Didn't Dave " Nosey" Parker break the story first.

God, if Craven is looking to HIM for his stories, things are even worse than we thought! But Hmm...

[iBullseye wrote: Now I'm a big Lowes fan but is bringing him in really the answer? Sure he's got a better pedigree as a player than the current two assistants but his record as a coach at Salford and Warrington leaves a lot to be desired.



Remember too that there seems to be three people being shown the door and one recruited. Is this another money saving exercise dressed up as something else? If Clawson is going we're going to need another conditioner and one who is an improvement on the current bloke not just someone who can remember how we trained six years ago. [/i





=blue"As of yet I don't think any of this has been confirmed, especially the Lowes to Bradford part. The first part surfaced on here yesterday and you have to wonder if that's where it was picked up from. Don't get me wrong I have been calling for this a an interim solution for ages but if it happens the right people need bringing in or it's a pointless exercise."



This is what I posted in the "LOWES" thread. Too good to be true!....

According to Substandard it was on Radio Leeds this morning. Wonder why the club did not conjoin them in their rebuttal statement?



One of their posters has also picked up on what the statement did not say.

I suspect it was the sensationalist language that marked the T&A out for a special mention.



You can't imagine newspapers and radio stations that rely on a relationship with the club running stories that are simply not true. The old adage of smoke and fires seems appropriate and the clever wording of the statement would still allow the same outcome but via a less controversial route.

Indeed. And having slept on it (sad I know...

) another line of thought occurred to me. Two stories now in the T&A where someone or other has refuted. What did they both have in common?



First one said that (in short) that Cummings had rung Macca and "apologised" for the officials' mistakes. Subsequent "clarification" said he had not "apologised" but acknowledged the mistakes and did not refute that a phone call took place.



Second one said that Macca "Ruthlessly sacked" his assistants. Subsequent "rebuttal" by the club said they had not been "ruthlessly sacked" and were still contracted till end 2010 but did not state that the latter was likely to remain the case.



The common denominator in both cases, the person that both stories could be seen as reflecting reasonably well on, is of course Macca?. Both were things that (as reported) involved him personally. He is reported as "refusing to confirm the news" on Mon night, which means the T&A must have spoken to him? And note that he is not reported as denying it.



The obvious deduction (to me at least) from all this is that someone within the club has been talking to the T&A. But no doubt we'll not get the whole tale. The T&A story is still up as I write this, but will be interesting to see what gets printed by way of clarification or retraction today. Whatever else, its a hell of a way to run a railroad.



EDIT: And on further reflection, given that this "story" first broke in League Weekly (that paragon of accuracy and objectivity) is it conceivable that Craven read it, rang the club (Macca you assume from what Craven said) and then (maybe with half a tale) ran with this sensationalist story? As I said, hell of a way to run a Railroad, but if the T&A what to run it without decent QA in place guess there is little the club can do about that?

Words do mean a lot don`t they!



I`m sure that when Cummings made the phone call he would have said something along the lines of `I`m sorry that this happened`, it is what anyone would have said in the circumstances, after all if he hadn`t been disappointed by the standard of refereeing, which it is his job to oversee, why make the call? However it`s hardly a full blown official `apology`, so whilst `sorry` probably/possibly was said it would have depended on the way it was presented.



It`s pretty obvious that local journalists seem to get many of their stories from the club website (or just take Duffers` press releases verbatim) so it`s fairly unusual to read something not sanctioned by, and to some extent critical of, the club. Could there have been some off message spinning going on by insiders, I wonder what the message will be at the end of the season though?

Whats all this hullabaloo?

I rather think that Craven is not seen as a baddie, more like a reasonable bloke who perhaps acts more like a tabloid hack than - shall we say a more professional - sports writer in the mould of (grits teeth...) Sledger. What this likely means is that when Craven gets a juicy story he dives in with both feet like he's just caught Jordan in bed, and with a deadline to meet, rather than stops and on mature reflection validates his facts a bit more and exercises a bit of circumspection when required? Maybe?



If that's the case - and if it is, it must do Duffy's head in from time to time - maybe that helps explain some of the hyperbole and histrionics we have seen from him from time to time? Like this latest example maybe? Bit hard to take too much issue with the club if its out of their control how what they brief or say is reported, I guess? Not saying this came from a club briefing of course, although it clearly did not appear out of thin air (and almost certainly not from the Headingley Press Dept either!

)

I wish they would just tell us what is happening - its all very confusing and in the present climate it certianly does not make the fans feel confident (not that we have for a while really).

Leaving aside what you might think of their match reports, I've thought recently that the T&A were a reliable source of factual information about the Bulls. At a minor level they usually seem to know what the team line up will be the day before the match, which suggests that they have reliable contact with the club. Surprised that they could get something like this wrong, particularly as it is so easily deniable.

If they did have it badly wrong, surely we'd have seen the retraction and the online article pulled by now? Anyone seen the hard-copy T&A today yet? Last time that was where the retraction appeared, not on the website, and anything there might clear this one up?