Radio Derby and the PFA

[Dangerous]

yes they are.Gibson is talking a lot of sense really.

[PeteDerby]

credit where it's due. It's like they've taken heed.

[vonwright]

The PFA is a union which represents the players, it is not for the media to go telling tales on a manager, If there is a problem felt by a player he should go to his PFA rep who will try to sort it in house and if necessary call on the big guns from the PFA HQ.

Had RD not called the PFA (if indeed they did) that is exactly what would have happened and the big fuss would not have been created.

Clough post match on Saturday said they didnt come out against Crawley because they were angry and could have said something untoward, like what happened against Pompey. RD rightfully aired their opinion that it wasnt right at the time after the interview. Going to the PFA was to seek nothing more than clarification/an opinion that they were right and to stir up trouble, that is not what journalism is about.

They should report the facts as they happen, had they gone to the PFA a few days later and asked if Cywka had mad a complaint or somehting along those lines they would have been told to poke off its confidential. By doing what they did they created a belief that Cywka had gone telling tales - showing a possible discontent within the squad.

Making news not reporting it.

How is it 'telling tales'? Clough made his comments to a journalist during an interview broadcast on the BBC. Could not have been more public. The comments were clearly controversial - look at the debate that erupted here - and getting a response from the 'union' is an obvious and entirely justified step. The national media picked it up because it is interesting. If the manager doesn't want controversy he shouldn't say controversial things about his players during interviews.

[EdinburghRam]

basically they made a bigger fuss out of it than they needed to do, but that is their job I suppose. Just makes it seem like they care more about themselves than the club

[davenportram]

Getting a response if it us known a complaint is made would be a logical step. Asking for opinion without that kniwledge is just upping the media exposure if an incident that should have been dealt wiunhinged house by the club rep if possible and then a statement being put out by the club once that has happened. By going to the PFA, if they did, without letting that happen is not reporting news.

The PFA should have said nothing to the press either. Dealings on behalf of union members are always confidential, if my rep told anything I had told him I would be very pissed off. Likewise as a rep I have to maintain confidentiality.

[Bris Vegas]

basically they made a bigger fuss out of it than they needed to do, but that is their job I suppose. Just makes it seem like they care more about themselves than the club

Just like the owners, coaching staff and players then..

[vonwright]

Getting a response if it us known a complaint is made would be a logical step. Asking for opinion without that kniwledge is just upping the media exposure if an incident that should have been dealt wiunhinged house by the club rep if possible and then a statement being put out by the club once that has happened. By going to the PFA, if they did, without letting that happen is not reporting news.

The PFA should have said nothing to the press either. Dealings on behalf of union members are always confidential, if my rep told anything I had told him I would be very pissed off. Likewise as a rep I have to maintain confidentiality.

It's always logical to get reaction to a controversial statement. And expressing a view on the case and the issues raised doesn't breach confidentiality precisely because Clough was so public in his criticism.

[EdinburghRam]

Just like the owners, coaching staff and players then..

I wouldn't agree, but if you say so

[PistoldPete]

Getting a response if it us known a complaint is made would be a logical step. Asking for opinion without that kniwledge is just upping the media exposure if an incident that should have been dealt wiunhinged house by the club rep if possible and then a statement being put out by the club once that has happened. By going to the PFA, if they did, without letting that happen is not reporting news.

The PFA should have said nothing to the press either. Dealings on behalf of union members are always confidential, if my rep told anything I had told him I would be very pissed off. Likewise as a rep I have to maintain confidentiality.

Gordon Taylor is a kn0b. He shouldnt have got involved . Even if it was Radio Derby who contacted him. Dont like teh Radio Derby coverage atm, it was Ok wehn TiNMan was there now its rubbish and I wont listen.

Cywka looked lively on Saturday, maybe it was cloughs plan to put some fire in his belly. Would have worked better if Cywka had started the game tho.

[VulcanRam]

well none of this would have happened if Clough had kept his trap shut in the first place!!

RD perfectly within their rights to ask PFA for comment - journalists often ask trade unions for comments relating to the relevant workforce. Don't tell me you've never seen Unison, GMB, Unite etc in the news. As for the poster saying they were making the news not reporting it, what nonsense - they were responding to a news story that had already run for over 24 hours.

The BBC's responsibility is not to the club but to their listeners and stakeholders, and I think Gibson does a good job of asking questions that most other local hacks are too scared to.

[vonwright]

I wouldn't agree, but if you say so

Ironic anyway that Clough thinks Cywka Will benefit from a bit of public criticism from his manager - then cries foul when he is publicly criticised as a direct result by the PFA.

[davenportram]

well none of this would have happened if Clough had kept his trap shut in the first place!!

RD perfectly within their rights to ask PFA for comment - journalists often ask trade unions for comments relating to the relevant workforce. Don't tell me you've never seen Unison, GMB, Unite etc in the news. As for the poster saying they were making the news not reporting it, what nonsense - they were responding to a news story that had already run for over 24 hours.

The BBC's responsibility is not to the club but to their listeners and stakeholders, and I think Gibson does a good job of asking questions that most other local hacks are too scared to.

Unison etc are in the news when they make statements regarding issues, or when asked about something when it is known to be an issue. I haven't seen an instance where a union has been asked " one of the management has said this about your member, what do you think"

If the PFA had made an unsolicited statement regarding the issue that's reporting news. No complaint was made by Cywka, so if RD went to PFA for an opinion that would not have been made otherwise they are making the news.

