No, Simon, There Should Be Nothing You ‘Cannot Say’…

September 19, 2011 10 Comments
By

Liverpool are investigating striker Nathan Eccleston for comments on Twitter that suggested the 11 September attacks were not the work of terrorists.

/facepalm

A tweet that has since been taken down said: “I ain’t going to say attack don’t let the media make u believe that was terrorist that did it. #OTIS.”OTIS reportedly stands for Only the Illuminati Succeed.

It’s the Illuminati behind it now?

I can’t keep up….

A club statement said: “The club takes this matter extremely seriously and senior club officials have informed Nathan Eccleston that we are undertaking an investigation into the circumstances surrounding these postings and will decide on an appropriate course of action.”

Surely the most appropriate course of action is … nothing.

Sure, your footballer’s just shown himself up to be an idiot, but who expects philosophical discourse from a 20 year old sportsman? Who would be following him on Twitter for that?

Eccleston, who has over 39,000 followers on the social-networking site, has since tweeted: “If you don’t like what I have to say un follow me!! Some things get took way out of context…”

Which is just what should happen. Idiot says something idiotic. Twitterstorm ensues. Everyone moves on.

But no. There’s money to be made, and so all sorts of creepy individuals are crawling out of the woodwork:

… according to a social media expert, clubs will have to bring in more stringent frameworks to cover players’ use of Twitter and similar sites.

Ooooh, a ‘social media expert’, eh?

“Clubs need to behave like brands and put proper governance in place to dictate how the players – their employees – behave,” Simon Rutherford, managing director of Cubaka:Socialtold BBC Sport.”The club has a reputation to protect and in this case, with American owners, there needs to be an understanding of what you can and cannot say. The player’s bio says that he is a footballer for Liverpool so that is why he gets so many followers, He therefore has a duty towards them in what he says.

“Players need to realise just how damaging a tweet can be, even if they hit the delete button, as he did in this case, someone will have a screenshot and it will be all over the internet. Clubs already give their players media training and increasingly we’ll see that include use of social media.

I wonder who will be providing this ‘vital training’ that you are telling clubs they need, eh, Simon?

And of the potential for clubs to ban players from using Twitter, Rutherford added: “That would be an extreme form of governance and if a club decided that the best way to protect its brand was to stop tweets then they could impose it.

“However [they would be better served] trying to embrace the medium and using it to get their message across.

Carefully guided by people like…well, you?

We are rapidly moving into a world where to believe something that others find ‘offensive’ is becoming a crime. Truly, George Orwell was a visionary…

Tags: , , , ,

10 Responses to No, Simon, There Should Be Nothing You ‘Cannot Say’…

  1. Twenty_Rothmans
    September 19, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Is it just me, but how does one get from
    The player’s bio says that he is a footballer for Liverpool so that is why he gets so many followers, to
    He therefore has a duty towards them in what he says.?

    He’s somehow obliged to be sage? Liverpool + footballer

    And of the potential for clubs to ban players from using Twitter, Rutherford added: “That would be an extreme form of governance
    It’s what’s known as being told to STFU. It’s very rare on the Interweb.

  2. September 19, 2011 at 9:06 am

    I’m inclined to agree, though if his contract with the club has a clause to the effect of “I, Nathan Ecclescake, accept that I am always representative of the club and undertake not to perform any action or make any statement which could be construed as embarrassing to the club” then he’s agreed to something and gone back on it. I’ve long suspected Aussie Rules players often have similar clauses in their contracts since AFL clubs often impose fines and suspensions on players who’ve stepped out of line even if no actual law was broken. Bad for the club = club sanctions. Further, all player and official contracts include certain things that have been put in by the league itself. For example, a Collingwood defender was suspended for 8 weeks and fined $20,000 for a $20 bet that his captain would kick the first goal of a game – hugely unreasonable but the rules are that people in the AFL are absolutely forbidden to bet on the AFL. People have even been punished for placing bets on behalf of third parties and for betting on games in which they or their club have no involvement. As I say, I think it can be unreasonable but nobody’s forcing these people to sign the contract and take the money. If Ecclescake has any kind of don’t embarrass the club clause then he’s voluntarily restricted his own freedom of speech, but can take comfort from being paid the usual English Premiership bathtub full of money every week.

    • September 19, 2011 at 9:36 am

      Yeah, but even people in the public eye cannot realistically be held as a constant ambassador. Besides, nothing was said that could reflect badly on the club, it was a personal opinion, nothing more (and not an uncommon one, so there is no possible case for causing offence). We really are getting way out of hand with employers thinking that they get to decide what people may or may not say in public. And, frankly, the world of football has an opinion of itself way out of proportion with reality. Bringing it into disrepute is impossible, it is already there.

      Yes, fine, have a clause about bringing the employer into disrepute, but given that footballers aren’t exactly employed for their intellect, then just about everything they say could bring the club into disrepute if this example is anything to go by.

      Massive, massive overreaction about something that is none of the employers godammend business.

      • September 19, 2011 at 3:21 pm

        Oh, I agree, he’s said absolutely nothing that reflects on anyone other than himself. But if – and I stress if – he’s been daft enough to sign a contract that leaves the definition of what reflects on Liverpool FC up to the club then more fool him. If not then I’d suggest his next tweet should be unapologetic and asking what the hell’s it got to do with anyone else what he believes.

        And I also agree that Premiership footballers are almost capable of bringing anyone associated with them into disrepute just be showing up. :lol:

        • September 20, 2011 at 6:41 am

          Surely any half-decent employment contract lawyer could get his client off any such contract, by pointing out that it wasn’t nearly prescriptive enough? After all, can you really expect the average young footballer to understand the nebulous concepts of ‘shame’ and ‘embarrassment’..?

          Only a full and comprehensive list of forbidden topics would suffice… :lol:

  3. September 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm

    Well, most employers think they own their employees.

    • September 20, 2011 at 5:23 am

      Quite! It’s not the sort of ‘slavery’ that ever gets the left excited though, unless it happens to them, of course.

    • September 20, 2011 at 5:27 am

      True. They own however much of their time the employees are selling to them. Anyone who’s constantly getting work mail on their smartphone when they’re on holiday, which seems to be common here, is having the piss taken out of them.

      • September 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm

        “They own however much of their time the employees are selling to them.”

        Yes, that’s right. They own the time, but they shouldn’t own their employees souls.

  4. September 19, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    given that footballers aren’t exactly employed for their intellect, then just about everything they say could bring the club into disrepute

    Exactly.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.