Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
I don't agree with the government, I can voice my disapproval of it, but I don't feel it necessary to set up my own party. Lovely thing, democracy. As is free speech, which works both ways. Which is nice.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
Just to make sure we are actually talking the same language, can you clarify what you mean by an agenda please? As far as I can see, the bits I've highlighted in bold aren't mutually exclusive and are actually supported by your follow up comments - his position is that the signings have been rubbish, but he doesn't have an alternative set of actions that he wants the club to follow (ie an agenda). You can't have it both ways.
Dismissing legitimate concerns about recent decisions as "reactive anti Duchatelet propaganda", and describing pointing out possible risks of his strategy as "fear of the future" is just as unbalanced as you are accusing VOTV of being. Supporting the club isn't the same as being uncritical of the owner and senior staff. If I was American, I'd be tempted to suggest that your prefered beverage is actually Kool-Aid.
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
So we can't critique a publication then?
There's hardly been a damning condemnation of the latest edition, indeed I feel that the questions raised about 'balance' and the 'diversity' of the issue have been responded to well by the Editor - particularly with the comparisson of Valley Review, which I feel is a justified response.
I do feel however, that the photograph in ABs diary, could have been 'cut' slightly to avoid inflamming sensitivities :-)
As always a thought provoking publication and unlike the programe I'm still reading it before I get off the bus.
One thing that did make me laugh was the claim that Mick Browne had 'helped to shape the careers of the likes of future England internationals Scott Parker and Paul Koncheskey'. Both players had made their first team appearances a full season before Mick Browne was appointed. In my opinion he was the poorest youth Manager/Director (whatever title the head of the youth set up has had) in the past 30 years in terms of player production and actual youth team results. This never stopped an influx of spin about how great the set up was throughout his time from the club in all its publications. Looks like the spin continues years on!
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
Been there done that!
Over c. 18 months I spent a little bit of time helping to launch a supporters Trust with a publication and website with over 1,000 members, 1,700 subscribers and 5,000 fan contacts which regularly ask fans what they think rather than telling them what to think. During my time on the Trust Board we regularly forecasted the finances of the club - not pro nor anti RD - just there to describe the facts and the apparent strategy - publish rational analysis rather than rhetoric. And ask questions...About the pitch, about the cup, about the new season ticket pricing proposals.
Early research showed that fans wanted a new kind of organisation which would build a relationship with the club. Hard work and remaining true to that philosophy saw the early membership of 200 and 1,000 fan contacts multiply by a factor of five between March 2013 and March 2014.
Not once did I feel the need to trash a staff member nor a shareholder / board member. They were either right or wrong but were they actively trying to destroy value in our club? I think not.
I wonder what the things will look like in March 2015 - not for me as I have other things on my plate and am enjoying the football these days
So has anyone got an answer to Professor Grant's question?
I think there are two answers. Firstly, if the club hadn't been sold to RD it would in my view inevitably have been sold to someone else. That might have been better or worse - for example it may have involved an attempt to move to the peninsula or owners who were cowboys - but in my view it would have been sold.
The main obstacle to that was the price being asked against a realistic valuation, and I suspect even RD overpaid and probably didn't fully understand the mess the club was in (e.g. the pitch), but there were other parties interested and it made no sense to go into administration at least before cashing in the saleable assets, given that most of the debt was to (or at any rate via) the shareholders. They may eventually have run out of cash, I accept, but we'll never know now.
However, the second answer is that RD is an intelligent businessman and if what appears to be his initial strategy and intentions fail by his own measure then I assume he will change direction and look for another route that will succeed, or bow out himself. In the short term, he's either going to realise that he's made mistakes - at least in terms of the players brought in - or he's going to do more of the same and fail again, costing himself money in the process.
There is no objection to RD per se, at least as far as I'm concerned, so a perfectly reasonable alternative to his apparent current approach is a different approach by him. But it depends what his measure of success is and whether it is consistent with that of supporters. Some think it isn't. Personally I don't know yet.
As always a thought provoking publication and unlike the programe I'm still reading it before I get off the bus.
One thing that did make me laugh was the claim that Mick Browne had 'helped to shape the careers of the likes of future England internationals Scott Parker and Paul Koncheskey'. Both players had made their first team appearances a full season before Mick Browne was appointed. In my opinion he was the poorest youth Manager/Director (whatever title the head of the youth set up has had) in the past 30 years in terms of player production and actual youth team results. This never stopped an influx of spin about how great the set up was throughout his time from the club in all its publications. Looks like the spin continues years on!
