latest Voice, especially Kevin Nolan

Second this. Lots of great content and a good diversity of opinion.

ValleyTalkBlog said:

Second this. Lots of great content and a good diversity of opinion.

My copy must have been missing a few pages then.

The Red Robin said:

Excellent as usual and Dan Webster's article in particular sums up exactly how I feel at the moment.

Thank you Airman.

Yes, Dan Webster's article summed up my feelings too.

I can vouch for Kevin's "dislike" of all things Wigan after a conversation last night!

PragueAddick said:

Well the lead article is written by that well known left wing trouble maker, Professor Wyn Grant, and includes the muck raking, trouble stirring comment: "what I have never heard from those who think that the arrival of Roland Duchatelet is the start of a new gloomy ear for the club, is what their preferred alternative would have been" .

Phew.

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.

Addickted said:

I also understand the word 'Editorial'

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.

Print publications generally are under no obligation to be balanced, but to be credible I think you need to be willing to reflect both sides of an argument. I asked Wyn to write his piece because I wanted a view that was more pro-RD than any of the others. I then ran it ahead of pieces critical of RD. I didn't ask anyone to write pieces critical of him and if any other positive piece about him had come in I would have run that too. Neither Dan Webster nor the Gunman are involved with the G21 group.

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.

I stood with Airman for about half an hour yesterday, while he was selling VOTV, along with his loyal team of helpers.

I can confirm that the magazine has a very enthusiastic and diverse audience, and long may that continue.

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.

Surely it is up to you if you buy the voice or not. I thought this edition was balanced - but even if it wasn't - don't buy it if you don't want to. That is the only valid criticism - if it is a bitter poor publication, it won't sell.