And don't know what or where the Goose is.

Or where Stamford Bridge is and won't have mom to hold there hand.

And don't know what or where the Goose is.

Pub on a corner in Fulham

Pub on a corner in Fulham

 

I know what it is, I've only been there a few times though. I meant TalkChelsea members don't haha.

Or maybe they meant our Goose on here, or our Goose in the Goose. As long as no one gooses Goose in the Goose!

Skimming through that Frank Lampard thread on talkchelsea makes me think that being banned from there is not necessarily a bad thing.

The weird thing is that I got called a c**t(fair enough) and posters started comparing me to Lamps.

The Judas sh*t on there is absolutely insane.

Anyway.... The reason I got irate on there is because I was having a discussion with a mod named Fulham Broadway about acts of violence against women, and he implied I had some fetish about it.

Shouldn't have lost my rag, did, and said he wouldn't say it to my face. He said anytime anywhere, I called his bluff and I ended up getting banned and apparently wanted to fight him which was bollocks.I do however tend to believe that you shouldn't say stuff on the webs that you wouldn't say to someone's face.

Quite why dkw brought that up now, when the fa cleared Ivanovic I don't know. Tis a weird one but not worth continuing to be honest.

We all make mistakes Blue Daze and you have your opinion and fight for it, that's a good quality in my opinion

Campaign is the wrong word. There is just a huge amount of bitterness from other clubs fans and portions of the media where they exaggerate everything bad we do more than they do to other teams. Personally it makes it all that much sweeter when we beat the lot of them.

Who needs a campaign against Chelsea when we fight amongst ourselves?

There is no campaign, the authorities are just incompetent to everyone.  

Edited February 12, 201511 yr by Nichollz

Who needs a campaign against Chelsea when we fight amongst ourselves?

Squabble is what I would call it. In fact there is a Scottish expression very appropriate here - having a wee stooshie!

It's theshedend or nowhere

I admit and I double hit. I just want to talk about Chelsea. I can't do that here in Sacramento [emoji12]

I apologize for the following if anyone is offended by it.  Ive tried to come with some less outrageous/potentiall offensive comparisons by my mind is limited by my lack of intelligence/creativity.

 

Saying Ivanovic not getting a ban is proof their is no conspiracy/agenda at all is like saying the Nazi's werent exterminating the Jewish people because there were Jewish people who didnt get killed.  You have to look at the balance of events and not at isolated incidents.  What Ivanovich did, restraining another player, happens probably at least 2 dozen times on any given weekend with a full slate of games without the calls for a ban.  Thats not to mention the allegations of a headbutt (I will refrain from listing all the far more obvious ones that never got a media mention) and the fabrication of a bite as headline news for some papers.  The fact it went so far shows to me that the actions of a Chelsea player were treated completely different than the similar actions done by many non-Chelsea players.

 

An agenda or campaign doesn't require that everybody associated with the organization/entity be involved.  In fact, I would argue that an agenda or campaign is usually undertaken by a minority of people in an organization/entity.  A few well placed individuals can certainly be successful in creating change, especially if coordinating but even so if they unknowingly share the same common goal without communication.

 

Of course saying the media, as a whole, is on a campaign is ridiculous.  The media, as a whole, will never agree on any single issue given how large and diverse the media is.

 

On the other hand, I would encourage anyone to read Neil Ashton's bit in the Daily Mail piece about whether Mourinho is good for the BPL, and then read all his articles related to Chelsea/Mourinho in the last few months, and objectively tell me that's not a concentrated campaign by that one member of the media against CFC/Mourinho.  I suspect a few more names could be placed on this list.

 

Personally, I find the opinion that their is no possible way that a campaign/agenda (of any shape, size, or form) could be in place against Chelsea as equally ridiculous/ignorant as any claims that the whole of the media or FA is conspiring against the club.  Both are ridiculous extremes that leave no space for the actions of individuals, which both organizations are made up almost entirely of.  

 

I have no doubt other clubs suffer the exact same thing at some point of time or another, or even right now, but due to Chelsea's current standing its given that the club/manager will be targeted more even if the agenda is to generate more revenue by picking on a easy target which is popular to hate.

 

On a side note, does anyone know if these FA tribunal judges are allowed to read the media about incidents they are about to judge?  I should hope not because, as in a real court of law, it could easily sway a decision that perhaps would of gone the other way without trial by media.  Impartiality would be best served by the judges viewing the incidents through their eyes only and not after having read 20 articles on it putting forward the opinions and biases of the writer rather than bare facts.

