Bob Bradley Deathwatch Thread

[jloome]

I'll add as a brief addendum that the general lack of skill in the Toronto reporting pool, as evidenced from press conference questions, does not bode well for how accurate off-the-record reporting is going to be.

For example, in asking BOb repeatedly what he thought of the article, nobody bothered to frame the question in a way he might be able to answer: To your existing knowledge and from your perspective, did that seem like an accurate article?

Because nobody even bothered to get him on the record as to whether ANY of it was UNTRUE. They didn't even ask.

If he refuses to answer that question, the followup is "so you won't even comment on whether any of it was untrue, from your perspective." Then, he's trapped. He either has to expand on what he knows or believes was untrue, in some regard, or he has to parrot again that without names etc etc, making himself look guilty as hell.

"What did you feel about..." And "What did you think about...." generality questions are the stock in trade of weak television reporting. You have an audience with the person from whom you need answers. Think about how to get them, don't just ask something bland and easily batted aside.

Asking question is a craft, but again, it seems to be largely forgotten. The daily media is becoming so poor that basics of story structure, of building out from the lede, getting the reader hooked and informed early, are being lost.

It's pretty woeful.

[ensco]

The manager says whatever he has to say to the media to get through it. It means literally nothing.

————

Reminds me of 1980s era hockey coaching joke (it was Harry Neale, after taking over as coach of the Detroit Red Wings, who said this):

First day on the job, he comes into the office, finds three sealed envelopes on the chair in the coach's office. They say, respectively: “Open after first losing streak”, “Open after second losing streak”, “Open after third losing streak”.

So he is in the middle of a losing streak early in his stint, and he opens the first envelope. It has a piece of paper with three words on it.

“Blame the players”

So he goes out and does that. That works for a bit, the players get scared. Then another bad streak, and he reaches for the second envelope. Three words again:

“Blame the media”.

Well he goes out and blasts the media, and that gets everyone distracted for a while, but soon enough, another losing streak starts. He turns to the third envelope. Again, three words:

”Prepare three envelopes.”

(Hat tip to the late great georgebest for this one, wherever he may be now)

[los sonadores]

I (gahd some of you are going to hate this) actually respect his answer.

I was a print journalist for 24 years. For most of that, I had a rule -- and held it up in my newsroom when I was in charge -- that anonymous sources were not allowed unless justified by "whistleblower status", i.e. the immediate risk of losing their job.

That standard has been abandoned by the media. People just assume it's all done honorably but the reality is that most reporters now just grant anonymity whenever anyone "could get in trouble."

But that's a really low bar, a really low standard. People can "get in trouble" for saying anything slanderous, for example. Should they be protected for it? People can get in trouble for breaking their employer's confidentiality. If the break doesn't lead to a serious, important social consequences of some sorrt -- i.e. ending employer abuse -- should they automatically be protected for it?

No. It renders all information dubious, and also ignores our binary nature; it robs doubters of a reason to believe.

I know it's the norm now, but it's just lazy, shitty journalism for the most part. And that's cheaper. Reporters who knew their craft, knew how to get this kind of story with names actually attached, insisted on being paid properly. Most of them are now in corporate or government PR, being paid twice as much for half the work. Being a journalist is not the awesome sauce people seem to believe it is; you're largely trying to uncover shit people don't want uncovered, you're constantly demonized and you're paid half of what copywriters make half the damn time. Doing it well, putting in that kind of effort and time, requires compensation most places will no longer pay, and bodies for whom they can or will no longer budget.

Anonymity is not necessary on a humanistic basis unless the story actually has elements of profound unfairness to it. Someone simply being disgruntled while working for what amounts to an entertainment provider does not even come close to meeting that standard.

So ... yeah, I agree with him. The honorable thing is to not comment on it. Typically, these types of stories dance around the actual truth and present one or two agendas, which is why the longer they're around -- if people bother to follow up on them -- the further the final story diverges from the initial coverage. That's why within days you start getting different versions (Insigne did/didn't go to Austin, he does/doesn't hate Bob) etc. Because often the truth is elementally similar but far more nuanced.

