Issue What is in a word as Grant is convicted

As told by Michael Wood

Gavin Grant has been convicted of murder and expected to spend over a decade in prison. There is little else to say about the man and his conviction but there is a sense of curiosity as to why Peter Taylor gave the striker three months at City at the end of last season.

Taylor knew Grant from previous clubs and perhaps Grant – who played for free – knew that he had a long time in prison to come and wanted to leave society with something to pleasant remember. Of the players recruited at the end of last term on loan Robbie Threlfall and Luke Oliver signed for City, Adam Bolder ended up at Burton Albion, Mark McGammon made hardly an impression and Grant – well Grant will not be signing for anyone.

You can read about Grant’s conviction here in in Asian Age newspaper or if you prefer you can read the Telegraph and Argus. Both reports are very similar although there is one word missing from our local newspaper.

Bradford City striker found guilty of rival’s murder or Former football star Grant convicted of murder. The difference is obvious. The former is the Telegraph & Argus and why Bradford’s local newspaper feels the need to offer this distortion is probably obvious.

Bradford City striker Gavin Grant was today facing life in prison after being found guilty of murder.

Nowhere in the article will you read that Grant is not in the employ of Bradford City, nor that he has never been paid by Bradford City. The first word of the Asian Age article is “Former”.

The Telegraph and Argus – seemingly – have taken a view that by portraying events as one of the City players having been carted away from training leaving Peter Taylor scratching his head as to how to patch the hole in his squad is more important that conveying the truth of the situation to the people of Bradford.

Yes, he played for Bradford City on the last game of last season but Jake Speight played for Mansfield Town and on his imprisonment two weeks ago he was also a “Bradford City Striker”. Can the T&A have it both ways? Why do they want to?

Why does the Telegraph and Argus want to portray this story – a former City player has been convicted of murder – in a way that paints Bradford City in the worst possible light being prepared to break the standard of two weeks ago in order to ensure the headline reads as badly as possible?

None of which is to avoid the question as to why City gave Grant a chance to prove he was worth a contract he would never be able to take up – I’m prepared to be charitable and suggest that Taylor had the faith in Grant that when he said he was not guilty he was telling the truth and that the player deserved a chance should he not be convicted to carry on his career – but rather to ask why Bradford’s local newspaper has taken to bending the truth in a way that paints the local football club in the worst possible light?

When Jake Speight was sent to prison – the chance of which was not mentioned to the club – the words “a lie of omission” cropped up and people decided they would boo the player for his duplicity. Will the same people look at the T&A and see another lie of omission – the word “former” and a clarity that Gavin Grant is not a Bradford City player – and object in as strong terms about that publication?

It is breathtaking that rather than take an objective view on Grant and Bradford City the Telegraph and Argus – who in a very real sense feed off the club – wish to bite that feeding hand by writing headlines and articles which seek to pain the club in as negative a light as possible.

Consistency is lacking. Speight and Grant can’t both be Bradford City players just because saying so makes a more interesting headline for the local newspaper.

How long have Bradford City been the T&A’s punch bag? Painting the club in the worst light possible, sensationalising headlines to drum up sales. One can only imagine what Mark Lawn thinks about this and – being the man he is – how he will react.