Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Gordon Sharrock interview by Iles AUDIO

Gordon Sharrock interview by Iles AUDIO

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
A hour an half interview from Sharrock covering everything from Ian Greaves to Megson and from Phil Neal and the boo boys to Allardyce's ambition of playing in the Champions League.

Interesting stuff and certain to get a response from Bob once he can manage to drag himself away from Dale Vince's autobiography!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Definitely requires a lot of willpower to press through what is a cracking interview with the local voice of the Wanderers for so many years, but nonetheless some great gossip from the bowels of our lifetimes. He rabbits on at times but Gordon has his fans.

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:A hour an half interview from Sharrock covering everything from Ian Greaves to Megson and from Phil Neal and the boo boys to Allardyce's ambition of playing in the Champions League.

Interesting stuff and certain to get a response from Bob once he can manage to drag himself away from Dale Vince's autobiography!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Tell me, Sluffy, if I invested 90 minutes in listening to Messrs Shorrock and Iles would I have a better grasp of where all the jaw-dropping nonsense came from in the first instance?

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Sharrock was a yes man for the club, but that did give him access to pretty much everything that was going on - but by his own admission, there were certain things that he was asked not to disclose and he complied in order to maintain his level of access.
Iles hasn't had that kind of relationship with the club.
The interview is a nostalgic trip down memory lane though.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:A hour an half interview from Sharrock covering everything from Ian Greaves to Megson and from Phil Neal and the boo boys to Allardyce's ambition of playing in the Champions League.

Interesting stuff and certain to get a response from Bob once he can manage to drag himself away from Dale Vince's autobiography!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Tell me, Sluffy, if I invested 90 minutes in listening to Messrs Shorrock and Iles would I have a better grasp of where all the jaw-dropping nonsense came from in the first instance?

Just depends on your mindset when you listen to it or not I guess.

I've always been one who likes to hear both sides of the story and I've never heard Sharrock's before but maybe you have and more than what he says on here.

In the interview Sharrock seems to say a split between the club and the paper happened over the sacking of Charlie Wright as manager.

Apparently the Chairman at the time Neil Riley believed Sharrock had done an hatchet job on him/the club and consequently instructed the new manager Phil Neal to keep Sharrock at arms length.

Sharrock got wind of this and apparently had a stand up argument with Riley.

This is now 35 years ago, so if that was the start of the 'feud' it's been going on for ages and I guess both sides have long since dug in over their positions.

Sharrock did say early on in his interview that the paper considers BWFC as the prime story in Bolton and drives its sales - I assume that still is the case, certainly is with me.

As far as I'm concerned it's the man that maketh the job and as such Iles has been in the job long enough to have changed the culture/feud/whatever it was existed between the two, by his behaviour and his professionalism over the years and he hasn't as can clearly been evidenced of how Eddie Davies, Phil Gartside, Ken Anderson and now FV have all been 'cold' towards him and Iles unprofessional and clearly biased behaviour with his support of those in direct conflict with the club owners such as the ST, being Team Holdsworth (v Anderson) and being the conduit for Wheater and the unofficial strike, etc.

I guess if Iles (or Sharrock) had anything about them and been good at their jobs they wouldn't have remained at the paper for the decades they have - indeed I posted an article up the other day about how the new Editor of the paper had started off as Iles tea boy and he'd gone up from the very bottom to the top in the organisation whilst Iles remained stuck in the same job.  Iles isn't even a Bolton fan, nor even from the north, so don't tell me he wouldn't have wanted to be paid loads more for the nationals writing about the top Premiership clubs and Europe rather than wasting his life away tweeting about how wonderful our utterly not fit for purpose ST is!

Up to you if you want to listen to the interview or not, I wouldn't recommended it generally unless you have an interest in such things - and even then some like your good self may have heard it all before or may well even be already better informed about most of the things discussed anyway.

I think Wanderlust's three line review above sums it up fairly adequately.

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
I agree with you, Sluffy, that its always best to hear both sides of any story but do I really want to spend my time listening to these two when there are a hundred and one better things to do with what remains of my life on Earth?

Shorrock and Gartside couldn't abide each other in the end but I don't know why or how this animosity arose or why it was so virulent. They were both at Leigh Grammar School around the same time. I understand Shorrock was a Rag and Garty a 100% Wanderer but was that where the animosity started or was there something later? I don't really know.