I've been the guy that stuff was leaked to literally thousands of times over two decades. I can tell you right now, the number of times the leaker didn't have a personally beneficial agenda -- rather than a public concern -- could probably have been counted on my fingers and toes. But when you're being presented evidence, their agenda is often irrelevant to the facts on paper or in evidence.

When it's just statements and opinions, that's a different story. For all we know this was torqued massively out of proportion. Or based on squad banter in which guys show how big their balls are by exaggerating the fuck out of their exploits, concerns and planned course of action. If I had to choose a trait common to professional athletes, emotional maturity certainly wouldn't top the list.

None of this means Fede was wrong to bitch about tactics. But equally, it doesn't mean everything in that article was true either.

Makes sense. The trustworthiness and stakes of what was reported in the past was higher. Now it’s all closer to gossip, innuendo and it circulates as much in newspapers as on social media which gives tabloid spin to everything.

Journalism seemed more often, at at its basic professional level, a calling or a metier than it is now. And yes PR is not that at all but it’s where the jobs are.

[ag futbol]

^ I’d recommend watching the interview with Kloke on OneSoccer. You’ll get the type of idea and discipline that went into making the story. It strongly left me with the impression that it wasn’t just printed on a lark and with some weak sources. This has been in the works for roughly 6 months.

The other takeaway from this interview, as opposed to the TSN / Sportsnet ones with psychobabble and stupid focus on the vape pen, is the emphasis on the Michael / Bob dynamic and the impact that has on the lockeroom.

[JoesphNdo]

^ I’d recommend watching the interview with Kloke on OneSoccer. You’ll get the type of idea and discipline that went into making the story. It strongly left me with the impression that it wasn’t just printed on a lark and with some weak sources. This has been in the works for roughly 6 months.

The other takeaway from this interview, as opposed to the TSN / Sportsnet ones with psychobabble and stupid focus on the vape pen, is the emphasis on the Michael / Bob dynamic and the impact that has on the lockeroom.

Just to be clear you mean this one https://youtu.be/vnOJLMJyhNk ? I'll give that a listen now

I don't see anything controversial with Bobs comments. Just shutting down and not commenting is the only approach that makes sense here. We don't comment on gossip, we handle things in house etc - anything else would getting into a public shit slinging match. Anyone with any savvy would do the same in his position

[ag futbol]

Just to be clear you mean this one https://youtu.be/vnOJLMJyhNk ? I'll give that a listen now

I don't see anything controversial with Bobs comments. Just shutting down and not commenting is the only approach that makes sense here. We don't comment on gossip, we handle things in house etc - anything else would getting into a public shit slinging match. Anyone with any savvy would do the same in his position

Yep, that’s the one.

[ensco]

I agree that this is not a "the problem with journalists these days" story. I think sports reporters have been going with unsourced stuff for longer than jloome is saying (not saying his general insight about degradation overall isn't true)

I think you can say that the story was legit -and that Bob handled it the way he should have. Both can be true.

Extratime guys said they heard there was more stuff that could have come out - and still might. fwiw

[jloome]

I agree that this is not a "the problem with journalists these days" story. I think sports reporters have been going with unsourced stuff for longer than jloome is saying (not saying his general insight about degradation overall isn't true)

I think you can say that the story was legit -and that Bob handled it the way he should have. Both can be true.

Extratime guys said they heard there was more stuff that could have come out - and still might. fwiw

I think that unless the reporter has a track record of "anonymous" reporting turning out to be true, you have zero way of knowing, period. That's just logic.

And the notion that sports reporting has been commonly "anonymous" is simply untrue, a conflation of it occasionally happening with the current norm.

Until the Twitter Era of "getting it first" leading to massive invention, 90% of sports reporting was either straight coverage or opinion. They didn't write this sort of stuff unless they had sources who were public or at least "on the record ", or day one react, because that was the standard. And they were mostly all employed by large companies with lawyers on retainer who stepped in, frequently.

Stuff like this was left to Sports Illustrated and The Washington Post, and I guarantee you their sources were known to their editor at least. A lot of that stuff was not in the public eye, the checks and balances, but it was there. Now it's not clear that that is true, pretty much ever.

[JoesphNdo]

I think that unless the reporter has a track record of "anonymous" reporting turning out to be true, you have zero way of knowing, period. That's just logic.

