ITKs WUMs and the Transfer Window

[Blue_Mauvey]

Did Rob die or something? I ask because, when I last took this subject on I was greeted with the proxy COYS position of 'all ITK is genuine and given in good faith' and that to question it, either on SC or over at COYS meant a ban.

That it took the death of Rob for a modicum of common sense to come into play on this issue is a fucking tragedy. He was a right pizzle at times, it's true. But he had a swinging brick of gold when it came to Spurs.

RIP Rob (does a little sob and a trickle of wee).

 

[mil1lion]

You basically can't prove someone is a WUM.

Rarely i suppose, but if someone says such and such is having a medical only for that player to be seen at training with his club then its clearly a WUM. Or if someone says its a 100% done deal but it leads to nothing, then its clearly a WUM. Either the poster is a WUM or the person passing it on to them is a WUM. I guess thats the biggest problem because that person could be passing on in good faith, but have been passed on the wrong info by his source (WUM).

 

[ever]

What annoys me is that WUMs are immune to abuse because we have a supposed no ITK bashing rule. But surely if something is proven to be a wind up then we should be able to abuse openly? They deserve the flames.

i dunno, we found out keano was a wum and well it was fair play on him (up untill he got banned) :grin:

 

[joey55]

Rarely i suppose, but if someone says such and such is having a medical only for that player to be seen at training with his club then its clearly a WUM. Or if someone says its a 100% done deal but it leads to nothing, then its clearly a WUM. Either the poster is a WUM or the person passing it on to them is a WUM. I guess thats the biggest problem because that person could be passing on in good faith, but have been passed on the wrong info by his source (WUM).

This is my point. Surely ITKs' have a responsibility ot question the validity of their own source and decide whether the info they have been recieving is worth posting. Even if the source is Daniel levy himself, it doen't mean it's ITK per se. If Levy is telling the ITK stuff that it already widely avilable or proves to be utter rubbish, then it should be clear to the ITK, that Levy is just taking the piss.

 

[rebrab]

Have you checked your own ITK record? I actually thought at one point you were an already established poster, who had rejoined under if different name to see if you could get away as being an ITK for a laugh. You only posted stuff that was unsubstantiable, or had already been mentioned by other ITK's or the newspaper. Sometimes it would get so close to taking the piss, that you'd say suff like "i was about to say that" after another ITK had posted. The only stuff that stood you apart from the newspapers or other ITKs, was stuff that couldn't be proved incorrect, such as failed bids. Pitching up with things like Athletico refused our bid for Heitinga, is safe, as no one is intersted and no one can prove it wrong.

You might not be a WUM and seem like a nice guy who is just tying to inform people. But surely you must have clicked by now that your source isn't telling you anything that he couldn't have read in the newspaper or ITK threads.

Okay Joey, as I said its fine to criticise (and you've at least been fair and not overly blase with your criticism, it reads fairly and well considered!), up to me to prove you wrong really - and I'm not that fussed if I do, to be honest. However, I do think I have to right to contradict you here - choose to believe or not, its up to you really :shrug:

Okay. First of all, yes a lot of my stuff is "unsubstantial" so to speak. However, there is a reason for this. I dont come out with all the over the top "100% done" deals and so on as I hear about things around about the bidding stage, most of the time. Also, I don't want to be regarded a WUM and so on so I tend to give a message of warning to take with salt with my posts... ironically this is why you think I am a wum :lol:. However, I have posted a couple of (though admittedly not very many) very substantial deals that people havent picked up on. For example, I was the only person who said about Berniche going to Real Vallollidid. The only two pieces written about that were my own and the OS. Some newspapers I think did link him with them at the start of the summer, but only very weakly with other clubs involved, and i said that it was a "done deal" about a day before it happened. As well as this, you just have to look at yesterday to see that I have got nothing wrong. I posted that:

1) Liverpool had put in a bid for Bentley, we turned it down. Nobody else said this at the time, but the next day it was humming around with the rumours, admittedly from places like TalkSport.

2) Pav isn't going. Fairly obvious I know, but accurate.

3) Krancjar's medical would finish at 10:30. It actually finished at about 10:40 according to SSN. 10 minutes off... :razz:

4) Bale wouldn't go on a permanent. I maintained this all summer, despite a lot of speculation that he would go.


