out and distributed directly to an audience of followers that is by default already invested and partisan, and (being on social media) in a position to act instantly. IMO we've simply hit a place where the amount of damage that can be done with a negative social media post from someone with a large following is far higher than just about anything that would have warranted that post in the first place. It's an action that has known consequences. People with large followings - and especially clubs - should know better. (and I think they do, but do it anyway.)

y0ssar1an22 · 30-12-2020 04:08PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Both those articles use that as a big attention grabbing headline, and then quickly point out that he didn't in fact mean Kelly personally. So no, they didn't come away from the interview thinking that's what Klopp meant.

This I just firmly disagree with. There's a solid distinction. As I mentioned in other posts, the point is about intention and known-consequences. Obviously we can't say that no-one should say anything about anyone ever, but it's about having a basic level of understanding of the repurcussions of your actions.

A conversation is just that, an exchange of ideas between two people on the fly. The standard version of it we see in football is to a broad audience of people who will agree and disagree and mostly not really care. Direct abuse that occurs as a result is far more limited than from a social media interaction, and is a byproduct of the interaction.

A social media post is considered and thought out and distributed directly to an audience of followers that is by default already invested and partisan, and (being on social media) in a position to act instantly. IMO we've simply hit a place where the amount of damage that can be done with a negative social media post from someone with a large following is far higher than just about anything that would have warranted that post in the first place. It's an action that has known consequences. People with large followings - and especially clubs - should know better. (and I think they do, but do it anyway.)

does that apply to the pundit or the club?

Fitz* · 30-12-2020 04:12PM

No new positive cases at Man City and the training ground is back open.

Did they rush into a decision to postpone the Everton game?

https://twitter.com/SamLee/status/1344312891126784000

y0ssar1an22 · 30-12-2020 04:15PM

Fitz* wrote: »

No new positive cases at Man City and the training ground is back open.

Did they rush into a decision to postpone the Everton game?

https://twitter.com/SamLee/status/1344312891126784000

makes the postponement all the more bizarre

~Rebel~ · 30-12-2020 04:20PM

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

does that apply to the pundit or the club?

I think it applies to both, and I'm drawing the distinction on the delivery of their message, and the intentions behind the delivery.

Hers was in her role on TV, and a by-product of her job. Her comment was ill-informed, but there doesn't seem much evidence that it was delivered in anything other than good faith as part of her job.

Meanwhile, the club's reaction is what actually caused the majority of the abuse she received, because of the switch in medium and subsequent direct access to instant angry retorts. What happened was what we all know would happen, and what the clubs social media operator knew would happen.

It's a scale. People needed to be very motivated to write an angry letter about something they've seen on TV. And then moderately motivated to write an email about the same thing. And its still a bit of hassle to see something on tv and go onto social media and make up your own little post. But when you're already on social media, and your club posts about this woman who criticised your club, and all of you have to do is reply - the chances of people acting on that momentary rage skyrockets.

I'm afraid this sort of stuff by clubs - effectively putting any critique up on show to their own fans as a call for direct action - will lead directly to people policing what they say on TV or in interviews for fear of a deluge of hatred, and we'll all be in a much worse place as a result.

Collie D · 30-12-2020 04:27PM

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

makes the postponement all the more bizarre

What exactly is the criteria used and how many were City missing? And Fulham for that matter...I believe the issue is at their end and not Spurs?

Is a request made by the club or does somebody in the PL or even NHS make the call?

fyfe79 · 30-12-2020 04:31PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I think it applies to both, and I'm drawing the distinction on the delivery of their message, and the intentions behind the delivery.

Hers was in her role on TV, and a by-product of her job. Her comment was ill-informed, but there doesn't seem much evidence that it was delivered in anything other than good faith as part of her job.

Meanwhile, the club's reaction is what actually caused the majority of the abuse she received, because of the switch in medium and subsequent direct access to instant angry retorts. What happened was what we all know would happen, and what the clubs social media operator knew would happen.

It's a scale. People needed to be very motivated to write an angry letter about something they've seen on TV. And then moderately motivated to write an email about the same thing. And its still a bit of hassle to see something on tv and go onto social media and make up your own little post. But when you're already on social media, and your club posts about this woman who criticised your club, and all of you have to do is reply - the chances of people acting on that momentary rage skyrockets.