And the notion that sports reporting has been commonly "anonymous" is simply untrue, a conflation of it occasionally happening with the current norm.

Until the Twitter Era of "getting it first" leading to massive invention, 90% of sports reporting was either straight coverage or opinion. They didn't write this sort of stuff unless they had sources who were public or at least "on the record ", or day one react, because that was the standard. And they were mostly all employed by large companies with lawyers on retainer who stepped in, frequently.

Stuff like this was left to Sports Illustrated and The Post, and I guarantee you their sources were known to their editor at least. A lot if that stuff was not in the public eye, the checks and balances, but it was there. Now it's not clear that that is true, pretty much ever.

In practical terms how would a story like this get written in an ideal world? Assume that the anti management sources are mostly still current players (Not necessarily current with us, but currently playing for a living), some maybe low on the totem poll just grinding out a living and by no means wealthy, surely you're never getting them on the record? What is the best approach?

Similarly, the other side sources giving the vape pen etc stuff, maybe former players but could be high up and representative of management (hell it could be Michael Bradley! Imagine the shit storm if he or Manning were on the record with that stuff) and obviously there's no way they'd go on the record of being anti one of their players, but they want to have a right to tell their side. How do you get them on the record?

Genuine question, as someone who doesn't know the ins and outs. As an outsider it seems like there's no way you could get this story with sources named, no? They all have far too much to lose, right?

[jloome]

In practical terms how would a story like this get written in an ideal world? Assume that the anti management sources are mostly still current players (Not necessarily current with us, but currently playing for a living), some maybe low on the totem poll just grinding out a living and by no means wealthy, surely you're never getting them on the record? What is the best approach?

Similarly, the other side sources giving the vape pen etc stuff, maybe former players but could be high up and representative of management (hell it could be Michael Bradley! Imagine the shit storm if he or Manning were on the record with that stuff) and obviously there's no way they'd go on the record of being anti one of their players, but they want to have a right to tell their side. How do you get them on the record?

Genuine question, as someone who doesn't know the ins and outs. As an outsider it seems like there's no way you could get this story with sources named, no? They all have far too much to lose, right?

Absolutely, you could get names in this story. Some of them might not be the sources, some of them might be the people reacting to the sources.

People who will stand behind what they say -- who truly mean or believe it -- can often be talked into going on the record. You talk on background first, then you go through every line of the interview and discuss why it can or can't be used.

If you can't get it from the first source on the record, rather than just assuming it's true, the first step is you look for a second source. If you can't get that, you don't just accept that the first person is telling the truth unless they have a looooong track record of giving you stuff on background that later turned out to be accurate.

Even then, it was the standard to take a specific unsourced allegation and at least get comment on it.

Now, here's the thing: if you couldn't get someone on the record, at some point, you could at least get denials. From other players -- Kaye has since claimed a lot of this is just made up, but there was very little (any? I'd have to go back and look) from that side in the story. There was no counterbalance.

If the denials are strong enough, it brings into question the source material.

That's what reporting was, until about 2006: not an attempt to get it first, but an attempt to get it right, first. In fact "Get it first, but get it right" was the mantra of most newspaper newsrooms. You were SUPPOSED to try and disprove it.

I saw very little effort in that piece to meet some of those basic standards. Many of the allegations appeared to have been single-sourced, which is a terrible practice that opens reporting up to anonymous sniping.

If someone, for example, tells them that Insigne did not want to return to play for Bob, the minimum I would have expected as an editor is to a) know the initial source b) know that the reporter has another source confirming it c) have put the statement for reaction to EVERYONE the reporter knows connected to Insigne (and I mean EVERYONE: his mother, his barber, his agent, as people discuss important life situations far more outside of work than in it); d) have put the question to the manager, most of his staff, and company spokespeople.

If you can say "we've heard from our sources he definitely did THIS" and take that to the potentially dozens of other people who would have heard it, and not one of them will confirm it true... I'm sorry but your source is either probably full of shit, or you don't know how to ask a question. Because someone who likes and knows him, at the least, is going to try to defend him in some way if you ask the question correctly: either they'll claim it wasn't true, or they'll claim he wouldn't do that, or they'll claim it makes no sense based on 'x' financial outlay in Toronto, etc etc. At that point, both sides are talking publicly and you can leverage more on the record.