But the nonsense plainly didn't start with Iles. He carried it on, without a doubt, but it had all kicked off before Iles arrived on the scene.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I agree with you, Sluffy, that its always best to hear both sides of any story but do I really want to spend my time listening to these two when there are a hundred and one better things to do with what remains of my life on Earth?

Shorrock and Gartside couldn't abide each other in the end but I don't know why or how this animosity arose or why it was so virulent. They were both at Leigh Grammar School around the same time. I understand Shorrock was a Rag and Garty a 100% Wanderer but was that where the animosity started or was there something later? I don't really know.

But the nonsense plainly didn't start with Iles. He carried it on, without a doubt, but it had all kicked off before Iles arrived on the scene.

Yes you are certainly correct on this as Sharrock himself openly admits to on the interview - although he claims he did become 100% Wanderers from his time reporting on the club.

Bonnar who I guess bridged the gap from Sharrock to Iles is a City fan and Iles comes from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, so I guess we've never had a true Wanderers reporter since the late Frank Booth.

I grew up reading Frank's reports and although there may be a bit of sentiment accordingly, I've never felt anyone from the paper has matched him since.

I think journalism has been 'dumbed down' over the years, I don't even think the national broadsheets are as good as they once were. I tend to think they've fallen foul of a change in behaviour as more people seek 'instant' news from sources such as on-line news on their phones or even off social media 'gossip' rather than sparing the time to have a good and well researched read from a paper. I guess they've been left behind by this social change in the same way the high street has become left behind with on-line shopping.

Pity really I always enjoyed a good read of the papers and I honestly now can't even remember the last time I bought a newspaper for myself to read, it's that many years ago now.

Times change and we must move on I guess.

wanderlust

wanderlust
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

I think Wanderlust's three line review above sums it up fairly adequately.
Gracious of you to say so. 
Less graciously I'd imagine, may i say that it would be great if you were a little more "pithy" yourself as IMHO your diatribes would be a lot more readable and I have to admit I don't always finish them as you tend to go off on one. Don't take this personally - I believe others have suggested something similar - but as you know you are very wordy. Just don't drown the point you are making in verbage as it detracts.
Fair enough on one level i.e. if you enjoy writing a lot of words/it's therapeutic that's fine by me. You make some interesting points - I'm just asking please don't hide them in a miasma of extrapolation.
BTW I know I write mischievous shit from time to time but never with malicious intent - just chatting and having a laugh with nice people. And there are obviously some very nice people who frequent these pages.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
Thanks for the unwarranted critique but I don't write to please you or anyone else.

If you don't like my style then don't read my posts, simple as that.

Plenty don't, that's their choice.

I don't write for those people who want everything explained to them in 140 characters or less and if it is more, then they won't bother reading it, I write to show why and on what evidence, I have come to the reasons why I have posted what I have.  

That takes far more than a couple of sentences.

I could of course just post random shit based on no facts whatsoever or simply my personal bias or prejudices but we already have social media for that, so I much prefer to be more accurate and researched on what I say and often more closer to the truth of things than most who don't put any thought in to what they post, often because they can't be arsed reading more than a sentence or two before they lose interest and wander off to see what the latest QAnon story is or whatever - it's on the internet so it must be true...

Gary Player the golfer was once called 'lucky' as he kept making so many good shots to which he replied 'the more I practice, the luckier I get', meaning it was the hard work nobody sees that made him good, and not just what you believe it to be superficially.

Similarly it isn't pure luck that I seem to post things that more often or not turn out to be correct, even when almost everyone else disagreed with me at the time.  I get more things right simply because I only make statements on subjects I know about and even then I will research and do my 'homework' before I post them.

I always show my research for anyone who wishes to check or question my reasoning.

I don't claim to be infallible but as Gary Player would say, the more I've researched, the more accurate I tend to be about the end result.

If you don't think I'm just some random up my own arse internet nutjob and you do think I have something worth reading, then you will simply have to follow my reasoning (or diatribes if you choose to take them that way) and await the points I bring out based on the links to substantiate them.

If you can't be arsed to read to the end, or think I've 'gone off on one', then that's your prerogative but it may also mean you've prejudged the point I was about to make - and sometimes it isn't always what you may think it would be.

At the end of the day it is only the internet, I post about what I'm interested about myself and I research things because I want to understand them better.  I'm happy to share this knowledge with others who might also find them of some interest.  If they don't so what, if they do then someone else gets the benefit of my interest and research too, isn't that what forums and having mutual interests is about anyway - or used to be?

