Heard yet another rumour on Saturday about a Swedish businessman looking at us??? Appreciate these rumours are quite regular, just wondering if any of the more informed members of the forum had heard anything to this effect?
Wrong nationality & I'm not saying which nationality it is (before anyone asks). :-)
Heard yet another rumour on Saturday about a Swedish businessman looking at us??? Appreciate these rumours are quite regular, just wondering if any of the more informed members of the forum had heard anything to this effect?
There have been yet more rumours going around of due diligence taking place. These starting 3 or 4 weeks ago (to my knowledge) and then about two weeks ago there was mention of it being Stephan Pearrson (spelling) the H & M owner. But no one has confirmed this and others have heard the deal has already fallen through. No sources, no pack drill.
Just a question, but how can we talk new contracts/money, when we are flirting with relegation. The league in which we will be playing next year has to be a crucial part of any negotiation surely. Most of us feel strongly that we are good enough to stay up, but only a fool would risk further financial difficulty if we were wrong.
We weren't with relegation in the summer when the key contracts could have been sorted.
Also we could be in more financial difficulty if we have to let Wiggins and Morrison go on free transfers when they are out of contract in the summer.
Yeah, but "peninsular" is an adjective. The noun is "peninsula". How can you take the bloke seriously when he can't get that right?
That is true. I even changed it from "Peninsula" as I couldn't remember which was correct.
If you extend the contracts of your top players, then its more than likely they will be getting a pay rise. That means a higher wage expenditure for a whole season, when you could have been paying them a lower amount up until they signed the new contract (say, in March for example)
If there money is that tight, then risks have to be taken.
I agree but we have to accept that it is a risk that they walk away in May for no transfer fee and that in the meantime that they could be unsettled.
It also begs the question of why sign Solly and Cousins up to new deals rather than wait to March?
But as you say money is tight. It's not our money so people are quite right when they say it's up to TJ and MS what they spend. They have about £6m leeway under FFP rules if they wanted to spend more but it is up to them as to what level of investment or loans they make in the Club.
But that doesn't mean we as fans can't ask questions or, if we see it that way, be concerned with what we see.
Or be happy that the board are still in credit if that is your view. My question would be what do you see as the cons as well as the pros?
I would say that Solly has been signed up quicker because, as POTY two years running, he has the current ability and potential to play higher. i think Wiggins and Morrison are good players, but their level is probably mid-table Champ. They are more likely to not want to leave the club, being settled, and moving to a samilar sized club.
With Cousins, its probably being the hottest rated youngster in SE7.
Plus, if money is very tight, but you have a bit of budget remaining, spend it on increasing the contract of the fans favourite. That way is shows a bit of intent to the fans. A smart move if you are a board getting a bit of criticism.
Ive got absolutely no problem with people being concerned. As i said to SHG in a private message, i dont go anywhere near as much as two/three seasons ago, so my overall time spent dedicated to Charlton has decreased. Your earlier post had some excellent sources, things i werent aware of as a current 'casual' supporter.
In terms of what id put down as cons, it would probably be the treatment of some very hard working and loyal club employees that have lost their jobs in a pretty poor way.
And that is why I am a bit wary of endorsing 100% an "analysis" that states as a bald fact that Cash pulled out definitively in March 2012. We should ask the questions, yes, but we should also make sure we have the answers before we go winding up the fan base without a clear reason, and most importantly without a plan for ensuring we get "better' owners in future.
That makes no sense whatsover.
Firstly you weren't asked to endorse it. You can agree/disagree as you wish but neither you or anyone else was asked to give it an endorsement. I'm happy that some people liked it and felt it was a good piece but I'm not standing for election or asking for it to be including in a manifesto.
Secondly, I'm not sure where I am "winding up" the fan base. I gave my opinion, my reasoning and gave sources where possible. Perhaps leading the fan base up a dead end over leaving the Valley and FOI requests as you did was a better example of "winding up" the fan base especially as it was clear from the outset that no such plan existed but was only a misleading benefit of purchasing CAFC set out in the sales brochure.
Thirdly, why can we not question this board without a plan for "better" owners. We have little control over either as it stands but I am at least asking what I think are the pertinent questions to be asked if and when we do get new owners. Would anyone be unhappy about either the current or next board giving full and honest answers to those questions.
Influencing who the next owners are is a totally different thing.
Dear oh dear.
The "we" I referred to in winding up the fan base was us, the Trust, whom you criticise for failing to provide a "critical analysis".
I wanted to join in the praise for a well written piece, but make it clear that I couldn't agree with all of it, since my well sourced information differs from yours on one crucial point.. A bit self -regarding of me to use the the verb 'endorse' on reflection, especially when addressing You.
Heard yet another rumour on Saturday about a Swedish businessman looking at us??? Appreciate these rumours are quite regular, just wondering if any of the more informed members of the forum had heard anything to this effect?
Wrong nationality & I'm not saying which nationality it is (before anyone asks). :-)
And that is why I am a bit wary of endorsing 100% an "analysis" that states as a bald fact that Cash pulled out definitively in March 2012. We should ask the questions, yes, but we should also make sure we have the answers before we go winding up the fan base without a clear reason, and most importantly without a plan for ensuring we get "better' owners in future.
That makes no sense whatsover.
Firstly you weren't asked to endorse it. You can agree/disagree as you wish but neither you or anyone else was asked to give it an endorsement. I'm happy that some people liked it and felt it was a good piece but I'm not standing for election or asking for it to be including in a manifesto.
Secondly, I'm not sure where I am "winding up" the fan base. I gave my opinion, my reasoning and gave sources where possible. Perhaps leading the fan base up a dead end over leaving the Valley and FOI requests as you did was a better example of "winding up" the fan base especially as it was clear from the outset that no such plan existed but was only a misleading benefit of purchasing CAFC set out in the sales brochure.
Thirdly, why can we not question this board without a plan for "better" owners. We have little control over either as it stands but I am at least asking what I think are the pertinent questions to be asked if and when we do get new owners. Would anyone be unhappy about either the current or next board giving full and honest answers to those questions.
Influencing who the next owners are is a totally different thing.
Dear oh dear.
The "we" I referred to in winding up the fan base was us, the Trust, whom you criticise for failing to provide a "critical analysis".
I wanted to join in the praise for a well written piece, but make it clear that I couldn't agree with all of it, since my well sourced information differs from yours on one crucial point.. A bit self -regarding of me to use the the verb 'endorse' on reflection, especially when addressing You.
I wish you'd made it clear you were talking on behalf of the Trust as you never mentioned them once and neither did I
You must be referring to another place where I've criticised the Trust for failing to provide a critical analysis. I did do that when the Trust produced a very bland article on David Joyes financial article in the Millwall programme. The trust promised a second article with more analysis of the accounts but that has still yet to appear.
I have since learnt that the Trust showed the first article to the Club and then changed it as a result (source A trust board member) which, IMHO, explains why it was so bland and disappointing. Maybe the 2nd article is still waiting for approval from Steve Bradshaw hence the delay.
Just a question, but how can we talk new contracts/money, when we are flirting with relegation. The league in which we will be playing next year has to be a crucial part of any negotiation surely. Most of us feel strongly that we are good enough to stay up, but only a fool would risk further financial difficulty if we were wrong.
We weren't with relegation in the summer when the key contracts could have been sorted.
Also we could be in more financial difficulty if we have to let Wiggins and Morrison go on free transfers when they are out of contract in the summer.
Yeah, but "peninsular" is an adjective. The noun is "peninsula". How can you take the bloke seriously when he can't get that right?
That is true. I even changed it from "Peninsula" as I couldn't remember which was correct.
If you extend the contracts of your top players, then its more than likely they will be getting a pay rise. That means a higher wage expenditure for a whole season, when you could have been paying them a lower amount up until they signed the new contract (say, in March for example)
If there money is that tight, then risks have to be taken.
I agree but we have to accept that it is a risk that they walk away in May for no transfer fee and that in the meantime that they could be unsettled.
It also begs the question of why sign Solly and Cousins up to new deals rather than wait to March?
But as you say money is tight. It's not our money so people are quite right when they say it's up to TJ and MS what they spend. They have about £6m leeway under FFP rules if they wanted to spend more but it is up to them as to what level of investment or loans they make in the Club.
But that doesn't mean we as fans can't ask questions or, if we see it that way, be concerned with what we see.
Or be happy that the board are still in credit if that is your view. My question would be what do you see as the cons as well as the pros?
I would say that Solly has been signed up quicker because, as POTY two years running, he has the current ability and potential to play higher. i think Wiggins and Morrison are good players, but their level is probably mid-table Champ. They are more likely to not want to leave the club, being settled, and moving to a samilar sized club.
With Cousins, its probably being the hottest rated youngster in SE7.
Plus, if money is very tight, but you have a bit of budget remaining, spend it on increasing the contract of the fans favourite. That way is shows a bit of intent to the fans. A smart move if you are a board getting a bit of criticism.
Ive got absolutely no problem with people being concerned. As i said to SHG in a private message, i dont go anywhere near as much as two/three seasons ago, so my overall time spent dedicated to Charlton has decreased. Your earlier post had some excellent sources, things i werent aware of as a current 'casual' supporter.
In terms of what id put down as cons, it would probably be the treatment of some very hard working and loyal club employees that have lost their jobs in a pretty poor way.
Thanks, I still think that is only two players (one of whom is injured and the other very inexperienced). Agree that signing both is a good thing but some people (maybe not you) want it both ways. If we don't sign them it is a cunning plan but if Wiggins signs tomorrow than it is "well done the board, that shows all the moaners are wrong, everything is all right".
Just a question, but how can we talk new contracts/money, when we are flirting with relegation. The league in which we will be playing next year has to be a crucial part of any negotiation surely. Most of us feel strongly that we are good enough to stay up, but only a fool would risk further financial difficulty if we were wrong.
We weren't with relegation in the summer when the key contracts could have been sorted.
Also we could be in more financial difficulty if we have to let Wiggins and Morrison go on free transfers when they are out of contract in the summer.
Yeah, but "peninsular" is an adjective. The noun is "peninsula". How can you take the bloke seriously when he can't get that right?
That is true. I even changed it from "Peninsula" as I couldn't remember which was correct.
If you extend the contracts of your top players, then its more than likely they will be getting a pay rise. That means a higher wage expenditure for a whole season, when you could have been paying them a lower amount up until they signed the new contract (say, in March for example)
If there money is that tight, then risks have to be taken.
I agree but we have to accept that it is a risk that they walk away in May for no transfer fee and that in the meantime that they could be unsettled.
It also begs the question of why sign Solly and Cousins up to new deals rather than wait to March?
But as you say money is tight. It's not our money so people are quite right when they say it's up to TJ and MS what they spend. They have about £6m leeway under FFP rules if they wanted to spend more but it is up to them as to what level of investment or loans they make in the Club.
But that doesn't mean we as fans can't ask questions or, if we see it that way, be concerned with what we see.
Or be happy that the board are still in credit if that is your view. My question would be what do you see as the cons as well as the pros?
I would say that Solly has been signed up quicker because, as POTY two years running, he has the current ability and potential to play higher. i think Wiggins and Morrison are good players, but their level is probably mid-table Champ. They are more likely to not want to leave the club, being settled, and moving to a samilar sized club.
With Cousins, its probably being the hottest rated youngster in SE7.
Plus, if money is very tight, but you have a bit of budget remaining, spend it on increasing the contract of the fans favourite. That way is shows a bit of intent to the fans. A smart move if you are a board getting a bit of criticism.
Ive got absolutely no problem with people being concerned. As i said to SHG in a private message, i dont go anywhere near as much as two/three seasons ago, so my overall time spent dedicated to Charlton has decreased. Your earlier post had some excellent sources, things i werent aware of as a current 'casual' supporter.
In terms of what id put down as cons, it would probably be the treatment of some very hard working and loyal club employees that have lost their jobs in a pretty poor way.
Thanks, I still think that is only two players (one of whom is injured and the other very inexperienced). Agree that signing both is a good thing but some people (maybe not you) want it both ways. If we don't sign them it is a cunning plan but if Wiggins signs tomorrow than it is "well done the board, that shows all the moaners are wrong, everything is all right".
Thats fair enough, but on the other side of the fence i feel like the board cant win. If they dont get players/manager to sign a new contract then all is wrong, but when they do ''It should have been done in the summer, why the wait??''.
True but that is partly due their bizarre "let's never talk to anyone" policy.
Prothero has said he deals with transfers yet has written one article in the programme in 18 months and never done a Q & A or a press interview.
Meanwhile Powell is dropping heavier and heavier hints (source news shopper last week) about not signing players up to new contracts. Slater has disappeared and Jimenez never appeared ; - )
Bradshaw and Kensell are making attempts to talk to and listen to fans more but still the articles from the programme by senior managers don't appear on the website despite Bradshaw saying that he "hadn't thought of it" and would put them on the OS (source Steve Bradshaw at Bromley Addicks)
And the club know it is a problem as they have hired a communications consultant to improve on how they do it. (Source: The consultant himself). I'd rather they spent that money on the pitch but not my money.
Just one thing, juts because Bradshaw 'hadn't thought of it' doesn't mean the comms team haven't either. It could be policy not to repeat programme articles on the website. That's been the policy in more than one comms department that I have worked in that has some sort of written output and a news-driven website.
Actually two things. Are you sure the hiring of a comms consultant is because they know there is a problem rather than just covering for the fact that they have lost two senior comms people in as many months and need someone quickly who can fill the gap?
Just one thing, juts because Bradshaw 'hadn't thought of it' doesn't mean the comms team haven't either. It could be policy not to repeat programme articles on the website. That's been the policy in more than one comms department that I have worked in that has some sort of written output and a news-driven website.
Actually two things. Are you sure the hiring of a comms consultant is because they know there is a problem rather than just covering for the fact that they have lost two senior comms people in as many months and need someone quickly who can fill the gap?
That was what SB said. In the past some programme articles have appeared a few weeks later on the OS. That protects programme sales but also gives the shorthanded Comms team something to put up. It would also mean more people getting to read the articles.
The Consultant himself told me it was because they realised they have a problem and need to communicate better. That was why he was at the Bromley Addicks meeting and wanted to know about other groups, the fans forum etc. It didn't seem that he was there to fill the gaps left by Garry and Matt and now Lucy from what he said to me or the questions he asked but I'm happy to be corrected by him or SB if I got that wrong.
And that is why I am a bit wary of endorsing 100% an "analysis" that states as a bald fact that Cash pulled out definitively in March 2012. We should ask the questions, yes, but we should also make sure we have the answers before we go winding up the fan base without a clear reason, and most importantly without a plan for ensuring we get "better' owners in future.
That makes no sense whatsover.
Firstly you weren't asked to endorse it. You can agree/disagree as you wish but neither you or anyone else was asked to give it an endorsement. I'm happy that some people liked it and felt it was a good piece but I'm not standing for election or asking for it to be including in a manifesto.
Secondly, I'm not sure where I am "winding up" the fan base. I gave my opinion, my reasoning and gave sources where possible. Perhaps leading the fan base up a dead end over leaving the Valley and FOI requests as you did was a better example of "winding up" the fan base especially as it was clear from the outset that no such plan existed but was only a misleading benefit of purchasing CAFC set out in the sales brochure.
Thirdly, why can we not question this board without a plan for "better" owners. We have little control over either as it stands but I am at least asking what I think are the pertinent questions to be asked if and when we do get new owners. Would anyone be unhappy about either the current or next board giving full and honest answers to those questions.
Influencing who the next owners are is a totally different thing.
Dear oh dear.
The "we" I referred to in winding up the fan base was us, the Trust, whom you criticise for failing to provide a "critical analysis".
I wanted to join in the praise for a well written piece, but make it clear that I couldn't agree with all of it, since my well sourced information differs from yours on one crucial point.. A bit self -regarding of me to use the the verb 'endorse' on reflection, especially when addressing You.
I have since learnt that the Trust showed the first article to the Club and then changed it as a result
And that is why I am a bit wary of endorsing 100% an "analysis" that states as a bald fact that Cash pulled out definitively in March 2012. We should ask the questions, yes, but we should also make sure we have the answers before we go winding up the fan base without a clear reason, and most importantly without a plan for ensuring we get "better' owners in future.
That makes no sense whatsover.
Firstly you weren't asked to endorse it. You can agree/disagree as you wish but neither you or anyone else was asked to give it an endorsement. I'm happy that some people liked it and felt it was a good piece but I'm not standing for election or asking for it to be including in a manifesto.
Secondly, I'm not sure where I am "winding up" the fan base. I gave my opinion, my reasoning and gave sources where possible. Perhaps leading the fan base up a dead end over leaving the Valley and FOI requests as you did was a better example of "winding up" the fan base especially as it was clear from the outset that no such plan existed but was only a misleading benefit of purchasing CAFC set out in the sales brochure.
Thirdly, why can we not question this board without a plan for "better" owners. We have little control over either as it stands but I am at least asking what I think are the pertinent questions to be asked if and when we do get new owners. Would anyone be unhappy about either the current or next board giving full and honest answers to those questions.
Influencing who the next owners are is a totally different thing.
Dear oh dear.
The "we" I referred to in winding up the fan base was us, the Trust, whom you criticise for failing to provide a "critical analysis".
I wanted to join in the praise for a well written piece, but make it clear that I couldn't agree with all of it, since my well sourced information differs from yours on one crucial point.. A bit self -regarding of me to use the the verb 'endorse' on reflection, especially when addressing You.
I wish you'd made it clear you were talking on behalf of the Trust as you never mentioned them once and neither did I
You must be referring to another place where I've criticised the Trust for failing to provide a critical analysis. I did do that when the Trust produced a very bland article on David Joyes financial article in the Millwall programme. The trust promised a second article with more analysis of the accounts but that has still yet to appear.
I have since learnt that the Trust showed the first article to the Club and then changed it as a result (source A trust board member) which, IMHO, explains why it was so bland and disappointing. Maybe the 2nd article is still waiting for approval from Steve Bradshaw hence the delay.
The Trust is robust enough, and big enough to take on board any criticism. However the trust is not 'them', it is you and I in a more formal guise as supporters, the trust is 'us'. As I have said repeatedly, the trust for all of its apparent failings may well turn out to be the only game in town. The trust has had to walk a delicate tightrope between alienating fans if they're seen as 'anti-club', and alienating fans if they're seen as too 'pro club'. In my view, by trying so hard to incorporate the views of the wider fan base, and not only the 'active' fan base, the trust have walked a careful yet decent line so far. The trust for all or any of it's faults is an honest and earnest attempt, by honest and decent Charlton Athletic fans to try to preserve the club (at the Valley) for this and future generations. My personal involvement has ebbed and flowed, but I know the trust would welcome me, and others, to be more involved in it's activities. It is easy for some people (not Henry BTW) to snipe from the sidelines, but overall the trust have tried to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
I have no problem with giving the club a right to reply on certain articles (very different from allowing them to modify them) it is after all our club, and it is a way of getting them to exchange or confirm information they might not do otherwise, the article was subsequently altered in content and style but did include mention that FFP was not the reason for the investment level more the investment model which doesn't include equity it seems. Yes we do need to a follow up article, but are rather busy with ACV and other stuff, hence my request for contributors.
I do find it odd that you would not only show them the article but then change both its "content and style". I could understand making a factual change if you had made an error that they had pointed out but why the other content or the style? It certainly reads as if it was modified as a result of their comments. That isn't a right to reply, that's a right to editorial veto
Also the article said that "We believe that the level of spending on the squad may be determined by the club’s funding model, i.e., by way of loans only which restricts this to £3M this season, as per FFP."
So did you believe this because the Club said that? If so why not say so as that would have been the most interesting part of the article IMHO as it would indicate what their policy is. We know that David Joyes didn't even mention the option of investing £5m of equity in his article so it can't have come from there.
It certainly reads as if it was modified as a result of their comments. That isn't a right to reply, that's a right to editorial veto
Untypically loose use of language on your part, Henry. How is taking a decision to amend something in the light of comments received the same as offering the RIGHT to editorial veto ?
It certainly reads as if it was modified as a result of their comments. That isn't a right to reply, that's a right to editorial veto
Untypically loose use of language on your part, Henry. How is taking a decision to amend something in the light of comments received the same as offering the RIGHT to editorial veto ?
So explain the process and the exchange of emails that lead to you changing both the "content"and the "style"
Once you show the article to the Club and allow them to change the "content and style" they then have editorial control. You are no longer in control. A right to reply (Barnie's words) is allowing them to give a counter argument. Allowing them to change the content and style of your article is an editorial veto.
And to think I was attacked by Prague for daring to say merely that the article was "disappointing.
Comments
With Cousins, its probably being the hottest rated youngster in SE7.
Plus, if money is very tight, but you have a bit of budget remaining, spend it on increasing the contract of the fans favourite. That way is shows a bit of intent to the fans. A smart move if you are a board getting a bit of criticism.