People say "no comment" to those sorts of questions all the time. The trick is to get them to comment, even then. "No comment? They're practically accusing him of mutiny!" Your job as a reporter is not to be as straightlaced as possible and ask simple questions; it's to get people to talk honestly. If that requires manipulating them into answering via emotional blackmail, i.e. my friend/son/client will look terrible unless I answer that, that's what you do. It's a shitty, shitty job sometimes.

And yet that basic ability to weasel information out of people is passed over, because a) it often feels sleazy goading people into reaction and b) it's easier just to say "okay, they won't comment, so I'll just print it."

IT'S A DIFFICULT PROCESS. And I'm not saying they didn't do all that. I'm just saying I see few signs in the story that they did.

I suspect what they did is talk to a bunch of team-connected people (players, agents, players on other teams who know them) and then printed it. Because the standard now is "is it a first person source", not "is it a first-person source, and is it demonstrably probably true."

That last bit is kind of important. Nothing's sacrosanct; there have always been shitty reporters and shitty reporting. The difference is that now it's the norm.

Similarly, the other side sources giving the vape pen etc stuff, maybe former players but could be high up and representative of management (hell it could be Michael Bradley! Imagine the shit storm if he or Manning were on the record with that stuff) and obviously there's no way they'd go on the record of being anti one of their players, but they want to have a right to tell their side. How do you get them on the record?

The vape pen is the angle international papers picked up specifically because it's merely team discipline, something that, if true, no team should have a problem confirming. But again, it's how you approach the question.

Now, keep in mind that though the process I outline here seems laborious, this is how the job was done. And by that, I mean we learned to do this stuff naturally and smoothly, without a lot of strategizing or time wasting. A good reporter spent about six of his eight-to-10 hours working on the phone.

Jeremy rings in to PR person who handles press regularly (again, keep in mind this isn't a TV show. It's highly unlikely they're expecting specific questions about a specific incident, so you don't start there.)

"Hey! Quick question: what are the rules around personal habits like smoking and drinking, or vaping, or chewing gum -- whatever the substance -- are there rules around that stuff in the locker room or plane. I don't think I've ever seen a player vaping, for example, but everyone knows some do outside of work."


Usually, they'll wonder why you're calling and promise to get back to you. If the flack is good, they'll start inquiring as to why you want to know. But most will simply go get an answer to the initial question.

When they call back an tell you it's forbidden, you then are "surprised" by that. When they ask why, tell them "it's nothing, I think. Maybe. I'll get back to you if it turns into anything." Then, before you let them go, you throw in at the last second, "wait... before you hang up, you can check one thing for me. Probably a pretty minor deal, but have you ever had to tell any of the players not to smoke or vape?"

Now, anyone who thinks that question and comment, when asked properly and casually, is going to get an urgent "NO COMMENT! NO COMMENT!" because they just told Fede not to do it is nuts. Because either 1) it's a general question and th they're not being suspicious or b) they suspect you've already got it. Now, if they deny it has NEVER happened or that there's nothing to comment on, they know they blow any chance of message control and look like liars. But... you've also given them an out. You haven't mentioned the player by name, so it's easy for them to generally say "well, we don't comment on specifics but we've had to on occasion tell a player not to vape."

Even if they don't, and just say 'we don't comment on internal discipline,' it doesn't matter. The purpose was to get them on the record about the policy, for later use.

From their perspective, the story is now sort of handled. It's been minimized, it's nothing, it's flotsam.

That's when you take the initial source info a) to the other players and b) to Fede's agent. When you call Fede's agent, he gets a mixed-message question that is not technically untrue: "A source has told us your client is pissing everyone off by vaping repeatedly on planes and in the locker room. I called the team and they say they have zero tolerance for that shit. Is your client unhappy at being disciplined for it."

Now, what he hears is "the team has confirmed this." At no point did I say that was true. What I said was 'a source told us this', the team has zero tolerance for vaping. And, "is your client unhappy at being disciplined?"