Admittedly a lot of that had already been speculated, but there has been quite a bit of information in there that nobody else had that I pointed out and has later been proven. To my knowledge, I have only been wrong once - misinformation about us putting a 600k bid in for a player. I'm sorry about that


Anyway, feel free to think what you want mate :up:


EDIT: Oh, and i forgot. You said about me saying stuff like "I was just about to post that". I was very careful never to do that... its just attention seeking and makes me look stupid. I can't remember ever doing that? I think I may have done that with 1 or 2 pieces of storts' info, but that is because I told him that info first, he backed it and posted it first... when I was just about to.

 

[joey55]

The Berchiche stuff was announced in the press weeks before it was announced by the club.

But the point I'm making is that surely you are aware that your info is never new. Do you really believe Liverpool bid for Bentley?

 

[Hoowl]

Another issue is when legit ITK lose their source and continue to try and milk it for the attention. HoofHarted is not allowed to be called a certain term, but Bent is gone and his information is worthless (see his crap record this summer). Mods should reconsider their ill-advised "once and ITK, always an ITK" rule.

HoofHarted is still considered to be ITK on COYS (although he doesn't have an ITK badge). However, I do agree that some people may continue to pretend to be ITK after losing their source and I mentioned it in the opening post.

Have you checked your own ITK record? I actually thought at one point you were an already established poster, who had rejoined under if different name to see if you could get away as being an ITK for a laugh. You only posted stuff that was unsubstantiable, or had already been mentioned by other ITK's or the newspaper. Sometimes it would get so close to taking the piss, that you'd say suff like "i was about to say that" after another ITK had posted. The only stuff that stood you apart from the newspapers or other ITKs, was stuff that couldn't be proved incorrect, such as failed bids. Pitching up with things like Athletico refused our bid for Heitinga, is safe, as no one is intersted and no one can prove it wrong.

You might not be a WUM and seem like a nice guy who is just tying to inform people. But surely you must have clicked by now that your source isn't telling you anything that he couldn't have read in the newspaper or ITK threads.

If Rebrab is happy debating his style of ITK info with you, then I'm okay with it but he doesn't necessarily have to justify himself and everyone can make their own judgement on each piece of information he passes on.

Did Rob die or something? I ask because, when I last took this subject on I was greeted with the proxy COYS position of 'all ITK is genuine and given in good faith' and that to question it, either on SC or over at COYS meant a ban.

That it took the death of Rob for a modicum of common sense to come into play on this issue is a fucking tragedy. He was a right pizzle at times, it's true. But he had a swinging brick of gold when it came to Spurs.

RIP Rob (does a little sob and a trickle of wee).

The reports of Robs death have been greatly exaggerated. This thread is not an excuse to bash ITKs it's merely about the nature of ITKs and WUMs. As long as someone is considered to be ITK you can disbelieve their information but we still have to assume it's passed in good faith.

This is my point. Surely ITKs' have a responsibility ot question the validity of their own source and decide whether the info they have been recieving is worth posting. Even if the source is Daniel levy himself, it doen't mean it's ITK per se. If Levy is telling the ITK stuff that it already widely avilable or proves to be utter rubbish, then it should be clear to the ITK, that Levy is just taking the piss.

To a certain extent I agree with you but it's hard to know where to draw the line. I think it's best to pass most bits of info on and let each member of the community judge for himself.

 

[Bobishism]

Have you checked your own ITK record? I actually thought at one point you were an already established poster, who had rejoined under if different name to see if you could get away as being an ITK for a laugh.

I was tempted to do this. To highlight how easy it is to do so. Definitely not to annoy.

 

[rebrab]

The Berchiche stuff was announced in the press weeks before it was announced by the club.

But the point I'm making is that surely you are aware that your info is never new. Do you really believe Liverpool bid for Bentley?

First of all, was it? I remember weak links at the start of the summer with Real Vallollid and Real Sociedad and a few other teams, but just "interest". I said that it was done, a completely different kettle of fish...


Also, yes. I do believe Liverpool bid for Bentley. I may be wrong :shrug:. But I'm pretty sure I'm not, and that they just bid too low.