Interesting point, although both players made their debut at 16 and were still very young in 1998. I don't know how far they were treated as senior pros in 1998/99. Matt didn't join the club until 2000 and was based in the Midlands before that, so he wouldn't really be in a position to know. I never had much to do with the academy, and in fairness some of the hype was around the new structure rather than personnel, but I have certainly heard similar opinions expressed about Mick Browne. On the other hand you wouldn't expect the club to criticise its own academy director and neither would Matt when Browne has just responded helpfully to a request for information.
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
It's like asking Rick, "if you don't like the new owners (or the last owners, or the owners before that) why don't you become a successful businessman and buy the club yourself?"
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
It's like asking Rick, "if you don't like the new owners (or the last owners, or the owners before that) why don't you become a successful businessman and buy the club yourself?"
Except that many people (hundreds if not thousands) could produce a fanzine if they wished and were prepared to put in the work, whereas only a handful if that could buy the club. And actually many do produce online equivalents via the various blogs. So actually not like that at all.
Of course nobody has noticed that Wyn DOES have some criticisms of RD, and these criticisms have a distinctly UKIP flavour to them. Which just goes to show that we do ourselves no favours by conducting every argument according to imagined tribal boundaries related to individuals and their supposed political world view.
Of course nobody has noticed that Wyn DOES have some criticisms of RD, and these criticisms have a distinctly UKIP flavour to them. Which just goes to show that we do ourselves no favours by conducting every argument according to imagined tribal boundaries related to individuals and their supposed political world view.
Or that Matt's article giving Browne's views on Riga is completely positive about the latter, whereas anyone with an "agenda" against RD or even the sacking of Powell might have been expected to suppress it.
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
It's like asking Rick, "if you don't like the new owners (or the last owners, or the owners before that) why don't you become a successful businessman and buy the club yourself?"
Except that many people (hundreds if not thousands) could produce a fanzine if they wished and were prepared to put in the work, whereas only a handful if that could buy the club. And actually many do produce online equivalents via the various blogs. So actually not like that at all.
So people can only criticize things that they themselves could not do? Utter nonsense.
I think we all know every future owner will receive the same treatment from you.
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
It's like asking Rick, "if you don't like the new owners (or the last owners, or the owners before that) why don't you become a successful businessman and buy the club yourself?"
Except that many people (hundreds if not thousands) could produce a fanzine if they wished and were prepared to put in the work, whereas only a handful if that could buy the club. And actually many do produce online equivalents via the various blogs. So actually not like that at all.
So people can only criticize things that they themselves could conceivably do? Utter nonsense.
That's not what I am saying at all - and if it was it would mean that no one could criticise the owners of the club, wouldn't it? Dicko's point, presumably, is that anyone can express an opinion so why complain if you don't agree with other people's. Nobody is stopping you from having your own say.
Plenty of scope to criticise VOTV and I read what's said with interest. However, I'm afraid I laugh at people whose views come prefaced with the comment that the person concerned hasn't read it and isn't willing to do so. All that really says is that they can't stand the fact that other people like it.
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 fail to see how the negatives are wiped out if we are lucky enough to stay up. Staying up looks more like by default of other clubs in the mire being extremely poor and nothing for RD to take credit from with regard to player comings & goings or change of manager.
His actions in January reflect more of a Maverick.
Some of the negative in my view is that his actions increased the risk of relegation. Clearly if we don't get relegated then the potential damage he would have caused won't have happened, so I think that does amount to some mitigation. I don't say that it makes his decisions sensible ones.
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
It's like asking Rick, "if you don't like the new owners (or the last owners, or the owners before that) why don't you become a successful businessman and buy the club yourself?"
Except that many people (hundreds if not thousands) could produce a fanzine if they wished and were prepared to put in the work, whereas only a handful if that could buy the club. And actually many do produce online equivalents via the various blogs. So actually not like that at all.
So people can only criticize things that they themselves could conceivably do? Utter nonsense.
That's not what I am saying at all - and if it was it would mean that no one could criticise the owners of the club, wouldn't it? Dicko's point, presumably, is that anyone can express an opinion so why complain if you don't agree with other people's. Nobody is stopping you from having your own say.
Plenty of scope to criticise VOTV and I read what's said with interest. However, I'm afraid I laugh at people whose views come prefaced with the comment that the person concerned hasn't read it and isn't willing to do so. All that really says is that they can't stand the fact that other people like it.
I think you will find I have never criticized votv
I was pointing out Steve's response to seriously reds post was irrelevant.
Very well written and informative. A good read. The editorial position is cleary critical of the Club. Not sure quite what "balance" means in that context.