But as his job is spin control for his client, he's already thinking about the positive message before he's considered the meat of the question. And I guarantee you, he will now make it an "on the record" issue by defending his client. Once he is "on the record" that it happened... well, his client is the guilty party. There's no rationale for that to be untrue. It is 'on the record' whether the club then furthers its comment or not.

And that's how you do it. You pick away at the truth a little bit -- usually for weeks, but I've had three months between starting a pursuit of a story and getting it -- until you have it solid. You aren't nice about it, or you get nothing accurate, just a lot of "but he said"/"but then he said" without names. You play sources against each other. You manipulate people into being honest.

I once tracked down a criminal wanted by the FBI for massive identity fraud by using the fact that I knew he had a pet python with a dollar-sign in its scales (a series for the sun in 2003 on identity fraud mastermind Robert Fuehrer, still largely an unknown figure to the public). I figured he'd bolt to Washington State, his home, then called every place that sold live mice until an employee mentioned seeing the dollar sign.

That gave me his home town.

I then called every store in his hometown until a clerk said they knew him. A woman. Hesitant, as if she knew him well. "I know he's had some trouble, but I need to get a letter to him. If I mail it to you, can you pass it to him?" I asked.

She agreed.

The letter read as following (it was to Fuehrer's accomplice, whose actual name 20 years later now eludes me):

Dear Bob,
You're on the FBI's most wanted list.
But I'm a reporter in Edmonton, Canada, and I found you.
Imagine how easily the FBI could if they just do what I did.
If you want to know what that was, please call me at... .

And that's leverage. Two weeks later, he called. But leverage doesn't actually have to be something good, it just has to be anything that will get opposing sides talking. There are always multiple sides to a story; rarely do they all clam up, if the question is clever enough.

They all have far too much to lose, right?

Like what? They have contracts. No team is moving a valuable piece because they talked about someone being disciplined for vaping, or were a newspaper source. As Bradley said, the team is aware the players use track-less apps like Whatsapp to talk about private shit all the time. Attempting to "muzzle" or silence them will just lead to a charge from their association etc etc.

People act like talking to the press is perilous. Usually, it means nothing except hard stares from people who already disliked the source to begin with. One, most sources the press use are above the level of "I can be immediately fired for talking", because they need to be to have sufficient information to act. Two, if they're below that level, it nearly always involved something like employee abuse, protected under multiple pieces of labor legislation from employer retribution.

[OgtheDim]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jloome again.

Thanks for that....great read.

[jloome]

Thanks for that....great read.

Cheers. I mean, I know it usually wins no friends for people to know that getting confirmations is nebulous, slimy and manipulative. But the purpose was to be right, not to be liked. Nobody likes a good reporter.

Also worth noting that while big outlets put in that kind of effort, when I was at the Sun maybe 3/10 reporters knew how to do it properly. Most just called, got a confirm or denial and the hung up the phone. Most also last two years before going into PR.

[JoesphNdo]

Like what? They have contracts. No team is moving a valuable piece because they talked about someone being disciplined for vaping, or were a newspaper source. As Bradley said, the team is aware the players use track-less apps like Whatsapp to talk about private shit all the time. Attempting to "muzzle" or silence them will just lead to a charge from their association etc etc.

Great read as always, Jloome. It all makes sense, this is the only part that I'd not quite see eye to eye on

Reputational damage is definitely a thing, and some players have very little leverage. Take someone like a Brandon Servania, he's someone who is far from 'never have to work again' wealthy, and far from 'guaranteed an mls contract' reputation. Suppose he goes on record and blasts Bob Bradley, sure, TFC doesn't just fire him, but when it comes time to renew? His chances of having that happen have decreased drastically. Similarly, a new mls tean can pick him or any number of middle of the road, cheap mid field depth on a free next season - maybe they pick him, but he now has a reputation of blasting his manager publicly? Maybe they pick the next guy. That can be the difference from an mls career and ending up in USL, which can be the difference from spending your 40s as a media pundit somewhere to supplement your football money or spending your 40s trying to become an accountant.

