Lee Anderson blast's Iles!

Tweet from Lee Anderson in response to Iles article in the paper today suggesting we missed our target of Flanagan (with him signing for Rangers yesterday) -

He was not a target for bwfc.didn’t open any talks at any stage . Like the players mentioned in the media yesterday they are fabricated as I told you . We haven’t missed any target that we have spoken to. Quite the opposite .

Is that not a bit of bravado on LA part? much the same as boggers getting knocked back by Nat, then him coming out saying he was never interested in her anyway.

Sluffy wrote:Tweet from Lee Anderson
We haven’t missed any target that we have spoken to. Quite the opposite .

With only 3 central midfield players and one striker on the clubs books maybe we should speak to some more players then?

MartinBWFC wrote:Is that not a bit of bravado on LA part? much the same as boggers getting knocked back by Nat, then him coming out saying he was never interested in her anyway.

I don't think Lee really gives a feck what Iles thinks.

Hence why it seems like a bit of a public telling off to me.

Why do we need an extra right back anyway - that and goalkeepers are the only positions we have people for - and it always looked obvious that he would want more money than we would ever offer him.

More like Iles scratching about to fill column inches and Lee not being happy with him 'stretching' things to do so, to my way of thinking.

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Tweet from Lee Anderson
We haven’t missed any target that we have spoken to. Quite the opposite .

With only 3 central midfield players and one striker on the clubs books maybe we should speak to some more players then?

Maybe that's what he's inferring.

MartinBWFC wrote:

Growler wrote:

Sluffy wrote:Tweet from Lee Anderson
We haven’t missed any target that we have spoken to. Quite the opposite .

With only 3 central midfield players and one striker on the clubs books maybe we should speak to some more players then?

Maybe that's what he's inferring.

Maybe, who knows.

If you look at what he says though he does specifically mention 'spoken to'.  What I'm getting at is that I would imagine most professional footballers would be away on holiday at the moment and it would be their 'agents' who we are/have been talking to.

It's quite possible a number of deals have all but been agreed just waiting for the player to get back home and get his picture taken with his new Bolton top on!

Don't forget also that most players contracts are up to the end of June, so we can't announce signings until everybody as officially agreed to them and signed them off.

I don't think for one moment that the Anderson's have been sat on their hands since we brought in Lowe and Oztumer, even if most of the dimwits, trolls or Anti-Andersons on social media seem to be making out.


Going back to Iles he certainly doesn't do himself many favours at times.  If he KNEW Flanagan hadn't been a serious target (And Lee's post seems to be suggesting such) he could easily have done a piece for the paper without mentioning that we had 'lost one of our targets' and instead simply said something about 'former Wanderer' signing for Rangers.  He would have achieved the same column inches without upsetting the club (yes I know but if Lee and his dad aren't currently the club then who are?) and not pissing off the owners son so much as to tweet publicly to set him straight.

Christ how hard is it really to get paid for following football and remembering to be nice to the people who own the club and supply you with 99% of the stuff you write about?

It's not rocket science really is it?

Instead he missed the blindingly obvious story as to, why had we run up a debt of nearly £200 million (surely something not right here one would have been thinking - I know I did at the time), gone all in with the ST (and their rabid hatred of the Anderson's) and fawned all over Holdsworth and his lumbering us with a £5 million BluMarble loan (of which only £4 million of which actually found itself into the club!).

Not covered himself in glory so far with his reporting has he!

Iles is a journalist and HIS job is to write column inches in an age when speculation is just as acceptable as fact, so nobody should be surprised. In fact a lot of journalists speculate on the basis that if they are right they have a "scoop" and if they are wrong they can write further column inches by publishing the denial. 

It's annoying.

In truth it seems to me that lusty is right here. There's not a lot happening on the transfer front (at least not that the club's willing to talk about publicly) and Iles appears to have just assumed we must be in for Flanagan because he was here on loan and available free since he was released. This was the worst form of lazy speculation masquerading as journalism and Iles may need to fill column inches but he's rapidly emptying his credibility tank with every daft, inane, inaccurate piece of garbage he writes. I had some sympathy for him a while ago having talked to him personally but in truth I don't right now. Marc needs to start building some bridges with Ken and the club and stop kissing the ST's backside so much.