I mean that there is a nice spread of topics, and it is less focused on current behind the scenes issues, particularly those which Airman was close to, than past editions. Of course there is Airman Brown's Diary, there always has been. It is a fanzine after all, with a mission and permission to entertain in a certain way.
OK In which case I agree. The mix of articles works well. And I wasn't bring critical. The Editor has a clear position and doesn't pretend otherwise and that's fair enough.
@Addickted 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.
That clears a lot up for me... the editor has a clear position but last week he claimed he doesn't have an agenda! At least that was his claim as I played back one of his anti-Duchatelet rants about ragbags of rubbish. Great alliteration I'm sure but never an alternative way forwards nor a rational analysis of how CAFC might develop and compete going forwards. 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.
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
It's like asking Rick, "if you don't like the new owners (or the last owners, or the owners before that) why don't you become a successful businessman and buy the club yourself?"
Except that many people (hundreds if not thousands) could produce a fanzine if they wished and were prepared to put in the work, whereas only a handful if that could buy the club. And actually many do produce online equivalents via the various blogs. So actually not like that at all.
So people can only criticize things that they themselves could conceivably do? Utter nonsense.
That's not what I am saying at all - and if it was it would mean that no one could criticise the owners of the club, wouldn't it? Dicko's point, presumably, is that anyone can express an opinion so why complain if you don't agree with other people's. Nobody is stopping you from having your own say.
Plenty of scope to criticise VOTV and I read what's said with interest. However, I'm afraid I laugh at people whose views come prefaced with the comment that the person concerned hasn't read it and isn't willing to do so. All that really says is that they can't stand the fact that other people like it.
I think you will find I have never criticized votv
I was pointing out Steve's response to seriously reds post was irrelevant.
I accept that you haven't, although I disagree with the point you are making. That comment wasn't directed at you.
I thought it was balanced with a chip on both shoulders.Only kidding,it was good as usual. I always enjoy reading Kevin Nolan. Ben Kensell ( formerly Arsenal Football Club) got a bit of a kicking.
Ben Kensell (formerly Arsenal Football Club) absolutely deserved a bit of a kicking for his crass stupidity in alienating hundreds, if not thousands, of long term season ticket holders with his ridiculous Crossbar idea.
A fanzine not picking up on such an issue would not be worthy of the name.
One hopes that the shiny suited, spiv Asset Sweater learns from his mistakes and remembers that, in contrast to The Emirates, there are not thousands clamouring to buy tickets to watch Charlton play so existing 'customers' (his word) should be wooed and encouraged rather than alienated.
I thought it was balanced with a chip on both shoulders.Only kidding,it was good as usual. I always enjoy reading Kevin Nolan. Ben Kensell ( formerly Arsenal Football Club) got a bit of a kicking.
Ben Kensell (formerly Arsenal Football Club) absolutely deserved a bit of a kicking for his crass stupidity in alienating hundreds, if not thousands, of long term season ticket holders with his ridiculous Crossbar idea.
A fanzine not picking up on such an issue would not be worthy of the name.
One hopes that the shiny suited, spiv Asset Sweater learns from his mistakes and remembers that, in contrast to The Emirates, there are not thousands clamouring to buy tickets to watch Charlton play so existing 'customers' (his word) should be wooed and encouraged rather than alienated.
I thought it was balanced with a chip on both shoulders.Only kidding,it was good as usual. I always enjoy reading Kevin Nolan. Ben Kensell ( formerly Arsenal Football Club) got a bit of a kicking.
Ben Kensell (formerly Arsenal Football Club) absolutely deserved a bit of a kicking for his crass stupidity in alienating hundreds, if not thousands, of long term season ticket holders with his ridiculous Crossbar idea.
A fanzine not picking up on such an issue would not be worthy of the name.
One hopes that the shiny suited, spiv Asset Sweater learns from his mistakes and remembers that, in contrast to The Emirates, there are not thousands clamouring to buy tickets to watch Charlton play so existing 'customers' (his word) should be wooed and encouraged rather than alienated.
"Shiny suited spiv Asset Sweater"
Really ?
The Asset Sweater bit is his own description not mine
As far as my own position is concerned, the reason I take issue with the claim that I have an "agenda" around RD is that it isn't true. In fact, I bought a Belgian flag and took it to Wigan, which was done to provide an upbeat welcome to him on the cover of VOTV110. Before the picture was taken he then sold Kermorgant, which I regarded and still regard as a foolish decision. This meant the Voice had to take a more nuanced line, but the flag is still there on the front page and it is the only one I have seen to date at a Charlton match.
