Paul Lennon in the Star

[hamish]

Maybe a thread about football and sports agents might also be appropriate. I'm sure there are good ones but there are many many cowboys in that area. I hate it when an agent "slips" a story in the press about interest from other clubs - prior to a player about to negotiate a new contract. Managers, having to handle a board who might not budge on better terms are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm desperately sorry for Rico. He wins the League with a side playing really lovely, enjoyable, passionate football and sees it savaged within weeks of landing the title.

I do have some sympathy for Kerr and I have no problem with press criticising his tactics - as well as factual reportage, that's what they're there for - BUT dfx is right when he states that the performances and results are the important aspect. However, I cannot accept but that some members of our sports media have adopted the malignant virus which permeates the UK press. Some of the sniping at Kerr was infantile, immature and totally irelevant to the performances and tactics.
Micky O'Connor is back with Athlone and during his first spell there his attitude was he'd gladly talk with them, argue with them, joke with them BUT, when push came to shove, his priorities were the players, performances and results. The media were grand but had no influence on anything he did club-wise and if they got on his case, that's their business but he wasn't going to lose any sleep over it.

[dfx-]

However, I cannot accept but that some members of our sports media have adopted the malignant virus which permeates the UK press. Some of the sniping at Kerr was infantile, immature and totally irelevant to the performances and tactics.

I am not for one moment saying that the Irish media are angels, but in reference to the articles about Kerr, he brought it on himself. He was incapable. Was there such a witchhunt when we were doing well? There may have been people with disquiet, but was there a witchhunt? When it becomes blatently to a blind mouse that Kerr is not up to it and the overwhelming public opinion is for his removal, the press are going to run that ahead of a 'good' story. If it forces him out when he is incapable then that is for good. However Kerr was not capable and that was why he lost his job. Now that he seems to be still blaming the media is going to get a reaction from the same media - what do you expect them to do?? I believe he questioned in his programme whether many in the media know about football.

*shakes his head in disbelief* That is a sign of a madman. It is a sign of a bitter, bitter man and therefore he deserves the harsh criticism thast he will get until he realises who was really at fault. Eventually if he doesn't people will be sick of telling him and there won't be threads about Kerr's demise because it is re-run territory and there can be no logical argument to his dismissal and there won't be 'lazy' journalism. The difference between English tabloids and us is that they jump up at one defeat to Northern Ireland whilst still easily qualifying...that is no reason to jump on the coach or his private life.

The Irish media had only got disgraceful performances to report on, it's not going to show Kerr in any better light than he deserves.

[hamish]

I am not for one moment saying that the Irish media are angels, but in reference to the articles about Kerr, he brought it on himself. He was incapable. Was there such a witchhunt when we were doing well? There may have been people with disquiet, but was there a witchhunt? When it becomes blatently to a blind mouse that Kerr is not up to it and the overwhelming public opinion is for his removal, the press are going to run that ahead of a 'good' story. If it forces him out when he is incapable then that is for good. However Kerr was not capable and that was why he lost his job. Now that he seems to be still blaming the media is going to get a reaction from the same media - what do you expect them to do?? I believe he questioned in his programme whether many in the media know about football.

*shakes his head in disbelief* That is a sign of a madman. It is a sign of a bitter, bitter man and therefore he deserves the harsh criticism thast he will get until he realises who was really at fault. Eventually if he doesn't people will be sick of telling him and there won't be threads about Kerr's demise because it is re-run territory and there can be no logical argument to his dismissal and there won't be 'lazy' journalism. The difference between English tabloids and us is that they jump up at one defeat to Northern Ireland whilst still easily qualifying...that is no reason to jump on the coach or his private life.

The Irish media had only got disgraceful performances to report on, it's not going to show Kerr in any better light than he deserves.

No arguments with you there dfx. Perhaps I got into a cul de sac about press standards given my experiences. That suspicion tends to colour my judgements sometimes about where the media is coming from.
I just want to be certain that the press observes standards of truth and honest reporting when dealing with any subject. I still think that far too many in the media here are, basically, full of it.
True. There was little that could be said in a positive fashion about the set backs in those two games against Israel.
I thought the press bickering about Kerr's attitude towards them was a side show and irrelevant.
Those who inspired debate regarding the performances, tactics etc were doing their jobs.
True. You live and die by results. That's the sad fact regarding Brian Kerr.

[sullanefc]

It always amazes me how so many football fans lay into the media, while reading the Evening Herald, the Star, the Sun (or, at times, the Irish Independent). These are poor papers, they really are. There is decent reporting out there but the above papers will only stop printing complete sh!te when people stop buying them.

So stop buying them!

I think I will.

The difference between English tabloids and us

So what publication do you write for??

all you had to do was watch the matches. Did none of you hear Giles and Dunphy and Brady after the Israel match? That was no conspiracy - that was a perfectly fair judgement of the match - they weren't out to get him and influence the nation any more than usual - they didn't have any agenda against Kerr.

I have no problem with the criticism Giles, Dunphy & Brady dished out as it was fair and it had to do with tactics.

