Barnsley Chronicle and Matthew Murray: Answers Needed

If I were a journalist, I'd spend my time on internet message boards answering every query about the articles I'd written.

Oh hang on, no I wouldn't.

For a start, if I went down that road, that's all I'd ever do and secondly, why, if you didn't believe the article I wrote that I put my name to, would you believe me if I came on here and told you it was all true? You don't believe what I write in a newspaper, but you believe what I say on an internet message board? Of course not, it'd be the biggest waste of my time I could imagine. Actually, worse than that, I'd be derided and abused.

The fact that Matt Murray put his name to it means he believes it to be true. You don't need confirmation of that, you've got it in black and white. Him confirming it on here will do nothing to convince you. You're entitled to your opinion, you don't have to accept anything you read in the papers, but don't call out the journalist to confirm his story, he already has done by submitting it to print and putting his name to it, doing so again on here will do him no good at all.

 

On their website with an official statement? With a press conference? An interview with Patrick Cryne or Ben Mansford or Maurice Watkins? Or was it 'a club source'?

 

Murray stated ten mins ago that an offer has been tabled and that talks are ongoing , obviously he reads and maybe posts on here

 

It's clear he didn't go to the club to confirm whatever he had heard. Or he would have got the swift and firm denial that was given the Yorkshire Post. And as we discussed on Friday, any trace was quickly removed from the Chron news page. Unfortunately you can not erase the printed page and Murray will have to live with that, whether there is any foundation to the story or not. I've no doubt he was fed something from somewhere, being too hasty to get to print and make a scoop was his mistake. He's come out of it looking a bit of an impetuous prat, chose how you look at it.

 

Why? Could you point me to where Patrick Cryne or Ben Mansford or Maurice Watkins have denied the story, because so far I've missed it. What I've seen is The Yorkshire Post and Radio Sheffield quote a 'club source' which is exactly what Matt Murray has done in his article. Why the source close to Radio Sheffield and The Yorkshire Post are to believed and the one close to Matt Murray isn't, I haven't yet ascertained.

I have no idea if the story in The Chronicle is correct, what I don't understand is why others are so sure that it isn't. I certainly can't understand why he has supposedly made himself look a prat. I don't think so.

"And as we discussed on Friday, any trace was quickly removed from the Chron news page."

We did discuss it on Friday. I can't remember reaching that conclusion. I remember asking why a paper who only printed the article to sell papers, as was the accusation, would not advertise the story on their web site. I can't remember getting an answer.

Matt Murray still insists the article is correct and is not embarrassed by it at all. He doesn't believe he has been too hasty.

He Tweeted not half an hour ago: The story states that a bid has been tabled and that discussions are underway. Our sources are still saying that is the case.

I reiterate, I don't know if it is correct, but I don't know that it isn't.

 

I thought everyone knew he did?

 

It says 'spokeperson' in the Post article, for me that would constitute an official statement. 'Source' is Matt Murray's word. Though now I'm intrigued by the 'in the dark' wording. But it is still more of an official line than what I can gather was in Friday's article.

He's standing by it and that's fair enough, but it still doesn't make it any more substantial. With such a big (relatively) story, people require evidence because, let's be honest, there are other motivations in the world of newspapers. If it was a legal argument you were trying present, you couldn't say - "Sorry I don't have the evidence just yet, but take this on faith for now."

My comments were just part of the larger voice of doubt, in the absence of any official validation to the story. Why didn't MM wait for this evidence? Motivations again. If it is a real deal and it goes through, he can say told you so. If it doesn't, BFC will bury it and that will be the last we hear of it.

I'll admit, I'm as flakey as anyone on these issues. Show me a sheep and I'll follow it. The 'prat' bit was out of order, I take that back.

 

"any trace was quickly removed from the Chron news page" (you're referring to the online Chron)

It was never on there to begin with..... ????



I disagree with your post, Paul. All of it. Not just the incorrectness, but your opinions at the end.

 

Have you had a drink, Paul?

You're now suggesting 'spokesperson' is more trustworthy than 'source'.

If the club had given us an official statement denying it, fair enough, it would be more understandable (your sort of post).