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.
Without wishing to embarrass you with praise, Airman, as a trained journalist myself I can say that you are an excellent writer and that VOTV is always brimming with interest and entertainment. I remember you and Steve Dixon on the terraces home and away 25 years ago; your vociferous campaigning and faithful reporting were a vital part of the movement enabling our return to The Valley. All power to your elbow, and long live the Voice!
Comments
If VOTV is so bad, why not launch a fanzine with a more pro-RD perspective? You're obviously of that view and so are many others from what I see on here.
Dismissing legitimate concerns about recent decisions as "reactive anti Duchatelet propaganda", and describing pointing out possible risks of his strategy as "fear of the future" is just as unbalanced as you are accusing VOTV of being. Supporting the club isn't the same as being uncritical of the owner and senior staff. If I was American, I'd be tempted to suggest that your prefered beverage is actually Kool-Aid.
There's hardly been a damning condemnation of the latest edition, indeed I feel that the questions raised about 'balance' and the 'diversity' of the issue have been responded to well by the Editor - particularly with the comparisson of Valley Review, which I feel is a justified response.
I do feel however, that the photograph in ABs diary, could have been 'cut' slightly to avoid inflamming sensitivities :-)
One thing that did make me laugh was the claim that Mick Browne had 'helped to shape the careers of the likes of future England internationals Scott Parker and Paul Koncheskey'. Both players had made their first team appearances a full season before Mick Browne was appointed. In my opinion he was the poorest youth Manager/Director (whatever title the head of the youth set up has had) in the past 30 years in terms of player production and actual youth team results. This never stopped an influx of spin about how great the set up was throughout his time from the club in all its publications. Looks like the spin continues years on!
Over c. 18 months I spent a little bit of time helping to launch a supporters Trust with a publication and website with over 1,000 members, 1,700 subscribers and 5,000 fan contacts which regularly ask fans what they think rather than telling them what to think. During my time on the Trust Board we regularly forecasted the finances of the club - not pro nor anti RD - just there to describe the facts and the apparent strategy - publish rational analysis rather than rhetoric. And ask questions...About the pitch, about the cup, about the new season ticket pricing proposals.
Early research showed that fans wanted a new kind of organisation which would build a relationship with the club. Hard work and remaining true to that philosophy saw the early membership of 200 and 1,000 fan contacts multiply by a factor of five between March 2013 and March 2014.
Not once did I feel the need to trash a staff member nor a shareholder / board member. They were either right or wrong but were they actively trying to destroy value in our club? I think not.
I wonder what the things will look like in March 2015 - not for me as I have other things on my plate and am enjoying the football these days
I think there are two answers. Firstly, if the club hadn't been sold to RD it would in my view inevitably have been sold to someone else. That might have been better or worse - for example it may have involved an attempt to move to the peninsula or owners who were cowboys - but in my view it would have been sold.
The main obstacle to that was the price being asked against a realistic valuation, and I suspect even RD overpaid and probably didn't fully understand the mess the club was in (e.g. the pitch), but there were other parties interested and it made no sense to go into administration at least before cashing in the saleable assets, given that most of the debt was to (or at any rate via) the shareholders. They may eventually have run out of cash, I accept, but we'll never know now.
However, the second answer is that RD is an intelligent businessman and if what appears to be his initial strategy and intentions fail by his own measure then I assume he will change direction and look for another route that will succeed, or bow out himself. In the short term, he's either going to realise that he's made mistakes - at least in terms of the players brought in - or he's going to do more of the same and fail again, costing himself money in the process.
There is no objection to RD per se, at least as far as I'm concerned, so a perfectly reasonable alternative to his apparent current approach is a different approach by him. But it depends what his measure of success is and whether it is consistent with that of supporters. Some think it isn't. Personally I don't know yet.
Utter nonsense.
I think we all know every future owner will receive the same treatment from you.
Plenty of scope to criticise VOTV and I read what's said with interest. However, I'm afraid I laugh at people whose views come prefaced with the comment that the person concerned hasn't read it and isn't willing to do so. All that really says is that they can't stand the fact that other people like it.
His actions in January reflect more of a Maverick.
I was pointing out Steve's response to seriously reds post was irrelevant.
A fanzine not picking up on such an issue would not be worthy of the name.
One hopes that the shiny suited, spiv Asset Sweater learns from his mistakes and remembers that, in contrast to The Emirates, there are not thousands clamouring to buy tickets to watch Charlton play so existing 'customers' (his word) should be wooed and encouraged rather than alienated.
Really ?
arethink.It must be hard being quite so negative all the time.