Even imagine a Laryea, his primary goal right now is probably 'weather the shit storm, try figure out a path to staying in Europe'. There's not a whole lot of upside to him speaking out, but there is downside. He's a huge gamble in Europe, and attaching that * to him only brings the benefit side of that cost:benefit equation down

It doesn't have to be a muzzling, it's just making your own market value lower for no upside

You know FAR more about getting guys in the record than I do, which is 0 in my case, so I do defer to your judgement. But isn't this a bit like going into an exit interview? Sure, you could call out the manager who made your life hell for the past year, and it's probably fine, but mostly you just smile and thank them for their time. Why? Because it's almost impossible for you to 'win' by speaking out, but there's definitely ways you can 'lose'. Same reason I wouldn't go on Linkedin the next day and blast the previous company - even if there's no retribution, the next time I'm looking for a job if the recruiter sees that post and I'm one of 50 qualified people? I'm not getting a call

Basically if I'm a player there's a 0% chance I'm going on the record here, but I may speak off the record if the situation is bad enough, so maybe I just assume all players would think like that - but I could just be way off as, again, I have literal zero actual experience in this world

[jloome]

Great read as always, Jloome. It all makes sense, this is the only part that I'd not quite see eye to eye on


Basically if I'm a player there's a 0% chance I'm going on the record here, but I may speak off the record if the situation is bad enough, so maybe I just assume all players would think like that - but I could just be way off as, again, I have literal zero actual experience in this world

But as I've outlined in the example of the Fede vaping incident, you don't need the original source to be on the record. Even if they have general whistblower concerns about their career, you TRY to get them public. But if you can't, and it's a publicly worthy story, you start going to other sources, particularly those they accuse.

Let's look at what was reported here.

Let's put it through the microscope of experience and reading between the lines.

Multiple sources within and outside of the team were told that at the conclusion of last season, Insigne declared in front of teammates that he would not return to TFC if Bradley remained head coach.

So... they have no first person source that was there when this allegedly happened. Not one, on the record or off. They didn't say "multiple sources inside the team told The Athletic." They said "multiple sources .... WERE TOLD that...."

In other words, total hearsay, no source. A rumour. One teammate could literally have told them this.

Although he did indeed return, the same sources confirmed Insigne again told teammates this week that he did not want to continue playing under Bradley moving forward.

In other words, total hearsay, no source. A rumour. One teammate could literally have told them this. Their sources WERE NOT FIRST PERSON. They were repeating what they'd heard. That's not a reliable source.

Now, let's look at how they tried to confirm it was true: they called the club. Note the phrasing of the next line, it's quite important:

Insigne and Bernardeschi were not immediately available for comment through the club.

This is reporter short-hand for, "we called, they didn't call back." It doesn't tell us what message was left, what question was left. All it tells us is that they DID NOT CHASE A RESPONSE. That's what "immediately" means. This is only acceptable on a daily deadline and a matter of public interest. It's the equivalent of "we tried to get their response by deadline but ran out of time."

But.... the athletic doesn't have a deadline. It could have patiently worked his agent or him to get a denial. But by saying "oh, we couldn't get them immediately THROUGH THE CLUB," they believe they've given themselves the justification to run something without asking the person accused if it's true.

That's a really poor standard of reporting. It's not that they called Insigne or his agent and got a denial. THEY DIDN"T EVEN CALL. They asked the CLUB for a comment about him, or permission to talk to him, and didn't get it.


Let's move on. The next part of the story deals with a meeting where Bernardeshi went after Michael Bradley and Kaye for supporting Bob, or telling him stuff. This part is, ostensibly, fine. They're saying multple parties AT THAT MEETING have confirmed it. That's multiple first-person sourcing.

But.... then they slip into taking it easy again. Read the next sentence carefully:

Multiple sources on the team or close to players on the team said there is a feeling among some players in the locker room that issues discussed around Michael Bradley

So... no players, even off the record (remember, they've already talked about this subject and a specific meeting on the record, so there is no reason they wouldn't) would confirm this? They don't say players. They very carefully word it as "multiple sources on the team or close to players on the team." That's not players. If it was, they would've said "players" not "on the team" and "close to players."

So now they're attributing this being an ONGOING problem, not just a one off meeting, even though they have ZERO first person sources. Again, it's just hearsay.... but worse, it's hearsay about something upon which the players have already commented, and yet wouldn't again, or wouldn't go to that length.