I'm quite happy for the club and paper to be at loggerheads. 

You don't want the sort of brown nosing sycophancy that the likes of Leeds Wanderer has towards the Anderson family. Better to have some distance and remain impartial otherwise it all ends up being a bit pathetic and sad.

All hail King Ken.

Iles hasn't acted impartially though and that is the nub of his problems.

The paper needs the club more than the club needs the paper in this age of being able to get your message out via social media.

All Ilse has to do really is report on things in a responsible manner but instead of staying out of things and remaining professionally impartial, the fool has hitched his wagon up to the pro-Holdsworth camp and the ST Anti - Anderson nutters, which include your mate Smurf and a young lad called Tom, who has as part of his Twitter intro 'Anderson out!' - and who both write for your beloved LoV site.

When you are in the public domain such as being a journalist, representing your signed up membership, or writing for a blog, you show no bias or favouritism whatsoever, you play with a straight bat and report the facts.

Unfortunately the three examples I've mention have either been total idiots or have had their own agendas (or both!) and consequently have been frozen out by the clubs owner and fed scraps if anything at all.

That's why Iles has had to endure the ignominy of being slapped down in public by the owners son - whether he should have done it is another matter - but clearly it shows little respect for Iles, who has had to endure the humiliation for all to see on his own personal twitter account.

It's no wonder Davies had no time for him and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Ken Anderson has long since come to the same conclusion.

Maybe this wouldn't matter as much if there was unhappiness within the club and people wanted a voice that Iles could have provided but it appears to me at least that he's got must things battened down and the few outlets to air their voice such as through Iles, the ST or LoV, have by enlarge lost all credibility by their actions since Ken Anderson walked through the BEFC door.

This would not have happened if those three bodies had acted without any prejudice to anyone and earned a reputation of reporting the facts and not tried to throw huge spanners into Andersons way whilst him trying to keep the ship afloat.

Anderson is by now widely respected for what he has managed to achieve despite all the difficulties he's had to face and many who originally were against him based on no more than the ST wanting him out, are now on his side.

You reap what you sow and that's why the remaining anti-Andersons are now perceived by many to be marginalised, bitter and generally irrelevant.

As for what Leeds Trotters tweets, what business of yours are they?

Aren't you the one who had to step away for going to far, if so hardly in a position to judge others I would have thought?

I'll be the judge of who I am to judge, not some internet notright

Besides, from what I understand, you're not immune from sending the odd grovelling, apologetic email yourself when you've overstepped the mark.

Kane57 wrote:I'll be the judge of who I am to judge, not some internet notright

Besides, from what I understand, you're not immune from sending the odd grovelling, apologetic email yourself when you've overstepped the mark.

Hahaha!

Touched a nerve have I!

I've sent one or two PRIVATE messages over the years to anyone who might have thought I'd upset them deliberately in some way or other over something I'd posted on the internet to tell them that was never my intention, explaining why I posted what I had done and if it had caused them upset in anyway then I was sorry - which is totally the opposite of what you imply above.

Nice to know the recipient of the only one I've sent in the last few years has deemed it fit to respect the privacy and integrity in which it was sent. Obviously a classy bloke.

As for me being an internet 'not-right', I'm not the one who has been threatened by legal action for the personal shit he's posted on social media nor had to stand down from his own blog site and ditch a near 50,000 tweeted twitter account - so what would that make you?

Someone who got his priorities right.

Kane57 wrote:Someone who got his priorities right.

Good for you.

Perhaps immature behaviour for your age and IQ such as going on forums just to call people names like sycophants and not-rights might be one of your next priorities to get right?

Maybe we'll all grow up one day

Kane57 wrote:Maybe we'll all grow up one day

Maybe some of us already have.

Sluffy wrote:Maybe some of us already have.

Who? No one on here that's for sure.

Grow up? What's that? I'm already 6'3" and 49 years old so surely I've stopped growing vertically at least. OK my circumference has increased a bit over the last few years but hey, those pies are just too good you know?