 

On a side note, does anyone know if these FA tribunal judges are allowed to read the media about incidents they are about to judge?  I should hope not because, as in a real court of law, it could easily sway a decision that perhaps would of gone the other way without trial by media.  Impartiality would be best served by the judges viewing the incidents through their eyes only and not after having read 20 articles on it putting forward the opinions and biases of the writer rather than bare facts.

Of course they are.

 

Interestingly, after the Guardian's chief football writer Daniel Taylor wrote that 'there is one television angle where he can clearly be seen, having already grabbed James McCarthy by the throat, ramming his head into his opponent', a commenter responded by writing 'I sincerely hope you're never called as witness in court'.

 

We should be grateful that at least one of the FA panel can actually view TV footage without their view being distorted by a grotesque lack of objectivity. It's a an indictment of so many of our football writers that they lack any balance when writing about us, and make no attempt to hide their dislike.

As much as I frequently get pissed off by what I perceive to be horribly biased and vindictive articles criticising us, I don't think there is a co-ordinated effort against Chelsea within the media. Certainly there are individuals who don't like us, that is undeniable and is true of any club, just as there are writers out there who tend to favour us more often than not. I think it may well be true that articles unfairly criticising Chelsea are quite a great deal larger in number than those praising us (not that I can prove it), but I don't think the reason for that is as sinister as it immediately appears.

 

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that the primary aim of any form of media is to propagate itself; if there are more negative articles about us than positive or neutral it is because it sells. It is more eye-catching to write a holier-than-thou, sensationalist article criticising Mourinho and Ivanovic/Costa (for example) than it would be to write a process story about FA panel decisions or a [footballing] legal piece about what 'technically' constitutes a headbutt or a stamp.

 

Football is naturally tribal and visceral; events are never going to be as black-and-white as we, or opposition fans who don't like us or have a vested interested in seeing us fail because we are rivals to their own team, see them. We are naturally going to be more attracted to clicking on/turning to articles whose headlines (which are usually more sensationalist than the content anyway considering the actual writers very rarely choose them themselves) which agree with our points rather than those which disagree with us (which we would likely scoff at and ignore).

 

It is why people who identify as politically left-wing are more likely to read the Guardian or the Mirror, and those who identify as right-wing are more likely to read the Telegraph or the Mail. People who are genuinely interested in a the full range of opinions on a subject are actually few and far between. I'm not trying to pontificate either - I myself don't read the Telegraph every day for 'opposition research' after all... It is probably worth adding that if we are predominantly attracted to articles we already agree with, there is a 'preaching to the choir' element to this all - as nasty as an article might be, it likely isn't going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it.

 

So why do more people click on headlines slating Chelsea than the opposite, if a high frequency of negative articles is a money-spinner? In the context of the tribal view of football, even in the simplest terms, it makes sense: we are one club (however magnificent) and our rivals are many. In addition to that, we have picked up our fair share of detractors in the past ten years, because we have gatecrashed the 'status quo' of top clubs.

 

Teams like Tottenham, West Ham, Millwall, QPR (etc.) have always hated us, but in terms of a percentage of all English football fans they don't really amount to much. Now we have picked up a whole new host of rivals, most of whom are (historically in one case...) the biggest clubs in the country, i.e. some of the most popular teams with the biggest fanbases - this means in terms of numbers (or in the media context, readers) there is now a massively increased market base of football fans who hate Chelsea to appeal to.

 

The media are simply giving the masses what they want; they are simply trying to sell papers, get hits on their websites and above all make money, rather than trying to launch a campaign genuinely designed to negatively affect Chelsea's season and to ensure that we get unfair treatment from match officials and the footballing authorities. In addition, generally speaking, the ones who share these stories once they are out are fans of the teams they are marketed to, the teams directly affected negatively by our successes. Look at fans of lower league sides and 'fallen powers' like Forest and Wednesday - most of them don't give half a sh*t about Chelsea and aren't going to be convinced by somebody feigning indignation at our players/staff's supposed misdeeds.

