Liverpool FC Forum

by **neil** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:13 pm

lets hope Chris can enlighten the gutter press.

by **ivor_the_injun** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:13 pm

LFC2007 wrote:
ivor_the_injun wrote:The Sun and the NOTW are as separate from one another as The Times is from Sky TV elsewhere in the same parent company.

I know you work in the industry, but there is a far stronger link between the s*n and the notw and sky and the times as you put it.

It is the sunday s*n. They are managed by the same people. They are marketed in a similarly downmarket way. There are links on their websites to each other etc...

The NOTW is the sister paper for the s*n.

Sister paper is fair enough. That doesn't actually mean they're as closely linked as I think you're getting at though.

Did the staff working for the News Of The World on the 15th April 1989 immediately become bad people by default because of a decision taken by staff at a newspaper that they didn't work for?

My argument is that they didn't.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:18 pm

That is not the issue. The issue is Bascombe, who has a strong affiliation with Liverpool working for a paper that is the sunday equivalent of the s*n.

In business reports they are mentioned in tandom, in marketing reports also. They are very very closely linked.

by **ivor_the_injun** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:30 pm

"Equivalent" is where you're getting into trouble here though, and it's where your argument falls down.

Closely linked in marketing reports, fine. Said in the same breath, fine. That does not mean that they're run by the same people. It's a fundamental misunderstanding.

Weird and crude example, but Supergirl and Superman are fundamentally similar to one another, and share the same bloodline, but I don't remember them working together.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:38 pm

Not closely linked in marketing reports.They are linked in tandom i.e. together.

They may not be edited by the same people, which you wouldn't expect given the size of both there has to be delegation.

However, it is widely accepted that the notw is the sunday equivalent of the s*n.

Excerpt of BBC business report on news corp:

'News corp businesses:

HarperCollins
New York Post
Fox News
20th Century Fox
Times and Sunday Times
Sun and News of the World
BSkyB
Star TV
MySpace '

Just like the Times has the Sunday times as it's sunday paper - the s*n has the notw.

From 'world-newspapers.com'

'News of the World
Sunday version of the Sun'

It's a given.

by **Ciggy** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:44 pm

Its not really any of our buisness what he wants to do. its double what he earns now as long as he doesnt start writting shit stories about us in that paper he is no big loss to the echo or to us for that matter.

by **jonnymac1979** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:45 pm

There's no boycott of the News Of The World newspaper though. Just don't read it out of personal preference if that's the point being raised, not because there is a boycott of it, because there isn't, regardless of the link to the s*n.

Bascombe is doing what is right for him and whatever anyone says really doesn't matter.

by **Paul C** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:46 pm

I'm unsure where I stand with this, if it was the s*n it would be a different discussion completely but the connections with the s*n makes this a hard discission for Chris I'm sure, if he took it you couldn't blame him on a personal level but I can't help thinkin that if he is good enough them he's good enough to get a job writing for someone else and he could still hold his head high when he visits Anfield.

If he takes this job offer then I hope it doesn't back fire on the lad, yeah he'll go down in my estimations but I'm unsure if it qualifies for him to be called a sell out

by **ivor_the_injun** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:00 pm

On no level am I denying that the NOTW is for S*n readers to read on Sunday, be it the Sunday S*n or whatever.

I'm just making the distinction that some people need to see, which is that the NOTW and the S*n are actually two separate entities. Since this has sprung up today, some people have struggled to make that distinction, and they seem to be talking as if Chris Bascombe has been employed by the editor of The S*n, which is the subject of a boycott. He hasn't, and his new employee is a completely different individual whose charge isn't the subject of a boycott. That's all I'm saying. They are two newspapers with two editors and two staffs. Yes they are very very very closely related, no they are not the same thing.

It's an individual conscience thing. There are loads that don't buy or read the NOTW because of the Hillsborough headlines in The S*n. There's loads that don't buy or read it because it's sh*te. There are people that buy or read the NOTW because they don't think it's the same at The S*n.

I just don't like coming on here and seeing people that are in the first category turning a bit nasty towards a guy that's doing nothing more wrong than taking the Murdoch coin on a w*nk old rag from where I'm sitting. For his credibility's sake more than anything ethical, I hope he catches someone's eye quickly and moves on to another national. Until he does, he'll be off my radar.

by **adamnbarrett** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:14 pm

BHB from RAOTL:

Every other paper in the country has a Sunday version.

Daily Mirror - Sunday Mirror
Daily Express - Sunday Express
Daily Mail - Mail on Sunday
The Times - Sunday Times
The Guardian - The Observer
The Star - The Sunday Star
The S*n - ??

Why haven't they got a Sunday version?

And why haven't the NOTW got a Daily version like all the others?

Quite strange isnt it?

Wonder how people have ever linked the 2?

is right.

I would only condone what Bascombe is doing if he was in serious finalcial difficulty. As far as I know he's not.

It's not the fact that the s*n and the NOTW are associated, it's the fact that they are the same fuckin rag

by **redhayesy** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:48 pm

jonnymac1979 wrote:There's no boycott of the News Of The World newspaper though. Just don't read it out of personal preference if that's the point being raised, not because there is a boycott of it, because there isn't, regardless of the link to the s*n.