Looking forward to quite a lot of you admitting you were wrong by the end of the week.

You Reds.


Love you, Matthew. You prat.


*By the way, Jay's bang on in this thread.

 

I know Murray has a few mates who use this forum. Has he informed any of you in greater detail what is going on in regards to this takeover?

 

I don't know that you're wrong. I really don't, everything you've said could be bang on the money. I just don't know that Matt Murray has got it wrong either, and I think we should let this thing run before condemning him.

Maybe we haven't got a denial from someone high up at BFC because the story is factually correct, or maybe we haven't got a denial because they can't be bothered to answer every single story that appears in the paper even if it is rubbish, just like Matt Murray can't be bothered to reply to everyone who doubts him like the opening post. Or maybe we haven't got a denial because the story broke over the weekend when the team were in Ireland and no one at board level was in the club. Maybe they're preparing one that will be released on Monday.

I wouldn't read too much in to it either way, whether there is a denial or not. We've known for a long time that Patrick Cryne will sell the club if he finds the right interested party. News that there may be one close at hand shouldn't really unsettle us, it's going to happen sooner or later. Whether there is any truth in the story or not, I doubt very much it will unsettle anyone at board level as, if it's true, they'll already know about it, and if it's not they're all too experienced to let an inaccurate story in a local paper bother them. And in this case it won't unsettle the manager or the team because the person in question is a friend of Danny Wilson who will look to back him just as much as the present board are doing.

We'll see what happens.

 

First up, can I point out that I am not saying that Matthew's story IS made up, I have merely questioned what (if any) substance there is to it. It seems that Radio Sheffield and the Yorkshire Post have contacted the club to attempt to obtain some verification of the story. The Post's article in particular is pretty emphatic:

"The Reds, meanwhile, are firmly denying reports linking former Swindon Town chairman Jed McCrory with a takeover bid at Oakwell, insisting they are unaware of any such offer.

The Evesham-based businessman is reportedly part of a group who have tabled a £5m bid to purchase the struggling Championship club, with speculation suggesting owner Patrick Cryne is ready to sell up.

But a Barnsley spokesperson stressed to the Yorkshire Post last night that they are in the dark over any bid with Cryne, club staff and management fully committed to keeping the Reds in the division.

The club source added that they have not been contacted by McCrory."

We obviously do not know who the 'spokesperson' is, but if it is not Ben Mansford, then I don't believe it would have been issued without reference to Ben. Nor do I believe that background negotiations will have been going on without Ben's knowledge. Ben is too savvy to issue a denial where a story might be true. One point I would make is that Ben promised us in August that his aim was for the club's official channels to start breaking news first. I do think that on something so fundamentally important as this, where the only printed local media source has gone big on the story, then a club statement of some kind would be appropriate, even if only to say that Mr Cryne continues to discuss the future of the club with interested parties. If the story is totally without substance, then the club should say that.

As regards Matthew, no I don't think he should enter into dialogue on every club story he purveys. But this is a "biggie", promulgated with all the hype of a "scoop/exclusive". Two other local media sources (arguably with far more clout than the Chronicle) have come out and cast doubt on the original story, and the Chronicle's own website doesn't appear to have enough faith to carry it.

So I'd like Matthew/Jay to indicate whether his article has substance to it, or whether it was mere speculation. That's fair enough, isn't it?

 

Matthew has far more integrity than to make something like that up. If it turns out not to happen as stated I'm sure it's with good reason.

 

At the end of the day take over deals should not be spoken about in public. Sure if they are interested in is at the same time they will be looking at other options.

I doubt they made a story up, so lets let them get on with any negotiations and if it comes off, it comes off. If not it's just another rumour.

 

As has been pointed out, I've not seen anything from the club. I've seen Murray state a man's name and the source of the story coming from his side. RS have probably just spoken to Stokes or Mansford who, to be fair, probably have no idea or right to know if Cryne is speaking to anyone.

This thread is just f.cking daft.

 

Go on then, yes, it's got substance to it. Feel better? Are we done now?

 

smoke & mirrors, wheels within wheels, off the record, illusions, deception, smokescreens.

It's like Smiley's People following BFC.