Francisco Javier de Anda, former sports director of Chivas de Guadalajara, was again involved in a controversy with his co-worker and commentator of ESPN, David Faitelson.
The clash between the two occurred as a result of some tweets by Faitelson in which he argued that the sanction of Club América for possible “improper alignment”It will probably not transcend due to a matter of interests between Las Águilas and the owner of the Atlas, Alejandro Irarragorri.
“I am completely sure that Mr. Alejandro Irarragorri, president of Orlegui, will enforce the regulations and will seek for Atlas to win the 3 points at the table due to the improper alignment of the America footballer, Federico Viñas …”, Faitelson explained.
However, de Anda did not detect the sarcasm between the lines that Faitelson had written in one of his publications, and noted it as imprecise in addition to comparing it to the Chimoltrufia.
“Paraphrasing the chimoltrufia: As I say one thing, I say another … Without Yolanda David”Wrote the former sports director.
Faitelson turned again and mocked his partner for not having detected the sarcasm implicit in his last comment, in addition to insulting his intelligence.
“Hi Paco: I understand that your intelligence is not able to understand the irony of the first tweet. Nor is it my problem that your intelligence is at the level of “chimoltrufia”. I didn’t understand about “Yolanda” … Hug”Wrote the controversial commentator.
The two starred in another “clash” in March 2020, when de Anda admitted that some of his most complicated moments at the head of the Sacred Herd had to do with criticism from the press, especially from the channel where he now works and from one of the his fellow commenters: ESPN and David Faitelson.
The issue was at the center of the debate after Jose Luis Higuera, former general manager of the rojiblanco team, mentioned that “the channel and people more attacked Paco when he was in Chivas he was this (ESPN). If there was something of this of this channel it was a critical but cruel about him”.
Why De Anda was targeted by critics by the sports journalists of this channel, according to Higuera, is that I did not leak information about what happened to interior of the Chivas, which was confirmed by the former footballer: “In the case of David (Faitelson) it was so”.
Regarding confrontations with other elements of the channel’s productions, such as Jose Ramon Fernandez, explained that the attacks he received occurred as a result of an interview in which he spoke ill of the commentator. In the case of Alvaro Morales said he had offended off the air, which the journalist took advantage of to attack him on future occasions.
Higuera himself, who is already part of the ESPN commentary table, even mentioned that during his period at the head of the club he reached receive calls by the channel in order to give them information about De Anda’s work and so I can have arguments in their signs.
Faitelson’s way of defending himself was to resort to Matías Almeyda, because from their point of view, “what they (Higuera and De Anda) did for Chivas does not compare absolutely nothing with what Matías Almeyda did. At that moment a value was lost for Chivas and journalism was intrigued why he was leaving ”.
This topic remained for a few minutes in the conversation, since De you He mentioned understanding the criticisms of Faitelson who was missing exclusive information about the rojiblanca institution. Because of this, the commenter’s response was as follows: “You will be remembered in Chivas history as the two characters that cut Matías Almeyda’s career”.
However, this provoked the anger of De Anda, who explained his version in the novel with Faitelson: “For you that is the story, because you Matías leaked information and you were playing on his side in the wrong way. You sold yourself, you sold yourself very cheap”.