Nev, I think it shows one side flexing its muscles somewhat against the other. I'm not sure I'd call that bullying though as the club would consider it to be a somewhat defensive move.
On another note, does anyone remember something that Matt Mills said just before he got Nigeled? He said (in a slightly round about way) that he would act as a self-appointed spokesman for the players in the squad in order to speak to the management. It seems that Sven allowed this, but Pearson didn't and eventually tensions between them rose to the point where Pearson cast him aside on the basis that he considered him to be a bad influence on the squad (rightly, in my opinion, as you really can't have anyone doing that within a club).
I mention that because I see similarities with Pearson and Stringer's relationship. There is nothing written in Gospel that Radio Leicester have to be the single, slef-appointed voice representing the fans, and this is something that Stringer has largely manufactured himself. Now, this isn't as bad a situation as what Mills was doing because this is external rather than internal, but I can see again why Pearson wouldn't like that - i.e. in his view, Stringer was another person getting above his station for the sake of his own ego and career. I'm not sure that's necessarily true as I think he's probably just a bit emotional and excitable, but that's partly because I know him, so I can understand why both the club and Pearson himself would see it that way, and why they'd see him as an unwanted distraction and even something of a threat to squad harmony.
Overall, neither side have covered themselves in glory over the whole situation, but I still maintain that the interview is Stringer's primary realm and responsibility.
Exactly Tommy. I've never said there isn't a contract in place, but the breach is key. Every breach clause has an associated penalty with it, which is why it's there. Breach clauses are also very specific.
And here is where Nevs argument and presentation of the facts starts to wobble;
Talksports Geoff Peters maintains that NP will give interviews to RL, but specifically NOT Stringer. RL are holding their ground, insisting it's not NPs right to choose the stations interviewer.
Now supposing Geoff is right, not saying he is, but how likely do you think it is that the contract between club and station has a specific clause built in it which explicitly states the manager must give interviews solely to Ian Stringer?
Additionally, why would the club, CHOOSE to take the financial penalty of breaching an agreed contract over a gesture. This would have an impact on club revenue from RL, affecting sponsorship deals and so forth.
Leicester City do not strike me as a club willing to throw revenue away by purposefully breaching clauses in their contracts.
There's more to this than we know, no one has the full facts, least of all Stringer
BS- That last paragraph of your makes perfect sense.... What would be the chances of that included?
The one about Geoff that is............. You are too quick for me!
comment by BlackStarr (U12353)
posted 9 minutes ago
Exactly Tommy. I've never said there isn't a contract in place, but the breach is key. Every breach clause has an associated penalty with it, which is why it's there. Breach clauses are also very specific.
And here is where Nevs argument and presentation of the facts starts to wobble;
Talksports Geoff Peters maintains that NP will give interviews to RL, but specifically NOT Stringer. RL are holding their ground, insisting it's not NPs right to choose the stations interviewer.
Now supposing Geoff is right, not saying he is, but how likely do you think it is that the contract between club and station has a specific clause built in it which explicitly states the manager must give interviews solely to Ian Stringer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The contract won't be that specific.
Again guys you are working on assumptions.
this is all humility how i see it
1.NP considered RL was orchestrating a campaign to get him fired.
2. In my opinion Stringy made a big mistake with the gesture as should be reprimanded or punished i don't know if either has happened.
3. There are specifics in the contract which are being beached.
4. I don't know but i think its not the financial issue that the BBC could invoke more the provision of commentary etc. But neither side would not want that for one minute.
Geoff works for Talksport he has his own agenda as well he was hacked off with RL for dropping Youngy and did a lot to support him. Since the ban on RL he has pushed listeners towards his station.
I respect Geoff he is a good man who gave us up for Ibiza.
Again NP has every season except last one ( i wonder why) to either remove or prevent Stinger from doing the job the BBC have chosen him for.
So if the BBC s allow NP to stop their football coraspondant from speaking to Him, Shaky, and ask questions at press conferences, or talk to players,what message does that send out?
If Stringer has breached his contract with the BBC or broken their guidelines he will or would havw been punished by the BBC. As was Nigel for his Charming FO&D moment.
I love it BS you think the club worried about a financial penalty from the BBC !!! They would be trembling in their boots compared to the FFP and the £20,000 they have just paid the FA for the fracas.
Ooo TW .....Humility there's tons of it going on in here.
BS has had a running campaign based on his blocking by Stringer so anything that does not fit with his view of the man can't be true or (showing humility) so it seems.