Whether it sounds logical or not is not the standard. I personally BELIEVE the MB discomfort stuff is probably true, because it's specifically normal human behavior. But they haven't met the standard for nailing it down.

When it did come to getting a supporting quote, they had to get a FORMER teammate to make the "walking on eggshells" quote AGAIN EVEN THOUGH THE PLAYERS HAVE ALLEGEDLY TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THIS.

Why?

Why would you have to get it from a former guy, quite possibly disgruntled, when the guys there are willing to talk about it? Not really logical.

Later in the article, they discuss Vanney leaving. Again, solid reporting if their source as claimed was involved in the talks. This in and of itself is a good story. They could've pursued this far more, gotten far more, pointed to far more ON THE RECORD disarray over our most successful coach ever. Instead, it gets one paragraph and is buried.

Right after that graf, they write this. I challenge anyone to tell me who is making a statement here, Bill Manning, or the writers:

Manning agreed this week that the team “paid a premium” to sign Insigne, though the contract had the potential to create a severe imbalance in the locker room and in the expectations the player had of his place in the team and league.

Now, did Manning agree they "paid a premium" and also agree that the contract had the potential to crate a several imbalance in the locker room...

Or did Manning agree they "paid a premium price" and the authors just added that it would cause a severe imbalance? Because it sounds like a paraphrase. It sounds like Manning is confirming he did something he knew would unbalance the locker room. I have trouble believing that's true.

So... it's already delving into unfairness on multiple locations. I would add the next graf is just mean-spirited and cheap, as well as deceptive:

MLS is littered with stories of high-paid DPs who don’t seem fully-committed to playing to their maximum capability. In Toronto, DPs like Yeferson Soteldo and Pablo Piatti lasted just one season.

This is an editorial statement by the writer, not reporting. Has anyone -- ever -- heard it said that Pablo Piatti wasn't committed? Ever? He wasn't DP worthy but the dude did have four goals and four assists in 17 games. A lot of us wanted him back. But... they turn him into an example of "non-committal" DPs who don't play well.

It's not even accurate, let alone sourced.

LEt's get to Manning. I'm sure we all have our own opinions. But let's look at what they used:

The signings highlighted what some believe has been a problem under Manning. Multiple former TFC employees said Manning ....

Again, EVEN WITHOUT NAMES, they couldn't get anyone working there now to say it. What does that tell you? They could get people allegedly talking about the locker room, tactics, Bob's son, vaping and Insigne hating Bob.... but not on how their boss wasn't good at his job.

Sorry, but believing that is mental. I could walk down the street and with the promise of anonymity get the guy at the corner store to shit on his boss. MLSE has thousands of employees including dozens in senior management. But ... the only person was a former employee, the most likely to be disgruntled?

Former employees are great sources... of potential stories that need to be reconfirmed properly.

Really, the whole piece is very shoddy. Even having said that, that doesn't mean it's wrong. But it does mean it's not exactly a pinnacle of accurate information, easily trusted.

[jloome]

To sum the above up, what they actually confirmed was:

Bernardeshi was upset over Michael, MAK and Bob's relatioship.
Vanney was handled badly.
The club paid a premium to sign Insigne.

Nothing else that they have is from a single first-person, verifiable source.

[Smokecell]

Ah jloome, lately I'm sipping on your posts like a fine wine. Easily the best content on here. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this information out there for mere simpletons like myself.

[jloome]

Ah jloome, lately I'm sipping on your posts like a fine wine. Easily the best content on here. Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this information out there for mere simpletons like myself.

Again, I'm not saying the story is wrong. I'm saying it's shoddy journalism that really tells us very little of which we can be certain.

The reaction from Insigne and the team just accentuates that.

[Mr. Inbetween]

^^^^

For that you deserve this...

[JoesphNdo]

Again, I'm not saying the story is wrong. I'm saying it's shoddy journalism that really tells us very little of which we can be certain.

The reaction from Insigne and the team just accentuates that.