Bascombe is doing what is right for him and whatever anyone says really doesn't matter.

there may not be an official boycott of NOTW,but please
mate agree on one thing here, which is the most important
point being raised by alot of us on this topic -

It"s the principle that matters!!
for some to say it"s nothing to do with us
what he does is beyond belief for me, it d@mn
well does as far as i"m concerned.
i don"t know how he can go to work knowing
what he is doing is & will offend alot of people
he knows & doesn"t know -me included.
Believe it or not, but whilst working for Tesco
the fecking blue nose tw@t terry Lehey said in an
e-mail (glad i never met the kunt face to face)
that ALL Managers had to be checkout trained.
fair Enough you might say -where"s the problem
with that ?

untill one day i was sat on a checkout, & this guy
unloaded his trolley in amongst it was a copy of
NOTW & i could fel myself shaking & going pale
with anger that i had to pick up this sh1t fecking
rag that belongs to the s*n (murdoch) however
you want to look at it! that i said to this guy
"i really don"t want to sell this paper to you cause they
lie & are the sister paper of the s*n (that was putting it
as polite as i could) believe me i wanted to walk
away there & then.
his reply was - why & how do they lie?

i said one word " Hillsborough "

to which he didn"t reply paid for his shopping
including the fecking sh1t rag & left me feeling
like sh1t for handling the sh1t rag.
i tell you i left Tesco soon as i could after that
because i knew i couldn"t go through that every
time i was asked to go on a checkout!

it is all about & will always be about principles for me
so to say he is doing what he thinks is best for him
he really needs to think again FAST.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:40 am

Maybe more writers from Liverpool joining these papers would bring balance to the material being produced. If all Scouse journalists didn't join wide-selling Murdoch newspapers, then they don't have a voice in that forum and it allows scumbags with an anti-Scouse and/or anti-Liverpool FC bias to vent freely without being challenged. Of course this only applies if they have editorial freedom.

by **Emerald Red** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:28 am

woof woof ! wrote:I fully understand our antipathy towards the Sun but before I comment on Bascombes "defection" would/could somebody please tell me how many of the Suns current personnel were employed by the Sun at the time that they made their disgraceful accusations about LFC fans .

I'm not looking to excuse them (far from it) , but not being a Sun reader I don't know who writes or edits the paper and now find myself wondering are the people we vent our spleen on actually the one's who deserve it ? .

Born just after WW2 I grew up hating all Germans , it wasn't until 20 years after WW2 that I realised all Germans weren't in fact Nazis.

Like I said , I'm not looking to defend them ,it's just that before I comment on Bascombes decision I'd like to know how many of the journalists who wrote such sh'ite about us and the editors who allowed it to be published are still actually working for the Sun .

Regardless of how long ago it was, or who was working for them at the time is irellevant. The fact remains that these b@astards, and the man in charge at the time of writing, still have no publically apologised to the club, the fans, and the people of Liverpool in general. The generation of yesteryear won't forget it, and neither should any future generations until these c*nts hold their hands up and admit they were wrong.

by **Sabre** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:29 am

Ciggy wrote:Its not really any of our buisness what he wants to do. its double what he earns now as long as he doesnt start writting shit stories about us in that paper he is no big loss to the echo or to us for that matter.

The worrying thing though, is that if he has dissapointed Liverpool fans for money, then he'll have to keep the new job, under new bósses, and apparently with no so much insight inside Melwood like the one he had until now. And if he starts writing sensible things about Liverpool, and his boss say, "No, I want something about how Rafa discussed with Paco", he'll have to obbey, because he has a family, he wants to keep the job, and the same reasoning he has used to leave the echo.

Very valid points in both sides. While I was massively shocked when I knew the truth, and disgusted with that paper I didn't know in 1989, I only can understand vaguely what many people feel about them. Because you are the ones to have known people killed there, been insulted as a city, and the feeling is much stronger than mine, despite I despise deeply the rag.

As I've said,valid points of the people arguing in the side that they understand Bascombe. But we ALL have to think in our future, we all have to pay bills. So far, he has earnt money thanks to LFC indirectly, thanks to the knowledge he has about the club, and thanks to the fans they read that. So if he needs more money, then fair enough, but he shouldn't pick the paper that would harm the feelings of the people that have given him the food so far. I somehow doubt for what you describe that NOTW has signed him up to improve their level of journalism.

by **Ciggy** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:51 am

Sabre wrote:The worrying thing though, is that if he has dissapointed Liverpool fans for money, then he'll have to keep the new job, under new bósses, and apparently with no so much insight inside Melwood like the one he had until now. And if he starts writing sensible things about Liverpool, and his boss say, "No, I want something about how Rafa discussed with Paco", he'll have to obbey, because he has a family, he wants to keep the job, and the same reasoning he has used to leave the echo.

Very valid points in both sides. While I was massively shocked when I knew the truth, and disgusted with that paper I didn't know in 1989, I only can understand vaguely what many people feel about them. Because you are the ones to have known people killed there, been insulted as a city, and the feeling is much stronger than mine, despite I despise deeply the rag.

As I've said,valid points of the people arguing in the side that they understand Bascombe. But we ALL have to think in our future, we all have to pay bills. So far, he has earnt money thanks to LFC indirectly, thanks to the knowledge he has about the club, and thanks to the fans they read that. So if he needs more money, then fair enough, but he shouldn't pick the paper that would harm the feelings of the people that have given him the food so far. I somehow doubt for what you describe that NOTW has signed him up to improve their level of journalism.

Sabre NOTW gets bought on Merseyside the S*n doesnt really, last week that gutter rag put a reward up for 100 grand to find Rhys Jones's killer, now they want Bascombe the way I see it is they are wanting the people of Merseyside to start buying that rag again.

And by thinking of employing a mad Liverpool fan to start writting articles for them, and giving a reward to catch Rhys's killer they must think sales will rise on Merseyside again.
I think there is only about 10 shops on the whole that wont allow the s*n to be sold.

Bascombe knew there would be an uproar from Liverpool fans if he joined that rag one things for certain he wont be at Melwood getting interviews every day from Rafa if he choses's to do so.

And he there will be blue murder if he starts writting controvercial articles about us.

Liverpool FC Forum

Chris Bascombe Leaves the Liverpool Echo... - ...for NOTW

Who is online