 

I think the bigger problem here is that the media is now intent on pandering to the most popular opinions in order to make money rather than concentrating on an objective, non-emotive and neutral reporting of the facts, which is, let's face it, what the media is supposed to do. Either way, I say make the most out of it. Seeing how pissed off our rivals are, and reflecting on that, how large a threat we must be on the field to incur their scorn makes our victories all the sweeter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/index.html

 

And here is your latest piece of sh*te journalism 

TalkChelsea has got much worse things to say about me than it has Blue Daze, that I can assure you, one incident with a moderator and that's it you're gone, that's what happened with Daze.

 

I'm happy he has joined this forum, he is a great addition and he will always back himself up with facts so there is no point in having a lazy argument with him. I don't understand the need to get so personal with him, maybe I just haven't seen it but I really think people are getting the wrong end of the stick with it all.

 

Anyway that's just my insight, take it or leave it, no one is the enemy here, we are all Chelsea supporters and the shed end is the best Chelsea forum on the net

Also to be fair the whole Ivanovic not being charged I think shows that there really isn't an agenda when it comes to the F.A.

 

That I think was fairly obvious, they'll act on big news but they will also act on what suits them, this wouldn't suit them at all, it would have made Mourinho more right about the whole situation. I really think there would have been an outrage if Ivanovic got suspended, now that will be avoided.

 

Would he of missed the final if he got suspended?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/index.html

 

And here is your latest piece of sh*te journalism 

Just another Yob with a pen.

Whilst I'm no longer saying that there is a definite media agenda, becuase people get their knickers in a twist if you suggest that, I would appreciate it if someone posted a link from this season, to a positive article on Chelsea, becuase I can't find one. I actually don't care too much though, becuase it helps to build a siege mentality amongst the players and the fans, so to be honest, some of these journalists are inadvertently helping us.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/index.html

And here is your latest piece of sh*te journalism

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by Floyd25

Every club has a minority of stupid fans attached to it, I guess that TalkChelsea is where all of our stupid fans hang out. I asked once if anyone has posted on CFC.net, but I got no answer, that forum doesn't seem too bad to me.

TalkChelsea has got much worse things to say about me than it has Blue Daze, that I can assure you, one incident with a moderator and that's it you're gone, that's what happened with Daze.

Edited February 13, 201511 yr by Floyd25

I apologize for the following if anyone is offended by it. Ive tried to come with some less outrageous/potentiall offensive comparisons by my mind is limited by my lack of intelligence/creativity.

Saying Ivanovic not getting a ban is proof their is no conspiracy/agenda at all is like saying the Nazi's werent exterminating the Jewish people because there were Jewish people who didnt get killed. You have to look at the balance of events and not at isolated incidents. What Ivanovich did, restraining another player, happens probably at least 2 dozen times on any given weekend with a full slate of games without the calls for a ban. Thats not to mention the allegations of a headbutt (I will refrain from listing all the far more obvious ones that never got a media mention) and the fabrication of a bite as headline news for some papers. The fact it went so far shows to me that the actions of a Chelsea player were treated completely different than the similar actions done by many non-Chelsea players.

An agenda or campaign doesn't require that everybody associated with the organization/entity be involved. In fact, I would argue that an agenda or campaign is usually undertaken by a minority of people in an organization/entity. A few well placed individuals can certainly be successful in creating change, especially if coordinating but even so if they unknowingly share the same common goal without communication.

Of course saying the media, as a whole, is on a campaign is ridiculous. The media, as a whole, will never agree on any single issue given how large and diverse the media is.

On the other hand, I would encourage anyone to read Neil Ashton's bit in the Daily Mail piece about whether Mourinho is good for the BPL, and then read all his articles related to Chelsea/Mourinho in the last few months, and objectively tell me that's not a concentrated campaign by that one member of the media against CFC/Mourinho. I suspect a few more names could be placed on this list.

Personally, I find the opinion that their is no possible way that a campaign/agenda (of any shape, size, or form) could be in place against Chelsea as equally ridiculous/ignorant as any claims that the whole of the media or FA is conspiring against the club. Both are ridiculous extremes that leave no space for the actions of individuals, which both organizations are made up almost entirely of.

I have no doubt other clubs suffer the exact same thing at some point of time or another, or even right now, but due to Chelsea's current standing its given that the club/manager will be targeted more even if the agenda is to generate more revenue by picking on a easy target which is popular to hate.