Certainly on here it seems more to start off from a prejudice standpoint and belligerently and abusively dismiss anyone who has a different opinion - you being a prime example of this.

I don't find years of being verbally abused by you as 'having a laugh' with you nor being made out that I have mental issues just 'having a chat' with some 'nice' person who frequencies these pages.

Fortunately I don't tend to be bothered about name calling or people who clearly can't admit they got something wrong - life's to short to be worry about that.

So I won't be changing my style simply to please you just because I've write a lot of words and your attention span (like many others) doesn't last beyond reading more than just a few sentences!

Have a nice day.

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Pleonasm!

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Against [empiricism], which halts at [observable] phenomena—‘There are only facts’—I would say, no, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact ‘in itself’: perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.

‘Everything is subjective [for example, a figment of your reasoning mind],’ you say; but even this is interpretation. The ‘subject’ is not something given, it is something added and invented … [Is] it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation?

Frederich Nietzsche.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Pleonasm!
Word of the day. Very Happy

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Never heard that word before, everyday's a school day   Very Happy

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
When I said 'I don't really know', Sluffy, its not because I thought for one moment that much could be put down to the youthful allegiances of Shorrock and Gartside. There were  significant events that were wrongly reported and others that were never reported and it all resulted in a false sense of the realities BWFC faced after Colin Todd's  side was unfortunately relegated after one season in the Premiership with the same number of points that Sam Allardyce's side would escape the same fate a few years later.

Did Shorrock mention any of this or explain what he thought had really happened?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Pleonasm!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Thanks for the unwarranted critique but I don't write to please you or anyone else.

If you don't like my style then don't read my posts, simple as that.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Against [empiricism], which halts at [observable] phenomena—‘There are only facts’—I would say, no, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact ‘in itself’: perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.

‘Everything is subjective [for example, a figment of your reasoning mind],’ you say; but even this is interpretation. The ‘subject’ is not something given, it is something added and invented … [Is] it necessary to posit an interpreter behind the interpretation?

Frederich Nietzsche.

“Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that”.

Frederich Nietzsche



If you've not already I would recommend reading 'I am Dynamite' by Sue Prideaux. Not only is it about Nietzsche life - he went mad at just 44 years old don't you know) but also how his sister manipulated his unpublished work to drive Nazi propaganda with it, but best of all, it's got loads and loads and loads of words in it, 450 pages of them.

okocha

okocha
Andy Walker
Andy Walker
Re post 15:- It's certainly warranted. I think you mean "unwelcome". So, who do you write for?
 
Whatever, it's had the desired effect in terms of brevity, but not in terms of repetition of words, phrases and ideas that have been expressed many, many times previously (even in such a happily short contribution)

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:When I said 'I don't really know', Sluffy, its not because I thought for one moment that much could be put down to the youthful allegiances of Shorrock and Gartside. There were  significant events that were wrongly reported and others that were never reported and it all resulted in a false sense of the realities BWFC faced after Colin Todd's  side was unfortunately relegated after one season in the Premiership with the same number of points that Sam Allardyce's side would escape the same fate a few years later.

Did Shorrock mention any of this or explain what he thought had really happened?

I don't recall him saying anything about it specifically but if you listen around the 25 minute mark, Sharrock talked about how the Gartside regime tried to keep him from doing his job, namely in his (and most everybody else's belief) that ALL that goes should be made known to the fans, whilst in the real world companies of which BWFC Ltd is one, simply don't run that way because it would be financial suicide to them if they did!

He also talked about Allardyce's ambition to take us into the Champions League when we were third in the Premier League in January but (the club) Gartside didn't meet his ambition and would not bring in more signings at that time and there was friction between the two - listen around the 31 minute mark.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Re post 15:- It's certainly warranted. I think you mean "unwelcome". So, who do you write for?
 
Whatever, it's had the desired effect in terms of brevity, but not in terms of repetition of words, phrases and ideas that have been expressed many, many times previously (even in such a happily short contribution)

Listen mate I'm not here to answer to you or anyone else.

It's not the first time you've started to make things personal or to bring my family into things.

I'm just a random anonymous poster on the internet, if you don't like what I post or my persona then fine, I don't care much for your fakery on here but I don't question your need to do it.

If you think I write too many words, then that's just to bad for you.

If I want to repeat myself I will.