It's the written media throwing there toys out of their prams that I have a problem. "He won't talk to us, so lets slag him off over it" Thats childish

[Noelys Guitar]

Kerr got a huge ovation from the hacks when he was appointed. With the "Greener" in charge we were going to be winning tourneys. All this qualifying nonsense was for others. Go back into the archives of ANY Irish newspaper to see the type of crap that was been written (and swallowed) when Kerr was appointed. It was moving statue time again. He got the easiest ride of any recent manager by the hacks. I stated at the time that he should never have been appointed and would never win the respect ot the squad. Kevin Moran/Brian Kidd, John Aldridge/Kevin Sheedy or Frank Stapleton would have been better choices at the time.

[klein4]

what about the reporting on robbie keane on a so called bender before the french game and roy keane "apparently" going mad about it?
nobody really wants cheerleaders with typewriters but I dont think it is too much to ask that they dont try and undermine the team before such a big game. nobody has a problem with them criticising a manager if he isnt doing his stuff but some stories they put out are just sensationalist for the sake of it.

[gufct]

piece in the star that nobody has mentioned is how well informed Paul was on the FAI's side of the story and this obviously had been leaked to try and blacken Kerr's reputation.Attacking him over sending scouts to see potential play off opponents was very petty and stank of "the man from del monte's hand". Until Irish reporters distance themselves from JD and his henchmen and start writing the stories they all know about the mafia within the FAI I for one will find it very hard to have any belief in them.

[gspain]

Kerr has only himself to blame re the media. He brought up the contract issue to put pressure on the F.A.I. and tried to use the media but it backfired.

Ultimately he lost his job because we finished 4th in a qualifying group behind the likes of Switzerland and Israel who didn't have players of the cailbre of Duff, Given and the Keanes yet had better teams than us.

[klein4]

fair enough. but if we got a good manager in and he didnt get on with the press and didnt bother giving press conferances and they decided to attack and go after him would you agree with that?
do you think we would have had the success of the charlton years in the current media climate?

[Dotsy]

fair enough. but if we got a good manager in and he didnt get on with the press and didnt bother giving press conferances and they decided to attack and go after him would you agree with that?
do you think we would have had the success of the charlton years in the current media climate?

I don't think many people are defending some of the trash that was written in the papers about Kerr at the end. The point is some of these tossers will write this nonsence and undermine the team if they can't get access to the team and manager before big games. These days a manager has to be good at the PR side of things or else this can happen. It's not a question of supporting it one way or the other it's just a fact of life in football these days.

[Karlos]

do you think we would have had the success of the charlton years in the current media climate?

Just my own thoughts on this but I never thought Jack was that media friendly anyway. Sure he was probably good for the odd quote but he ruffled more than a few feathers both at the time of his appointment and during his reign and walked out or ended abruptly more press conferences than I care to remember. I'm sure we would have seen the same personal attacks had Jack been a failure and due to the fact he's English, I imagine it would have been even worse than what Kerr was dished out. Jack's ultimate saving grace was that he was the first manager to lead us to major tournaments - otherwise I feel he would have been hung out to dry like anyone else who fails.

Ultimately it's the results that determine the extent as to which the media will go after you. No matter how good or successful you are, somebody out there will be willing to have a pop - start losing or underperformaning (or indeed become unapproachable) then that number grows and grows and grows.

I honestly believe Kerr didn't have it any harder with the media than anyone who went before him and what he did have to a large extent was caused by himself at times. I'm not saying the treatment he received was right or even worth reading but I just don't necessarily agree that the media singled Kerr out and thought let's give him a harder time than everyone else who has gone before. As others have said, I thought he was well receieved when appointed and had a long honeymoon period until this summer but ultimately the results and our failure to qualify where his downfall.

So in short to answer the initial question - 'Yes, I don't see a whole lot of difference in the media climate surrounding the team - the one variable I see has been the success. All we are seeing is the other side of the coin that I believe we would have seen with failure under Jack'

[klein4]

I agree with you on most of it(it is christmas after all).....but I was talking more in terms of "irish team in drinking before game shocker" headlines which werent the norm back then but I think they are now.

[Karlos]

I agree with you on most of it(it is christmas after all).....but I was talking more in terms of "irish team in drinking before game shocker" headlines which werent the norm back then but I think they are now.

Fair enough, in that sence proabably not. But then I also don't think that most players go out on the lash as much these days. In the 80's the players were out every night in their local - stories were a dime a dozen and not worth reporting.

So had the Charlton Years took place now with all the aspects of nutrition and performance in the game etc then I don't think they would have been doing all that anyway or at least not like they were back then. It was a player culture that has almost disappeared from the game hence the big news stories when West Ham have a Christmas Party or Ireland go on the lash - it just doesn't happen that often anymore.

Still doesn't make it an interesting or relevant story for me but I know why they run with it!

On that note I'll wish you happy Christmas Klein4 as i don't think we'll have these moments of argeement too often!!!!

[klein4]

same to yourself karlos! have a good one...

[pete]

Journalists know no more (probably a lot less) than people on hear so they should be reporting on matches & interviewing players.

Journalists should not be writting opinion pieces on football as they haven't got opinions worthwhile. Leave that job to ex-pros.