Yeah quoting this just for size

Really great insight, and I think that's a solid conclusion. Just wanted to say thanks for putting the effort in to write it all out

[jloome]

Yeah quoting this just for size

Really great insight, and I think that's a solid conclusion. Just wanted to say thanks for putting the effort in to write it all out

Thank you. More a rant about what's required to do it right in a litigious and selfish world.

It's a dirty business, even when intentions are honorable, and I suppose I'm glad to be out of it. A lot of the things I like least about humanity are sort of endemic, ever-present in media, from attributions of power and influence to dishonesty to ethical lapses to a general lack of empathy. It's a hard course to navigate and come out clean, no matter how much good you do.

[ensco]

Super interesting jloome.

I guess I would challenge you a bit about the pre- and post-2006 part. This problem predates the internet.

In those days of yore an incendiary Leaf cover story in the Sun was worth an 100K extra copies sold, easy, and everyone behaved accordingly. I can't remember all the details of all the crazy ins-and-outs, but I can tell you with pretty much near certainty that coverage of the Ballard-era Leafs was full of unnamed sources, and things felt like the wild west back then too. I don't know what they did on the kind of secondary sourcing you are calling for, but I highly doubt it was as careful as you suggest it was, or should have been.

[jloome]

Super interesting jloome.

I guess I would challenge you a bit about the pre- and post-2006 part. This problem predates the internet.

In those days of yore an incendiary Leaf cover story in the Sun was worth an 100K extra copies sold, easy, and everyone behaved accordingly. I can't remember all the details of all the crazy ins-and-outs, but I can tell you with pretty much near certainty that coverage of the Ballard-era Leafs was full of unnamed sources, and things felt like the wild west back then too. I don't know what they did on the kind of secondary sourcing you are calling for, but I highly doubt it was as careful as you suggest it was, or should have been.

Depends on the newsroom, depends on the timing. The point is, it wasn't the norm. The Toronto Sun has long played it faster and looser than almost everyone else in the business.

One of the reasons I stayed with the Sun chain was I had ample opportunities to improve it. Same with others I knew and worked with.

Those changes stuck, a lot of them, and some not just in Edmonton. But then Peladeau bought it and all ethical bets were off. I mean, I was exceptionally naive, but it seemed more worthy than taking the easy route with the people with whom you generally agree more.

[FootBallAZ]

i will leave this here- this is what I would expect from a coach from TFC- accountability for management and players:

Antonio Conte's last press conference for tottenham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XGT4YJdfiA

[SirBobSaget]

In 2021 which was a disaster season the PPG was 0.82. In 2022 Bob cleared out all the 'dead weight' and Manning? brought in 2 very well payed DPs, great we are now at 1 PPG. This year Bob has had time to bring in his players and establish his system ... 1.06 PPG. With a max budget. He couldn't turn it around after 1.5 years and the biggest budget in the league. LAFC started dominating the league as soon as they dropped him.

[Mr. Inbetween]

The juxtaposition of this TFC initiative against it's current affairs; mind-boggling .

My feelings are reeling between this and this .

Check out this tweet at https://twitter.com/10Bernardeschi/status/1664302738480529408

[Ultra & Proud]

The juxtaposition of this TFC initiative against it's current affairs; mind-boggling .

My feelings are reeling between this and this .

Check out this tweet at https://twitter.com/10Bernardeschi/status/1664302738480529408

Maybe they want to get some local coaches & enthusiasts to go teach Bob some new tricks.

[MikeForbes]

Another one gone that isn't Bob.

Check out this tweet at https://twitter.com/tombogert/status/1664389094414200833?s=20

[Mr. Inbetween]

Queue the rumours; suspect TFC is no longer in on the Tata sweepstakes.

[ag futbol]

Not that any MLS team has to deal with this but I can only dream of TFC being held this accountable.

Check out this tweet at https://twitter.com/libaanstar1/status/1664353314467729420

[SirBobSaget]

Game after game the team through their abilities on somewhat broken / lucky plays get them ahead. Then Bob Bradley does his job by not making any adjustments in the final 10 mins. How many points dropped because they did not slow down the last 10 mins whatsoever? There's no notion of time wasting! Why are they holding on to him? Like he will suddenly turn around this disaster that he has controlled for 1.5 years?