As for more support on this issue or any other the one thing i have learned over many years here you cant change peoples minds well apart from Hamer maybe.
Morning Nev
1) Have you spoken to NP yourself and heard him confirm that he thought RL were orchestrating a campaign to get him fired?
2) Do you have a copy of the contract between RL / BBC/LCFC?
If the answer is no to the above then your good self is also working on assumptions, unless of course you get your information from the wife of the cousin of the brother of the friend of the man who cleans the toilets at the KP.
As for BS from what I have seen he has shown far more humility and acceptance of other posters having the right to hold different opinions to his own than some people 😉
Also it isn't about changing people's minds it is about accepting that I am allowed to have a different view to you, the fact that 99% of your posts bang on about RL will just lose you support Nev which is a shame as you firmly believe in your view.
I wasn't blocked by Stringer and I haven't liked him since day one. If I'm running a campaign against him then it's certainly no worse than your campaign against our manager...
No one on this board is buying the garbage you're spewing. You talk about us working on assumptions and yet you haven't provided one shred of solid evidence to support your claims of a contract breach. You can't be specific on what the breach clause is and you're now claiming that the club is willingly throwing money away and damaging its local reputation to support a manager with a grudge.
The one thing you haven't learned is that just because Stringer says something to you, doesn't mean it's actually true...he may have an agenda himself you know
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 3 minutes ago
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A short, concise post??
Are you sure you are on the right thread 😉😉😉
Rock on Tommy and BS i am so glad the first thing you do in the morning is think of me.
Do both you think i'm simple provide you written contracts,next signed with blood.You just read back what you have written and see yous being the most rational.
Why do you have a go at proving what i am saying you is wrong, good luck with that
love you all
interesting anorak news
17 different poster posted replies.
Top posters are
BS 19
Nev 17
Tommy 13
Dung 9
Chesham 5
JG 4
Foxy back in the charts again with 4
No ones interested in this subject
Oh and this morning at 0830 it had already had 45 views
comment by OooTommyWright (U20202)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 3 minutes ago
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A short, concise post??
Are you sure you are on the right thread 😉😉😉
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think everything has been covered already arro.
Just adding my two-pence worth. Lol
Besides i don't think they're in much of a minority, just less preferred contributors.
I think the point BS is making Nev is that unless you have either seen or have a copy of the contract you cannot make any assumption about what it says or what the clauses are in it.
I just think this is such a non-issue it amazes me that its being talked about so much. Also this kind of stuff happens in work places up and down the country, two people don't see eye to eye and so a sort of war of attrition breaks out. Its partly NP's fault and partly Stringer's fault.
I don't live anywhere near Leicester so only really bother to listen to RL from time to time online so I guess this issue does not affect me as much as others on the board but when we are fighting relegation this just seems like a bit of a non-story
Can someone explain to me why this contract is important at all to the argument?
If there's not one, or if it hasn't been broken, it's irrelevant by definition.
If there is one and it has been broken, then that's the club's call more than it is Pearson's.
The issue that Pearson and the rest of the staff won't speak to Stringer is surely a separate issue from this contract?
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by OooTommyWright (U20202)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 3 minutes ago
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A short, concise post??
Are you sure you are on the right thread 😉😉😉
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think everything has been covered already arro.
Just adding my two-pence worth. Lol
Besides i don't think they're in much of a minority, just less preferred contributors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arro....... Really?
I dont think so, but if it helps you contribute to keep thinking I am then knock yourself out!!
I completely disagree with your statement that Nev and JG are less preferred contributors!!! They both have fantastic debating skills and viewpoints that they firmly believe in, this forum would be a lot weaker without their contributions.
We just have a difference of opinion, end of.
Ches, do i need to see him to believe that BS exists or arrow has changed his name?
Dung you are right and wrong if its the clubs decision not to allow RL access to manager,players and news conferences i agree. If its the managers decision then thats different.
This contract does it exist is stupid do any of you think anyone becomes a partner with the club, has a match day programme, has agreed access to players and managment and then broadcasts their match commentrys for them does not have a contract is one sandwich short of a picnic imo.
All i can say is prove to me that the Club/ NP has not broken the contract.
Someone from RL who knows about it told me the club are breach of it and we all hear the silence.
Believe or not don't be as pathetic to make it sound like i am making it up or i did not hear it first hand more than anyone on hear who is judging me is?
I love dyslexia it makes me sound like im pieced all the time!
Once again Nev fails to properly read other posts before he posts his riposte.