 

[Bonjour]

I gave up on the 'ITK' section as a complete waste of my time last year. Little to no useful information and detrimental to the site's use of bandwidth.

 

[joey55]

First of all, was it? I remember weak links at the start of the summer with Real Vallollid and Real Sociedad and a few other teams, but just "interest". I said that it was done, a completely different kettle of fish...


Also, yes. I do believe Liverpool bid for Bentley. I may be wrong :shrug:. But I'm pretty sure I'm not, and that they just bid too low.

Yes, it was. And I'm pretty sure you said it was a loan with an opiton to buy. I remember a day or two before you posted this, Vital football said they'd heard he was going but were unsure if it was a loan or a permanent deal. In the end it was a permanent deal. I don't want to be crticial of you personally, but can you not see what i'm saying. There is nothing in your ITK, that hasn't already been mentioned. I'm not saying you aren't passing it on in good faith, but you must have realised your source isn't exaclty giving too much away is he/she?

 

[ever]

I was tempted to do this. To highlight how easy it is to do so. Definitely not to annoy.

it may be easy but not as easy as some people think, there was one member of this site who tried it and it was quickly decided that it was fake and ignored, i think that person may have also got a holidaty from the transfer section aswell

 

[Shanks]

I was ITK for Chelsea a few years back.
But now I could be ITK for West Ham.


Not that either are of any concern to me, but I do have a pretty decent bloody contact ;-)

 

[Shanks]

I don't think I ever saw Rehrab past anything like 'I was just about to post/say this or that'.

ITK was posted, and he often re-iterated that this information posted, he had heard echoed also. In a factual way to say, this is what he is also hearing, not a gloating way at all.

 

[Hoowl]

Yes, it was. And I'm pretty sure you said it was a loan with an opiton to buy. I remember a day or two before you posted this, Vital football said they'd heard he was going but were unsure if it was a loan or a permanent deal. In the end it was a permanent deal. I don't want to be crticial of you personally, but can you not see what i'm saying. There is nothing in your ITK, that hasn't already been mentioned. I'm not saying you aren't passing it on in good faith, but you must have realised your source isn't exaclty giving too much away is he/she?

Every player we signed this year was in the press before any ITK information was released on him.

 

[Bobishism]

I was ITK for Chelsea a few years back.
But now I could be ITK for West Ham.


Not that either are of any concern to me, but I do have a pretty decent bloody contact ;-)

Colio?

 

[Bobishism]

it may be easy but not as easy as some people think, there was one member of this site who tried it and it was quickly decided that it was fake and ignored, i think that person may have also got a holidaty from the transfer section aswell

I think it is. Agree with the consensus andgo with what reputable newsites are saying. Take a logical approach to dealings and follow FM religiously.

We should play a fake ITK game next window, for kicks.

Every player we signed this year was in the press before any ITK information was released on him.

It's hard to compete when Harry works for the Sun.

 

[rebrab]

Yes, it was. And I'm pretty sure you said it was a loan with an opiton to buy. I remember a day or two before you posted this, Vital football said they'd heard he was going but were unsure if it was a loan or a permanent deal. In the end it was a permanent deal. I don't want to be crticial of you personally, but can you not see what i'm saying. There is nothing in your ITK, that hasn't already been mentioned. I'm not saying you aren't passing it on in good faith, but you must have realised your source isn't exaclty giving too much away is he/she?

I did say it was a loan with an option to buy. I was wrong . You'll have to take my word for it that I hadn't heard that on Vital Football. However, I will understand if you don't take my word for it, of course!

I actually think I've posted a lot of "new" information, but you clearly disagree which is fair enough. Part of the reason that there is a limited amount of "freshness" in what ITK's say is because there is ITK's with less reluctant and better placed sources than mine, for sure. I don't claim to be the best, I'm not. POTL and so on hear things earlier than I do, and hear different things. As well as this, the newspapers have various "sources" and are actually a lot better than people give them credit for. I can't compete, and I don't actually try to. I just post what I hear :shrug:. It may not be that much all of the time, but I do object to being called a WUM...

 

[KentuckyYid]

By the very nature that supposed ITK's are passing on info that was undoubtedly trusted to them to keep to themselves tells me they cannot be trusted! Would you trust one with your secrets?

 

[Shanks]

Colio?

He is too cool for school.