I'm afraid this sort of stuff by clubs - effectively putting any critique up on show to their own fans as a call for direct action - will lead directly to people policing what they say on TV or in interviews for fear of a deluge of hatred, and we'll all be in a much worse place as a result.

Spot on. I remember "Mailbox" on RTE back in the 80's which was Mike Murphy reading out letters of complaint from viewers in to RTE. Can you just imagine what utter weapons these people would have to be to physically write out their grievance in a letter, buy an envelope and stamp and post it in?

Nowadays, of course, all these types of people are furiously lashing away on social media, but due to the ease of getting their opinion out in to the ether (certainly compared to writing and posting a letter), you also have all the people who would never bother writing a letter, getting their opinion out there.

I'm disappointed when TV companies run scared and drop an employee or an entire show if they get 1000 complaints these days. 1000 social media complaints in 2020 is probably equivalent to 1 or 2 strongly-worded letters by grumps back in the 80's which normally would be laughed at and chucked in the bin.

pjohnson · 30-12-2020 04:32PM

Collie D wrote: »

What exactly is the criteria used and how many were City missing? And Fulham for that matter...I believe the issue is at their end and not Spurs?

Is a request made by the club or does somebody in the PL or even NHS make the call?

Seems criteria may well just be £££££

event · 30-12-2020 05:03PM

So if the premier league takes a break of a few weeks and Liverpool win the league, this will be the reason why, yeah?

2 draws in their last 4 games, means they'll probably get Thiago and Matip back (so we can hopefully stop hearing about their injuries).

event · 30-12-2020 05:06PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I'm afraid this sort of stuff by clubs - effectively putting any critique up on show to their own fans as a call for direct action - will lead directly to people policing what they say on TV or in interviews for fear of a deluge of hatred, and we'll all be in a much worse place as a result.

You mean pundits will have to actually research what they say on TV? Imagine that

~Rebel~ · 30-12-2020 05:30PM

event wrote: »

You mean pundits will have to actually research what they say on TV? Imagine that

No. This situation is far from unique. We’ve seen plenty of people receiving astonishing levels of abuse for fair comments against a team or player too.

The issue is entirely down to reach, motivation, and immediacy. The instance I previously talked about on here was Lineker taking issue with what was to me an entirely fair article by Miguel Delaney - but the merits of the article end up being irrelevant because Lineker-fans launched into Miguel (likely without even reading the article in full).

(after all, do you think the people who posted that they hope Karen Carney is raped to death are really thinking about the flawed merits of her argument? No. The behaviour is “You attacked us, we’ll attack you.”)

You can’t possibly believe the reaction is justified by the act in these cases?

CSF · 30-12-2020 05:35PM

Fitz* wrote: »

No new positive cases at Man City and the training ground is back open.

Did they rush into a decision to postpone the Everton game?

https://twitter.com/SamLee/status/1344312891126784000

Maybe, but if they’d played the game and there were a bunch of positive cases, they’d be getting annihilated from all sides also surely?

Fitz* · 30-12-2020 06:39PM

CSF wrote: »

Maybe, but if they’d played the game and there were a bunch of positive cases, they’d be getting annihilated from all sides also surely?

Yeah, absolutely. It's one of those where really whatever decision was made, it was going to be end up being criticized so the PL went with the safe option.

But that said, there were questions at the time about why Man City were allowed cancel their game when they still had the 14 available players. The talk at the time was that the training ground would be closed for 2 weeks with multiple games being affected because there were fears of a large outbreak.

Now that no new positive cases have been recorded and the training ground is re-open only 2 days later, those questions are being asked again. It looks a bit fishy to me. It's a nicely timed week break for Man City instead of playing 2 games in 48 hours, without 5 key players. This could become commonplace with clubs moving forward. Why did the Sheffield United Burnley game go ahead but Everton Man City did not? Both games had clubs which recorded numerous cases. Only one game was called off.

Of course safety is paramount and games should not go ahead if there is genuine risk of mass virus transmission, and with added hindsight, this is looking like this outbreak in the Man City was exaggerated a bit. Also, I think serious questions have to be asked about the Brazilians Christmas party, which was probably the cause of the spread among their own players, and clubs.

General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Comments