We are not doubting the contract exists, we are doubting there is a clause in it relating to Ian Stringer only being allowed to interview NP. Furthermore we are debating whether there is a clause that specifies NP must give interviews to RL full stop.
Without seeing the contract or speaking with the clubs legal team, we wouldn't know. It would be daft for anyone to pretend they do, but when has that stopped you?
Also you're wrong on Tommy being arro, definitely not. Speaking from experience it's virtually impossible to create a second user account on here, the IP address gets flagged to admin who kicks it out and bans the original.
Finally Nev, please don't confuse the multiple comments on this thread as interest in your dull repetitive mantra about RL. It merely represents the failed attempts of a number of people trying to talk sense into you.
Without seeing the contract or speaking with the clubs legal team, we wouldn't know. It would be daft for anyone to pretend they do, but when has that stopped you?
Again BS keep ignoring what i have posted.
It might come as a shock to you but there are two sides to a contract not just the club don't you get it?
So explain why i can't except what RL says who have signed the contract as well and have to talk to the club.
Dont you trust the BBC ?
As BS has already stated Nev you've totally missed the point. Where did I ever state that a contract didn't exist my exact words were
"unless you have either seen or have a copy of the contract you cannot make any assumption about what it says or what the clauses are in it."
You cannot assume what is in it or what clauses are in it? How is that in any way an argument that it doesn't exist. Also arguing whether someone on the forum exists comapared to whether something in a likely confidential contract exisits is an odd comparison.
Nev could you link me or point me to anyone on Radio Leicester commenting on what is in the contract between the club and RL? Anything else is just hearsay
"Someone from RL who knows about it told me the club are breach of it and we all hear the silence"
Nev - You seem to be saying that someone at the BBC is leaking details of a confidential contract between it and LCFC to a member of the public?
Sign in if you want to comment
You don't get it or do you ?
Page 4 of 6
6
posted on 19/1/15
Nev, I think it shows one side flexing its muscles somewhat against the other. I'm not sure I'd call that bullying though as the club would consider it to be a somewhat defensive move.
On another note, does anyone remember something that Matt Mills said just before he got Nigeled? He said (in a slightly round about way) that he would act as a self-appointed spokesman for the players in the squad in order to speak to the management. It seems that Sven allowed this, but Pearson didn't and eventually tensions between them rose to the point where Pearson cast him aside on the basis that he considered him to be a bad influence on the squad (rightly, in my opinion, as you really can't have anyone doing that within a club).
I mention that because I see similarities with Pearson and Stringer's relationship. There is nothing written in Gospel that Radio Leicester have to be the single, slef-appointed voice representing the fans, and this is something that Stringer has largely manufactured himself. Now, this isn't as bad a situation as what Mills was doing because this is external rather than internal, but I can see again why Pearson wouldn't like that - i.e. in his view, Stringer was another person getting above his station for the sake of his own ego and career. I'm not sure that's necessarily true as I think he's probably just a bit emotional and excitable, but that's partly because I know him, so I can understand why both the club and Pearson himself would see it that way, and why they'd see him as an unwanted distraction and even something of a threat to squad harmony.
Overall, neither side have covered themselves in glory over the whole situation, but I still maintain that the interview is Stringer's primary realm and responsibility.
posted on 19/1/15
Exactly Tommy. I've never said there isn't a contract in place, but the breach is key. Every breach clause has an associated penalty with it, which is why it's there. Breach clauses are also very specific.
And here is where Nevs argument and presentation of the facts starts to wobble;
Talksports Geoff Peters maintains that NP will give interviews to RL, but specifically NOT Stringer. RL are holding their ground, insisting it's not NPs right to choose the stations interviewer.
Now supposing Geoff is right, not saying he is, but how likely do you think it is that the contract between club and station has a specific clause built in it which explicitly states the manager must give interviews solely to Ian Stringer?
posted on 19/1/15
Additionally, why would the club, CHOOSE to take the financial penalty of breaching an agreed contract over a gesture. This would have an impact on club revenue from RL, affecting sponsorship deals and so forth.
Leicester City do not strike me as a club willing to throw revenue away by purposefully breaching clauses in their contracts.
There's more to this than we know, no one has the full facts, least of all Stringer
posted on 19/1/15
BS- That last paragraph of your makes perfect sense.... What would be the chances of that included?
posted on 19/1/15
The one about Geoff that is............. You are too quick for me!
posted on 19/1/15
comment by BlackStarr (U12353)
posted 9 minutes ago
Exactly Tommy. I've never said there isn't a contract in place, but the breach is key. Every breach clause has an associated penalty with it, which is why it's there. Breach clauses are also very specific.