I'll do anything I want to inside the rules of the forum, no matter what anybody thinks of me but I draw the line of things becoming focused on me as a person.

Think of me as a cunt/mentalist/psychopath or whatever you want that's fine by me but I'm not going to lay myself open for amateur psychoanalysis on an internet forum for your amusement/trolling.

Let's nip this in the bud now.

Fair warning.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

“Man does not strive for happiness; only the Englishman does that”.

Frederich Nietzsche



If you've not already I would recommend reading 'I am Dynamite' by Sue Prideaux.  Not only is it about Nietzsche life - he went mad at just 44 years old don't you know) but also how his sister manipulated his unpublished work to drive Nazi propaganda with it, but best of all, it's got loads and loads and loads of words in it, 450 pages of them.

Good player though. Bit rough.

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

I don't recall him saying anything about it specifically but if you listen around the 25 minute mark, Sharrock talked about how the Gartside regime tried to keep him from doing his job, namely in his (and most everybody else's belief) that ALL that goes should be made known to the fans, whilst in the real world companies of which BWFC Ltd is one, simply don't run that way because it would be financial suicide to them if they did!

He also talked about Allardyce's ambition to take us into the Champions League when we were third in the Premier League in January but (the club) Gartside didn't meet his ambition and would not bring in more signings at that time and there was friction between the two - listen around the 31 minute mark.
Thanks, Sluffy. It sounds exactly like the 'head in the clouds' stuff I would have expected. One man's ambition is another's vainglorious egomania.

Actually we were only narrowly in third place for two days before taking a beating by Liverpool on 1 January 2007. It only served to emphasise the gulf in financial clout.

Anything of interest about the 1999 regime change, how much the Reebok (and other assets cost), who paid for it all and funded years of overspending in the ultimately failed attempt to establish BWFC as a Premiership club?

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

I don't recall him saying anything about it specifically but if you listen around the 25 minute mark, Sharrock talked about how the Gartside regime tried to keep him from doing his job, namely in his (and most everybody else's belief) that ALL that goes on should be made known to the fans, whilst in the real world companies of which BWFC Ltd is one, simply don't run that way because it would be financial suicide to them if they did!

He also talked about Allardyce's ambition to take us into the Champions League when we were third in the Premier League in January but (the club) Gartside didn't meet his ambition and would not bring in more signings at that time and there was friction between the two - listen around the 31 minute mark.
Thanks, Sluffy. It sounds exactly like the 'head in the clouds' stuff I would have expected. One man's ambition is another's vainglorious egomania.

Anything of interest about the 1999 regime change, how much the Reebok (and other assets cost), who paid for it all and funded years of overspending in the ultimately failed attempt to establish BWFC as a Premiership club?

Don't recall him saying much if anything about those things and of course we all know who paid for the Reebok as Marc Iles has already wrote about in the paper telling us all!

Very Happy

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

Don't recall him saying much if anything about those things and of course we all know who paid for the Reebok as Marc Iles has already wrote about in the paper telling us all!

Very Happy
A bit of an odd paradox, don't you think? Shorrock believed that the fans were entitled to know what was going on yet some of the most significant events in the club's history were ignored, glossed over or misrepresented by the Bolton News. 

I still think that Iles' unfortunate 'misapprehension' is strongly related to attitudes that prevailed when he arrived at the BN and have changed little since.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

Don't recall him saying much if anything about those things and of course we all know who paid for the Reebok as Marc Iles has already wrote about in the paper telling us all!

Very Happy
A bit of an odd paradox, don't you think? Shorrock believed that the fans were entitled to know what was going on yet some of the most significant events in the club's history were ignored, glossed over or misrepresented by the Bolton News. 

I still think that Iles' unfortunate 'misapprehension' is strongly related to attitudes that prevailed when he arrived at the BN and have changed little since.

What was even more paradoxical I found was that he said early in his interview as to when the £1m investment on signings of Cantello, Clement and McNab by Ian Greaves that in effect was a massive failure that it had so much of a financial effect on the club for years to come that led directly to our decline to the old fourth division.  So I would have thought he would be better placed than most by understanding this, have thus more of an understanding not to want the same thing to happen when financial pressures fell on the club again due to the building a relocation costs to a new stadium (and yet again when Allardyce wanted to bet the future of the club on us competing regularly in the Champions League).

You'd think if he understood cause and effect from one example he could relate it to future events too?  

Obviously not!