On a side note, does anyone know if these FA tribunal judges are allowed to read the media about incidents they are about to judge? I should hope not because, as in a real court of law, it could easily sway a decision that perhaps would of gone the other way without trial by media. Impartiality would be best served by the judges viewing the incidents through their eyes only and not after having read 20 articles on it putting forward the opinions and biases of the writer rather than bare facts.

Going back to Ashton he wrote a nice article about our youth academy about a week ago and the match report for the Everton match was rather glowing with particular praise for Cech.

I'll defend his right to express his opinion as a writer as well. You don't have to agree with him, you don't have to like him but he does have that right. I personally think he went overboard with this latest article but I can understand why some may not like Mourinho's antics. There are plenty of Chelsea supporters who could do without certain bits.

Also if you read that article about whether Jose is good for the media you get a range of views.

The Mail's main sport headline today:

'Chelsea are like the Dog & Duck at chucking out time and their yobbish, boorish behaviour will taint any title triumph... why can't Mourinho and Co just show some dignity and win with class?'

You can't even make that sh*t up  . And before I'm told not to read the Mail... it's one of the better newspaper websites, mainly because it's free.

 

I think the bigger problem here is that the media is now intent on pandering to the most popular opinions in order to make money rather than concentrating on an objective, non-emotive and neutral reporting of the facts, which is, let's face it, what the media is supposed to do. Either way, I say make the most out of it. Seeing how pissed off our rivals are, and reflecting on that, how large a threat we must be on the field to incur their scorn makes our victories all the sweeter.

 

Do people really read the news for objective, neutral reporting? Even if you put aside the normal reporting of news stories, most of the stuff people complain about will be editorial or opinion pieces written by featured writers. If you read an article by Joel Stein in Time then that's the opinion of Joel Stein primarily isn't it? So when people talk about the Mail article by Neil Ashton, that's surely his views but you'll also find articles by other journalists.

 

My point throughout this discussion is that the idea of an orchestrated campaign against us would be patently absurd and simply unworkable. You always have prevailing narratives and we don't help ourselves with that. Jose is box office whether he's happy or moody and if you get a reaction from someone when he's moody that people want to read about, then of course you're going to poke him to get that same reaction.

 

Is it lazy? Yes, but it's also entertaining. We can't moan about narratives that we create and this thread is a prime example of that. This thread came a few weeks after Jose said this.

 

“That’s a campaign, that’s a clear campaign,” he said at the time. “People, pundits, commentators, coaches from other teams, they react with Chelsea in a way they don’t react to other teams. They put lots of pressure on the referee and the referee makes a mistake like this. We lose two points, Fàbregas earns a yellow card. In other countries where I worked before, tomorrow in the sports papers it would be a front-page scandal because it is a scandal.

He's not an idiot. He wanted people talking about this and he's got it. He drew attention to our decisions and since then some have gone our way (the Ivanovic decision, the Cahill dive) and some haven't. I think it's absurd to expect to have it both ways though. The media has no responsibility to treat all stories the same, give all clubs the same prominence or demand their featured writers have objective, neutral viewpoints. It's an entertainment business. 

The Mail's main sport headline today:

'Chelsea are like the Dog & Duck at chucking out time and their yobbish, boorish behaviour will taint any title triumph... why can't Mourinho and Co just show some dignity and win with class?'

You can't even make that sh*t up  . And before I'm told not to read the Mail... it's one of the better newspaper websites, mainly because it's free.

 

 

Let's be fair.

 

The title is actually 

 

NEIL ASHTON: Yobbish and boorish, Chelsea's bench are like the Dog & Duck at chucking out time. Mourinho and his coaching team's behaviour will taint any title triumph that comes their way

 

It's Neil Ashton's views.

 

There are two other big stories on that page.

 

Manchester United are miserable! Paul Scholes 'struggling to watch' Louis van Gaal's joyless Reds

 

Four years on from his greatest United goal, Rooney is being turned into a poor man's Carrick by Van Gaal... so, how long will he stand being stuck in defensive midfield?

 

There's also a Jeff Powell article with the headline

 

The Premier League is not a sporting competition - it's a £10m-a-game circus, morally bankrupt until it meets the living wage for workers

•  

And it contains within it this small nugget

 

 

Chelsea take a great deal of flak these days – not least their manager Jose Mourinho – but in this issue they are setting an example which should embarrass their 19 Premier League rivals.

