The fans all wanted Bates out and say how much they hate him, yet still he's been able to manipulate them.
But you can only manipulate stupid people. Bates is one of those people who thinks he's being clever in the things he says, but doesn't realise he's actually revealing himself more to the people who can see through what he's doing.
The comments coming from him today highlight how he's been using Yorkshire Radio and the YEP as propaganda tools to control the fans.
Phil Hay is a poor journalist who doesn't even have a basic grasp of the English language. He's lucky to be in his job. He can be controlled by Bates.
Yorkshire Radio is full of journeymen local radio DJs and students who can't even speak properly. Thom Kirwin is a Leeds fan who has been given the opportunity to be the main commentator for Leeds United. He's lucky to be in his job. He can be controlled by Bates.
If you aren't in the Premier League, the national media aren't interested. Bates forced the BBC out and has been using the local media to control the fans. Sadly, the fans have allowed this to happen.
Simon Grayson is a Leeds fan, but a terrible football manager. He was lucky to be in his job. He could be controlled by Bates.
Neil Warnock is a strong character, a 64 year old with a good track record in management. He could not be controlled by Bates.
I don't want this to turn into another argument about the merits of Grayson and Warnock, that would just be playing into Bates' hands again, although it would make my point.
Warnock had to build from nothing, Grayson inherited Premier League quality and made farcical decisions such as dropping Howson and Snodgrass for the must win last game of the season against Bristol Rovers. But for the sake of argument let's all meet in the middle and say they were both average.
The way they were portrayed on Yorkshire Radio and in the YEP was very different and clearly influenced the fans opinions.
Things were twisted in a postive way for Grayson and in a negative way against Warnock. If a caller criticised Grayson he'd be treated as if he were mad. Criticism of Warnock was encouraged and invited.
It's very telling that Bates said he wanted to sack Warnock in October. At that time we were just outside the play-offs, the top of the league was even within reach, and we'd beaten a strong Everton side in the League Cup. I don't remember anyone being against Warnock at that time, and why would they be?
Since then it's been drip, drip, drip from the media channels building into mass hysteria against Warnock.
The comments about Tom Lees were also very telling. I always thought too much was made of that. It's common for managers to criticise players for a stupid red card, and Bates hasn't been shy of singling out individual players for criticism in his programme notes. It was obviously another manipulation tool, and it worked very well.
Then you have to consider how Gary McAllister was treated. He's not an abrasive character like Warnock, but he's been used to operating at the highest level of the game and is nobody's fool. Bates got him out at the first opportunity.
In supporting Simon Grayson you were supporting Ken Bates.
In turning against Neil Warnock you were supporting Ken Bates.
Most of you have been played.
Ken Bates: Master Manipulator
posted on 27/4/13
Clive,
Have you ever considered local media merely reflects popular opinion, rather than forms it?
posted on 27/4/13
Of course, yes.
And there must also be an element of the local media playing up to the fans views at times.
But you can't say propaganda doesn't exist, especially when the club has control over the main media channels.
Don't forget that Ken Bates appointed both Grayson and Warnock. He was aware of how they'd be perceived by the fans, and how he could portray them.
posted on 28/4/13
Warnock did a terrible job and left us in a worse state than he found us in, very much like bates. Unlike Grayson, he was given the freedom to not leave us in a worse position than he found us, by signing decent quality players and holding on to what we've got. Instead he sold Snodgrass, signed journeymen, then forced Becchio out of the club.
posted on 28/4/13
You're a comedy profile, aren't you, Marko?
posted on 28/4/13
So you agree with Warnock in that he left us in a better state than we were in?
posted on 28/4/13
Yes, of course.
He didn't take over the team that finished 7th, there wasn't much left when he came in.
United: Lonergan, Thompson, Lees, O'Dea, White, Snodgrass, Clayton, Delph, Townsend, McCormack, Becchio. Subs: Taylor, Bruce, Brown, Pugh, Nunez.
That's Grayson's last squad which includes three loans, a teenage midfielder at right back and another teenager on the bench.
posted on 28/4/13
Grayson lost:
Howson, Johnson, Beckford, Kasper & Gradel.
What's your point?
posted on 28/4/13
"there wasn't much left when he came in."
But they were higher than he finished with them, and this year he took them even lower!..
Clive, did he take them lower with Graysons team or his own?..
I'd bet McD would have liked Graysons old team more than the one he's been lumped with!..
posted on 28/4/13
The point is Howson and Gradel were never replaced, we were in deficit when Warnock took over. So in one summer he had to sign a defence, replace 2 class wingers after Snodgrass' departure, replace Howson, and try and improve a poor back 5.
Now if we'd spent the sort of money Cardiff did (who also kept their best player by the way and sent out a message that promotion was the aim), then I'd have expected more from the season than what we've got. However once again spending less than we receive, and I assume our wage budget will still be somewhere in the middle, improvement is a massive ask.
posted on 28/4/13
What you've to remember about where Grayson got the team last season and where Warnock finished with them is that Grayson accumulated a large proportion of his points with Howson in the team. He was a massive loss, so it would unreasonable to expect Warnock to maintain or improve our position in the table.