At the end of the day had RD waited and let the normal process happen I.e Cywka raise any issues with his rep or personally with NC, and the club make a statement then the media buzz and fuss would have been less. If the club then didn't come forward with anything ask the club for a response. If the PFA actually needed to be involved it should come from the club or the player, not from the media who are not involved( interested but ultimately not involved).

[davenportram]

Ironic anyway that Clough thinks Cywka Will benefit from a bit of public criticism from his manager - then cries foul when he is publicly criticised as a direct result by the PFA.

He didn't cry foul about the PFA's comments, but the way they were involved in the issue.

[vonwright]

He didn't cry foul about the PFA's comments, but the way they were involved in the issue.

Because a journalist asked them if they wanted to state an opinion on a controversy Clough started - and they did. At a stretch i could understand your (or his) annoyance at the union but the journalists are just doing their job. In any case - if we are talking about general protocol with employment issues - is it normal or acceptable for a boss to slag off a specific member of staff through the media?

[davenportram]

Because a journalist asked them if they wanted to state an opinion on a controversy Clough started - and they did. At a stretch i could understand your (or his) annoyance at the union but the journalists are just doing their job. In any case - if we are talking about general protocol with employment issues - is it normal or acceptable for a boss to slag off a specific member of staff through the media?

No it isn't, but that isn't the point being discussed. Regardless of that the media should have waited to see if the club sorted it out and approached the club regarding the issue, not another body who weren't involved.

[vonwright]

No it isn't, but that isn't the point being discussed. Regardless of that the media should have waited to see if the club sorted it out and approached the club regarding the issue, not another body who weren't involved.

Not how a healthy media works, nor should it be. If an issue is raised in public you can't complain when the media run with it. Their responsibility is not to the club but the public.

[davenportram]

Not how a healthy media works, nor should it be. If an issue is raised in public you can't complain when the media run with it

I didnt say they shouldnt folow it up, but they should have gone to the club first, as the club was directly involved.

[VulcanRam]

I didnt say they shouldnt folow it up, but they should have gone to the club first, as the club was directly involved.

And when the club says it's not an issue they should just swallow that and drop it? I imagine given the furore they did go to the club/Clough on the Sunday for comment - whether they got it or not I don't know - prior to the PFA.

You have rather a romantic but naive view of how the media works I'm afraid.

RD was within its rights (and indeed correct) to ask the PFA, the fans, even the local MP if they wanted - they were reporting on a story that everyone here was talking about and most Derby fans I know were talking about, so there is considerable and legitimate public interest.

And it was about, let's not forget, a story that originated on a live radio broadcast, so it's not as if they are not discussing something that isn't in the public domain.

A politician or celebrity says something - and it forms the basis of discussion in the media, where the press asks relevant bodies/stakeholders their opinion. That's what's happened here, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[footymadme]

Bloomfield

Firstly, is there any proof at all that Radio Derby actually got the PFA involved?

Secondly, Radio Derby's primary responsibility is to Journalism, not to the club. If RD did ring the PFA and asked them for their opinion, that is not them "getting the PFA involved" but ringing a relevant organisation for a relevant quote, which turned out to be more than they hoped for. That is what all good Journalists do and should continue to do.

As for Gibson and Bloomfield, I respect one. I honestly think Colin Bloomfield is a respectable journalist who does his job extremely well. He hosts a drive-time show (which is pretty good, I'm not the audience they aim for and I can't say I listen religiously) and his commentary, considering he's only been in the position for the best part of a year, is also acceptable. I'd sooner listen to him than have Ted McMinn spouting his rubbish down my ear. Gibson has grown on me the last couple of weeks, he has asked questions of the club which have needed asking. However, I'm still annoyed (even a year on) by his rumour-spreading last year (which as we remember got Savage rightly annoyed).

There is a big difference between Gibson spreading unsubstantiated rumours last year and the station asking the PFA on their opinion regarding the Cywka incident.

As for Colin Bloomfield "having digs" at Clough over the Cywka incident, its not having a dig so much as offering his opinion which, as a pundit, is his job. And to be honest, its an opinion I agree with.

bloomfield has had long enough to get his act together.

he cannot handle live commentary making mistake after mistake.

gibson for how long he has been doing it is out and out utter garbage

at relating to the listener and theyre needs .

and as regareds being better at commentating than some other sations

WHO .................

they both need removing from doing live broadcasts..NOW.:mad:

[Derbiean]

And when the club says it's not an issue they should just swallow that and drop it? I imagine given the furore they did go to the club/Clough on the Sunday for comment - whether they got it or not I don't know - prior to the PFA.

You have rather a romantic but naive view of how the media works I'm afraid.

RD was within its rights (and indeed correct) to ask the PFA, the fans, even the local MP if they wanted - they were reporting on a story that everyone here was talking about and most Derby fans I know were talking about, so there is considerable and legitimate public interest.

And it was about, let's not forget, a story that originated on a live radio broadcast, so it's not as if they are not discussing something that isn't in the public domain.

A politician or celebrity says something - and it forms the basis of discussion in the media, where the press asks relevant bodies/stakeholders their opinion. That's what's happened here, and there's nothing wrong with that.

It interests me that RD did not ask for the opinion of the most important person in this matter - Cywka but instead went to the PFA, if that doesn't actually make the news it certainly prolonged it to their benefit.