And here is where Nevs argument and presentation of the facts starts to wobble;
Talksports Geoff Peters maintains that NP will give interviews to RL, but specifically NOT Stringer. RL are holding their ground, insisting it's not NPs right to choose the stations interviewer.
Now supposing Geoff is right, not saying he is, but how likely do you think it is that the contract between club and station has a specific clause built in it which explicitly states the manager must give interviews solely to Ian Stringer?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The contract won't be that specific.
posted on 20/1/15
Again guys you are working on assumptions.
this is all humility how i see it
1.NP considered RL was orchestrating a campaign to get him fired.
2. In my opinion Stringy made a big mistake with the gesture as should be reprimanded or punished i don't know if either has happened.
3. There are specifics in the contract which are being beached.
4. I don't know but i think its not the financial issue that the BBC could invoke more the provision of commentary etc. But neither side would not want that for one minute.
Geoff works for Talksport he has his own agenda as well he was hacked off with RL for dropping Youngy and did a lot to support him. Since the ban on RL he has pushed listeners towards his station.
I respect Geoff he is a good man who gave us up for Ibiza.
Again NP has every season except last one ( i wonder why) to either remove or prevent Stinger from doing the job the BBC have chosen him for.
So if the BBC s allow NP to stop their football coraspondant from speaking to Him, Shaky, and ask questions at press conferences, or talk to players,what message does that send out?
If Stringer has breached his contract with the BBC or broken their guidelines he will or would havw been punished by the BBC. As was Nigel for his Charming FO&D moment.
I love it BS you think the club worried about a financial penalty from the BBC !!! They would be trembling in their boots compared to the FFP and the £20,000 they have just paid the FA for the fracas.
Ooo TW .....Humility there's tons of it going on in here.
BS has had a running campaign based on his blocking by Stringer so anything that does not fit with his view of the man can't be true or (showing humility) so it seems.
As for more support on this issue or any other the one thing i have learned over many years here you cant change peoples minds well apart from Hamer maybe.
posted on 20/1/15
Morning Nev
1) Have you spoken to NP yourself and heard him confirm that he thought RL were orchestrating a campaign to get him fired?
2) Do you have a copy of the contract between RL / BBC/LCFC?
If the answer is no to the above then your good self is also working on assumptions, unless of course you get your information from the wife of the cousin of the brother of the friend of the man who cleans the toilets at the KP.
As for BS from what I have seen he has shown far more humility and acceptance of other posters having the right to hold different opinions to his own than some people 😉
Also it isn't about changing people's minds it is about accepting that I am allowed to have a different view to you, the fact that 99% of your posts bang on about RL will just lose you support Nev which is a shame as you firmly believe in your view.
posted on 20/1/15
I wasn't blocked by Stringer and I haven't liked him since day one. If I'm running a campaign against him then it's certainly no worse than your campaign against our manager...
No one on this board is buying the garbage you're spewing. You talk about us working on assumptions and yet you haven't provided one shred of solid evidence to support your claims of a contract breach. You can't be specific on what the breach clause is and you're now claiming that the club is willingly throwing money away and damaging its local reputation to support a manager with a grudge.
The one thing you haven't learned is that just because Stringer says something to you, doesn't mean it's actually true...he may have an agenda himself you know
posted on 20/1/15
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
posted on 20/1/15
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 3 minutes ago
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A short, concise post??
Are you sure you are on the right thread 😉😉😉
posted on 20/1/15
Rock on Tommy and BS i am so glad the first thing you do in the morning is think of me.
Do both you think i'm simple provide you written contracts,next signed with blood.You just read back what you have written and see yous being the most rational.
Why do you have a go at proving what i am saying you is wrong, good luck with that
love you all
posted on 20/1/15
interesting anorak news
17 different poster posted replies.
Top posters are
BS 19
Nev 17
Tommy 13
Dung 9
Chesham 5
JG 4
Foxy back in the charts again with 4
No ones interested in this subject
posted on 20/1/15
Oh and this morning at 0830 it had already had 45 views
posted on 20/1/15
comment by OooTommyWright (U20202)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 3 minutes ago
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A short, concise post??
Are you sure you are on the right thread 😉😉😉
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think everything has been covered already arro.