I've never been one to believe all that is written in the papers but sadly in my opinion that healthy scientism seems to have been widely lost on the social media generation where people seem somehow to believe what they read on there without question?

If I made a film about lizards morphing into human beings who are devil worshipping paedophiles and cast Donald Trump as the superhero to save the world then people would just laugh at the absurdity and stupidity of it all but millions believe it to be so because some random twitter account called QAnon tweeted such stuff there's millions of people who do!!!

Christ I even had one woman (who works in an accounts office by the way) in my street telling me she believed in it only the other month!

I just repeated back to her did she really believe Trump was actually protecting the world from lizard devil worshipping paedophiles, and when she said 'yes' I made some polite excuse and left - and have avoided her as best I can ever since!

Either I've gone barking mad or the world has!

There's just too many people willing to believe anything that's put in front of them without question particularly if it is from someone they seem to trust implicitly such as Iles!

Just the way it is now, reason seems to have gone out of the window.

Talking about Nietzsche earlier, one could even liken what is going on with social media as the the 'slave morality' in the 'master, slave' relationship - namely how those not in power subverts and manipulates the system to bring those in power (the masters) down - but the paradox is that those in 'power' of the slaves become the new 'masters' and those out of power begins to subvert and manipulate to take power for themselves, and so on.

People believed utter shit about Anderson hoping to bring him down, Trump used the distrust of the Washington elite represented by Hilary Clinton to win the presidency, with his catch phrase 'make America great again'.  Johnson won the Brexit referendum by the popularist slogan 'take back control', and so on.

It's all a never ending game but people just can't see it.

I doubt most ever will.

Sharrock I guess thought he had some power in manipulating the club to do what he thought was right by using the press to bring about the changes he wanted to see from the club.  Iles I don't think was so Machiavellian or as smart as Sharrock but was influenced by his drinking buddies such as Holdsworth, the ST and players such as Wheater to join in with the hatred towards Anderson and magnify it at stoke it up through his position as a social media influencer - and it worked!

It's blindingly obvious to me why Iles is kept at arms length from the club, and Sharrock before him, since the move to the Reebok and it's certainly no coincidence that successive Chairmen and owners of the club from Hargreaves right through to Sharron Brittan.

Yet still people believe every word of Iles implicitly!

We get what we deserve I guess.


PS, are you deliberately misspelling Sharrock's name or is there a joke there that I'm missing?

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
Shorrock means moron. Apparently. Although I'm not really into these modern terms. Unlike young Bob.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Shorrock means moron. Apparently. Although I'm not really into these modern terms. Unlike young Bob.

Thanks, a word I've never heard of before.

I like your avatar picture, how did you order them, a pair of baguette's size nines?

Very Happy

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

Thanks, a word I've never heard of before.

I like your avatar picture, how did you order them, a pair of baguette's size nines?

Very Happy
I don't think I'd be eating them after my plates had been in them. God knows what they could do with a French stick. Very Happy

Ten Bobsworth


Andy Walker
Andy Walker
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:Shorrock means moron. Apparently. Although I'm not really into these modern terms. Unlike young Bob.
I didn't know that, Boncey. The misspelling was simply forgetfulness that his name was Sharrock not Shorrock.

I never thought him a moron. More as someone with a personal grudge or allegiance, probably dating from around the 1999 regime change, that would not serve the best interests of BWFC. 

Iles isn't a moron either imo but is someone who allows personal prejudices to get in the way of objective scrutiny and competent reporting. There seems to be no end of journos like that.

Btw did you take up the offer on the labrador? Its a clever dog that can turn a couple of baguettes into a pair of slippers.

boltonbonce

boltonbonce
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:
I didn't know that, Boncey. The misspelling was simply forgetfulness that his name was Sharrock not Shorrock.

I never thought him a moron. More as someone with a personal grudge or allegiance, probably dating from around the 1999 regime change, that would not serve the best interests of BWFC. 

Iles isn't a moron either imo but is someone who allows personal prejudices to get in the way of objective scrutiny and competent reporting. There seems to be no end of journos like that.

Btw did you take up the offer on the labrador? Its a clever dog that can turn a couple of baguettes into a pair of slippers.
No Labrador sadly. I'd been warned brown labs are bonkers, so gave it a miss. Since found a good home though.
As my last dog was a Springer, I should be used to bonkers dogs, but I suppose I'm getting too old to handle it.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum