Still not finished it, but the latest Voice is a richly satisfying read, nicely balanced and diverse. Everyone should try to read Matt Wrights's spirited defense of Simon Church. But what really amuses me is Kevin Nolan's conspiracy theory article about the antics of Arry, and especially Uwe Rosler. He wrote it before yesterday results of course, and by now I fear that Kevin is on his way to Wigan to kill Rosler. Not that I have any wish to stop him from doing so...
0
Comments
Thank you Airman.
But nobody says VOTV is under some public service obligation to sit right in the middle on every issue, and Rick has never hidden his feelings (!).
How many times did you re-read VOTV to find that single sentance Prague? :-)
Hopefully the fantastic news about the investment in the playing surface that has cost us so much this season will be covered in VOTV 113.
Maybe it is presumptuous of me to suggest it, not being involved in VOTV but why don't you write an article for VOTV 113, putting whatever you consider to be the other side of the story? Get it off your chest...
Wyn's article can be described as 'lead' just because it's the first after the editorial - but I see where you're coming from.
It was then followed by articles from Rick, Matt, ABs Diary, Matt again, Kevin Nolan, Matt again, Dan Webster (probably the most 'balanced' article), Rick again, Rick again, another Rick advertising piece and the LG.
Pretty sure all but one of those are in the G21.
Sadly missing the letters page still - would be great to read from all those long standing fans leaving the club in droves.
No problems with the publication, have always bought it and always will. I like to hear what fellow (and respected) CAFC fans have to say.
Just don't pretend that it's balanced.
Well I meant balanced in a slightly different way to you, as I explained to Mundell above. But I think @redlanered captured it well with his Telegraph analogy. I actually think it is all the more enjoyable because most of the articles do not require anybody to be on one side or other of the tiresome fan politics.
Mainly, I am pleasantly surprised how relevant the revived Voice has turned out to be in the digital age.
I wasn't aware of the detail around the pitch on the Greenwich website until after we'd gone to print, but I would certainly have covered it in detail had I had it on Wednesday.
Completely agree that the Voice would be much better with its letters pages but my attempts to encourage letters to date have been unsuccessful. In fact the only ones I was sent that could have gone in this issue were copies of critical letters sent to the club about Crossbars and the recent VIP meeting, but I didn't think they said anything new.
I'm glad people liked the issue, but perhaps it isn't clear that I'm not generally in a position to pick and choose editorial. It's all done working flat out over a week to ensure it's as topical as it can be and it will never be perfect, but the people who read it seem to value it, which I appreciate.
But as I say in some detail, let's see what the summer brings. If we stay up there is a new opportunity for RD to impress.
Voice of the Valley is relevant to Charlton in the same way that the Daily Mail is relevant to a balanced debate about Europe! Great to read if you want to see some reactive anti Duchatelet propaganda or to understand the mindset of someone who only sees blame for past mistakes as a solution and fear of the future as a way to deal with supporting Charlton. But best come onto Charlton Life if one wants to see a more balanced dialogue.
As many people can tell I prefer to drink Leffe not bitter.
I can confirm that the magazine has a very enthusiastic and diverse audience, and long may that continue.
Glad to see you are taking a more pragmatic approach about the current situation and what seems like more positive vibes coming out of the Club - particularly with regard to infra structure expenditure.
If I'm wrong, come the Autumn, then I'll happily stand next to you behind the barricades!
It then emerged - as the stats set out by Matt Wright in the latest issue amply demonstrate - that the players RD had brought in, presumably to strengthen the squad, were hopelessly inadequate for that purpose. In other words they were nonsense signings. Events show that to have been the case.
Finally, we have the circumstances surrounding the sacking of Chris Powell, which were the trigger for the G21 - not the fact he was sacked, but what happened prior to the Sheffield United game and had been happening for weeks. The point of it being a group is and was to show that it is not one person's view, but as others involved know, because we have discussed it, I am by no means the person most critical or sceptical of RD.
Against those issues I would put the pitch investment and the signing of Wiggins, Fox and Dhillon. I also know Katrien Meire has made a positive impression at The Valley and it's clear that she and by extension RD have a much more inclusive idea of how to run a football club than their predecessors. I welcome all that and hope to see more of the same. I believe RD is an intelligent person and not a crook, which cannot be assumed in football.
I'm unable to give any weight to players we didn't sign or the Sparrows Lane development as it stands, because it involves no RD input and no RD money. However, it's obviously not a negative and may well become a big positive. But we should judge him on players he does sign, including some of our existing squad, and what he actually does. In the same way I am not much persuaded by what has appeared in the media.
Further, If we stay up some of the negatives will be wiped out, since the risk of relegation is a big consideration in how stupid the January transfer activity was.
I'm also aware that people are far more likely to come up to me and moan about RD than to tell me that they think he's wonderful, but I am not responsible for the views held by other contributors to the Voice, neither do I suppress opinions that are contrary to my own - unlike for example the club programme, which only allows one perspective and lacks credibility as a consequence. If any publication is unbalanced and therefore obviously has an agenda it's the Valley Review, but inevitably so.
In the end I publish a fanzine and in general it will take a critical standpoint. Those who see it as one-eyed, however, might take note that my article about the prospects for the summer is headlined "Daring to dream again", which is hardly a negative slant.
If RD brings success to Charlton - or even stabilises it as a half-decent Championship club - then he'll have my support. I'll bring the flag out again to show it, and I don't discount that happening. But I don't go in for mindless optimism either.