Just adding my two-pence worth. Lol
Besides i don't think they're in much of a minority, just less preferred contributors.
posted on 20/1/15
I think the point BS is making Nev is that unless you have either seen or have a copy of the contract you cannot make any assumption about what it says or what the clauses are in it.
I just think this is such a non-issue it amazes me that its being talked about so much. Also this kind of stuff happens in work places up and down the country, two people don't see eye to eye and so a sort of war of attrition breaks out. Its partly NP's fault and partly Stringer's fault.
I don't live anywhere near Leicester so only really bother to listen to RL from time to time online so I guess this issue does not affect me as much as others on the board but when we are fighting relegation this just seems like a bit of a non-story
posted on 20/1/15
Can someone explain to me why this contract is important at all to the argument?
If there's not one, or if it hasn't been broken, it's irrelevant by definition.
If there is one and it has been broken, then that's the club's call more than it is Pearson's.
The issue that Pearson and the rest of the staff won't speak to Stringer is surely a separate issue from this contract?
posted on 20/1/15
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by OooTommyWright (U20202)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
comment by The_only_way_is_schlupp (U1254)
posted 3 minutes ago
I agree with Nev and JG
That is all
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A short, concise post??
Are you sure you are on the right thread 😉😉😉
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think everything has been covered already arro.
Just adding my two-pence worth. Lol
Besides i don't think they're in much of a minority, just less preferred contributors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arro....... Really?
I dont think so, but if it helps you contribute to keep thinking I am then knock yourself out!!
I completely disagree with your statement that Nev and JG are less preferred contributors!!! They both have fantastic debating skills and viewpoints that they firmly believe in, this forum would be a lot weaker without their contributions.
We just have a difference of opinion, end of.
posted on 20/1/15
Ches, do i need to see him to believe that BS exists or arrow has changed his name?
Dung you are right and wrong if its the clubs decision not to allow RL access to manager,players and news conferences i agree. If its the managers decision then thats different.
This contract does it exist is stupid do any of you think anyone becomes a partner with the club, has a match day programme, has agreed access to players and managment and then broadcasts their match commentrys for them does not have a contract is one sandwich short of a picnic imo.
All i can say is prove to me that the Club/ NP has not broken the contract.
Someone from RL who knows about it told me the club are breach of it and we all hear the silence.
Believe or not don't be as pathetic to make it sound like i am making it up or i did not hear it first hand more than anyone on hear who is judging me is?
posted on 20/1/15
I love dyslexia it makes me sound like im pieced all the time!
posted on 20/1/15
Once again Nev fails to properly read other posts before he posts his riposte.
We are not doubting the contract exists, we are doubting there is a clause in it relating to Ian Stringer only being allowed to interview NP. Furthermore we are debating whether there is a clause that specifies NP must give interviews to RL full stop.
Without seeing the contract or speaking with the clubs legal team, we wouldn't know. It would be daft for anyone to pretend they do, but when has that stopped you?
Also you're wrong on Tommy being arro, definitely not. Speaking from experience it's virtually impossible to create a second user account on here, the IP address gets flagged to admin who kicks it out and bans the original.
Finally Nev, please don't confuse the multiple comments on this thread as interest in your dull repetitive mantra about RL. It merely represents the failed attempts of a number of people trying to talk sense into you.
posted on 20/1/15
Without seeing the contract or speaking with the clubs legal team, we wouldn't know. It would be daft for anyone to pretend they do, but when has that stopped you?
Again BS keep ignoring what i have posted.
It might come as a shock to you but there are two sides to a contract not just the club don't you get it?
So explain why i can't except what RL says who have signed the contract as well and have to talk to the club.
Dont you trust the BBC ?
posted on 20/1/15
As BS has already stated Nev you've totally missed the point. Where did I ever state that a contract didn't exist my exact words were
"unless you have either seen or have a copy of the contract you cannot make any assumption about what it says or what the clauses are in it."
You cannot assume what is in it or what clauses are in it? How is that in any way an argument that it doesn't exist. Also arguing whether someone on the forum exists comapared to whether something in a likely confidential contract exisits is an odd comparison.
posted on 20/1/15
Nev could you link me or point me to anyone on Radio Leicester commenting on what is in the contract between the club and RL? Anything else is just hearsay
posted on 20/1/15
"Someone from RL who knows about it told me the club are breach of it and we all hear the silence"
Nev - You seem to be saying that someone at the BBC is leaking details of a confidential contract between it and LCFC to a member of the public?
Page 4 of 6
6