Ive got absolutely no problem with people being concerned. As i said to SHG in a private message, i dont go anywhere near as much as two/three seasons ago, so my overall time spent dedicated to Charlton has decreased. Your earlier post had some excellent sources, things i werent aware of as a current 'casual' supporter.
In terms of what id put down as cons, it would probably be the treatment of some very hard working and loyal club employees that have lost their jobs in a pretty poor way.
Dear oh dear.
The "we" I referred to in winding up the fan base was us, the Trust, whom you criticise for failing to provide a "critical analysis".
I wanted to join in the praise for a well written piece, but make it clear that I couldn't agree with all of it, since my well sourced information differs from yours on one crucial point.. A bit self -regarding of me to use the the verb 'endorse' on reflection, especially when addressing You.
You must be referring to another place where I've criticised the Trust for failing to provide a critical analysis. I did do that when the Trust produced a very bland article on David Joyes financial article in the Millwall programme. The trust promised a second article with more analysis of the accounts but that has still yet to appear.
I have since learnt that the Trust showed the first article to the Club and then changed it as a result (source A trust board member) which, IMHO, explains why it was so bland and disappointing. Maybe the 2nd article is still waiting for approval from Steve Bradshaw hence the delay.
Thanks, I still think that is only two players (one of whom is injured and the other very inexperienced). Agree that signing both is a good thing but some people (maybe not you) want it both ways. If we don't sign them it is a cunning plan but if Wiggins signs tomorrow than it is "well done the board, that shows all the moaners are wrong, everything is all right".
Also when the chairman visited Bromley did you ask him these questions and what did he say?
Cheers
Prothero has said he deals with transfers yet has written one article in the programme in 18 months and never done a Q & A or a press interview.
Meanwhile Powell is dropping heavier and heavier hints (source news shopper last week) about not signing players up to new contracts. Slater has disappeared and Jimenez never appeared ; - )
Bradshaw and Kensell are making attempts to talk to and listen to fans more but still the articles from the programme by senior managers don't appear on the website despite Bradshaw saying that he "hadn't thought of it" and would put them on the OS (source Steve Bradshaw at Bromley Addicks)
And the club know it is a problem as they have hired a communications consultant to improve on how they do it. (Source: The consultant himself). I'd rather they spent that money on the pitch but not my money.
Actually two things. Are you sure the hiring of a comms consultant is because they know there is a problem rather than just covering for the fact that they have lost two senior comms people in as many months and need someone quickly who can fill the gap?
The Consultant himself told me it was because they realised they have a problem and need to communicate better. That was why he was at the Bromley Addicks meeting and wanted to know about other groups, the fans forum etc. It didn't seem that he was there to fill the gaps left by Garry and Matt and now Lucy from what he said to me or the questions he asked but I'm happy to be corrected by him or SB if I got that wrong.
Yes, I did try to ask those questions of Michael Slater and Steve Kavanagh when they came to Bromley about 8 months later.
If I could find the notes I could check what they said
The trust has had to walk a delicate tightrope between alienating fans if they're seen as 'anti-club', and alienating fans if they're seen as too 'pro club'.
In my view, by trying so hard to incorporate the views of the wider fan base, and not only the 'active' fan base, the trust have walked a careful yet decent line so far.
The trust for all or any of it's faults is an honest and earnest attempt, by honest and decent Charlton Athletic fans to try to preserve the club (at the Valley) for this and future generations.
My personal involvement has ebbed and flowed, but I know the trust would welcome me, and others, to be more involved in it's activities. It is easy for some people (not Henry BTW) to snipe from the sidelines, but overall the trust have tried to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.
I haven't seen his brief but maybe he'll be at the Fans Forum meeting so Fanny or SHG can ask him.
Also the article said that "We believe that the level of spending on the squad may be determined by the club’s funding model, i.e., by way of loans only which restricts this to £3M this season, as per FFP."
So did you believe this because the Club said that? If so why not say so as that would have been the most interesting part of the article IMHO as it would indicate what their policy is. We know that David Joyes didn't even mention the option of investing £5m of equity in his article so it can't have come from there.
Once you show the article to the Club and allow them to change the "content and style" they then have editorial control. You are no longer in control. A right to reply (Barnie's words) is allowing them to give a counter argument. Allowing them to change the content and style of your article is an editorial veto.
And to think I was attacked by Prague for daring to say merely that the article was "disappointing.