Chelsea alone have contracted to meet, at least, the basic demand of the Living Wage Foundation.

 

Yet a while back certain people were happy to take a similar line out of a Charlie Sale article to show that the Mail was biased against us. You can't have it both ways. The simple fact is that newsrooms are made up of human beings, each with a different set of views. That produce enough content that you'll be able to find enough evidence to fit whichever agenda you want them to. 

As much as I frequently get pissed off by what I perceive to be horribly biased and vindictive articles criticising us, I don't think there is a co-ordinated effort against Chelsea within the media. Certainly there are individuals who don't like us, that is undeniable and is true of any club, just as there are writers out there who tend to favour us more often than not. I think it may well be true that articles unfairly criticising Chelsea are quite a great deal larger in number than those praising us (not that I can prove it), but I don't think the reason for that is as sinister as it immediately appears.

 

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that the primary aim of any form of media is to propagate itself; if there are more negative articles about us than positive or neutral it is because it sells. It is more eye-catching to write a holier-than-thou, sensationalist article criticising Mourinho and Ivanovic/Costa (for example) than it would be to write a process story about FA panel decisions or a [footballing] legal piece about what 'technically' constitutes a headbutt or a stamp.

 

Football is naturally tribal and visceral; events are never going to be as black-and-white as we, or opposition fans who don't like us or have a vested interested in seeing us fail because we are rivals to their own team, see them. We are naturally going to be more attracted to clicking on/turning to articles whose headlines (which are usually more sensationalist than the content anyway considering the actual writers very rarely choose them themselves) which agree with our points rather than those which disagree with us (which we would likely scoff at and ignore).

 

It is why people who identify as politically left-wing are more likely to read the Guardian or the Mirror, and those who identify as right-wing are more likely to read the Telegraph or the Mail. People who are genuinely interested in a the full range of opinions on a subject are actually few and far between. I'm not trying to pontificate either - I myself don't read the Telegraph every day for 'opposition research' after all... It is probably worth adding that if we are predominantly attracted to articles we already agree with, there is a 'preaching to the choir' element to this all - as nasty as an article might be, it likely isn't going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it.

 

So why do more people click on headlines slating Chelsea than the opposite, if a high frequency of negative articles is a money-spinner? In the context of the tribal view of football, even in the simplest terms, it makes sense: we are one club (however magnificent) and our rivals are many. In addition to that, we have picked up our fair share of detractors in the past ten years, because we have gatecrashed the 'status quo' of top clubs.

 

Teams like Tottenham, West Ham, Millwall, QPR (etc.) have always hated us, but in terms of a percentage of all English football fans they don't really amount to much. Now we have picked up a whole new host of rivals, most of whom are (historically in one case...) the biggest clubs in the country, i.e. some of the most popular teams with the biggest fanbases - this means in terms of numbers (or in the media context, readers) there is now a massively increased market base of football fans who hate Chelsea to appeal to.

 

The media are simply giving the masses what they want; they are simply trying to sell papers, get hits on their websites and above all make money, rather than trying to launch a campaign genuinely designed to negatively affect Chelsea's season and to ensure that we get unfair treatment from match officials and the footballing authorities. In addition, generally speaking, the ones who share these stories once they are out are fans of the teams they are marketed to, the teams directly affected negatively by our successes. Look at fans of lower league sides and 'fallen powers' like Forest and Wednesday - most of them don't give half a sh*t about Chelsea and aren't going to be convinced by somebody feigning indignation at our players/staff's supposed misdeeds.

 

I think the bigger problem here is that the media is now intent on pandering to the most popular opinions in order to make money rather than concentrating on an objective, non-emotive and neutral reporting of the facts, which is, let's face it, what the media is supposed to do. Either way, I say make the most out of it. Seeing how pissed off our rivals are, and reflecting on that, how large a threat we must be on the field to incur their scorn makes our victories all the sweeter.

You make some great points, especially the bits in bold. This is exactly what Blue Daze is arguing when he says there is no agenda against us, but in reality this is what causes the press to be full of articles that do slag us off more than other clubs,that  do highlight Chelsea incidents far more than, say, Liverpool or Arsenal incidents - see how they literally campagn to get Costa or Ivan banned or Oscar and Cahill branded as cheats, while glossing over Skrtel's thuggery or Sanchez throwing a punch at Ivan or totally ignoring Gerrard being a serial diver down the years.