Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

South London Press is no more - but Richard Cawley has a Charlton Substack (p3)

135678

Comments

  • InspectorSands
    InspectorSands Posts: 5,188
    Leroy Ambrose said:
    Oh_Yoni_Boy said:
    That's a shame, considering there are so many local papers out there (mainly online) spewing out crappy paint-by-numbers articles and clickbait - SLP had some brilliant, knowledgeable contributors and regularly put out insightful pieces on Charlton. They'll be missed.
    Surprised Retch Media didn't hoover rhe SLP up. That's what they've done with almost every other local paper, and turned them from valuable sources of local information and journalism - often holding local politicians and councils to account - into clickbait rags aimed at serving adverts by fostering rage. 
    Retch (when it was known as Trinity Mirror) actually used to own the SLP, but sold it about 12-15 years ago to a group called Tindle, who started running it down and didn't invest online - it was run by a self-styled saviour of local newspapers whose mindset hadn't shifted since the 1950s. 

    Tindle then sold out to the SLP's management, who lasted less than a year before it was bought (out of administration) by a leaflet delivery company called Street Runners, who kept it going until the end of last week.
  • fenlandaddick
    fenlandaddick Posts: 1,770
    edited May 27
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 

    They try, but are very limited and have tunnel vision. Here is a cherry picked example


    No mentioned of JJ triumph or ours in an article that certainly sums us up in the headline, but they tell us about Bologna, Stuttgart, the Go Ahead Eagles. Glad to see the Dungannon Swifts got a mention from NI, but really poor.

    I'm buzzing for those German, Dutch and Italian teams they made my weekend.

  • Oggy Red
    Oggy Red Posts: 44,957
    DOUCHER said:
    Sad when any business goes and anybody loses their job but was always a millwall paper to me -the mercury was Charlton 
    Yeah, agree.... Back in the day, we called it the South Lions Press. 

    The Charlton coverage was by the Kentish Independent, and after that closed, the Mercury took up the baton.

    I'll miss the online SLP.
     Rich Cawley did a good job giving us decent coverage - always a good read of the Charlton articles and interviews

    Rip the SLP. End of an era. 
    Best wishes to Rich and Louis Mendez - and let's hope we can get similar decent Charlton coverage from elsewhere.


  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,742
    edited May 28
    InspectorSands said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    The trouble is that the local news giants would scream and scream if the BBC did that, claiming unfair competition. 

    felix_31 said:
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 
    They don't do anywhere near enough for me.   The constant Wrexham content last year did my head in - there'd be 5/6 articles after a Wrexham win then 3 short paragraphs for us (might as well be AI generated) with a stock photo used as the cover image.  The Wrexham Charlton BBC live match thread was a disgrace too, for an outlet that is surely supposed to be neutral.  210,000 fans attending the Play-Off weekend is testament to the popularity of football outside of the Prem. it's about time is this is properly reflected in the coverage. 

    Surely the BBC - funded by licence payers from all over the country - therefore not reliant on advertisement revenue or subscriptions (so have no commercial need to focus on Wrexham and the international 'circus') are the perfect outfit to do this.  

    I've been so reliant on the SLP for Charlton content in recent years, so will miss them greatly - although I'm sure Rich will get a role related to Charlton in some form.  It's been great to have non-supporting passionate journalists cover us over the years (Benjy Nurick (?) an example) as they provide a slightly different perspective. 

    Whilst we're on the topic of media - shout out to Charlton Live, best podcast going 
    Wrexham, irritatingly, is covered by BBC Wales who are much better resourced than BBC London (or any of the other English regions) and are a law unto themselves. 
    Exactly this. Charlton are never going to get the same kind of extensive coverage from BBC London. The club also allowed the hard won coverage in the BBC South East region - which made us the only London club covered in Kent, Sussex and Surrey - lapse without a fight a few years ago, as if it didn’t matter.

    It was a bit anomalous from the BBC’s point of view but no more so than Brighton and Crawley coverage is to viewers in East Kent. So from live commentary on Radio Kent, coverage in KM titles across the county, Kent on Sunday and regular prompts about the club on the local evening news, there is now nothing that reaches people who are not fans and looking for it. 

    The club doesn’t even advertise its own coach service from Kent to people who aren’t already at the games.
  • Isawlearyplay
    Isawlearyplay Posts: 273
    Awful news
  • Isawlearyplay
    Isawlearyplay Posts: 273
    Should have said - awful news about the closeure 
  • gmantaxi
    gmantaxi Posts: 335
    Sad news , was brought up on the SLP & Mercury , good ol days when it was practically the only way to find out we had signed someone.
  • felix_31
    felix_31 Posts: 292
    fenlandaddick said:
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 

    They try, but are very limited and have tunnel vision. Here is a cherry picked example


    No mentioned of JJ triumph or ours in an article that certainly sums us up in the headline, but they tell us about Bologna, Stuttgart, the Go Ahead Eagles. Glad to see the Dungannon Swifts got a mention from NI, but really poor.

    I'm buzzing for those German, Dutch and Italian teams they made my weekend.

    This is shocking, and sums up exactly what we're talking about - great example 
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,576
    whenever I read the non sports pages of SLP I felt i lived in a war zone, very depressing.  It has been a part of the fabric of South London, but things do move on and local press  has been under pressure for decades.  When I was in marketing, we always started at doing local press campaigns till we saw the advertising rates local press was charging.

    What saddens me the most is people that are part of our Charlton family will be affected Richard and Louis and although I am not sure if both are employees or contractors I hope that they can find a quick replacement to this income stream.

    I wonder if they both had advance notice or it has just been announced at same time as we have all heard.  Either way after the euphoria of Saturday, a real smack in the teeth for Louis.  Wishing them both the best.
  • West2003
    West2003 Posts: 386
    edited May 28
    fenlandaddick said:
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 

    They try, but are very limited and have tunnel vision. Here is a cherry picked example


    No mentioned of JJ triumph or ours in an article that certainly sums us up in the headline, but they tell us about Bologna, Stuttgart, the Go Ahead Eagles. Glad to see the Dungannon Swifts got a mention from NI, but really poor.

    I'm buzzing for those German, Dutch and Italian teams they made my weekend.
    I’m sorry but this is a poor example. It’s a simple article for a general audience about underdog stories across the football season just gone by. I really don’t think we or AFC Wimbledon were underdogs in our respective play-off finals nor in our league campaigns so it would’ve just been shoehorning us in without actually fitting the theme of the article. The only other actual underdog story from the EFL from this season that I can think of is Peterborough United beating Birmingham City in the EFL Trophy final.
  • Sponsored links:



  • Airman Brown
    Airman Brown Posts: 15,742
    edited May 28
    Kap10 said:
    whenever I read the non sports pages of SLP I felt i lived in a war zone, very depressing.  It has been a part of the fabric of South London, but things do move on and local press  has been under pressure for decades.  When I was in marketing, we always started at doing local press campaigns till we saw the advertising rates local press was charging.

    What saddens me the most is people that are part of our Charlton family will be affected Richard and Louis and although I am not sure if both are employees or contractors I hope that they can find a quick replacement to this income stream.

    I wonder if they both had advance notice or it has just been announced at same time as we have all heard.  Either way after the euphoria of Saturday, a real smack in the teeth for Louis.  Wishing them both the best.
    Just to be clear, Rich worked full time for the SLP, Louis didn’t, any more than Kevin Nolan or Tom Morris were employed by the Mercury in the past. It doesn’t invalidate your point at all, but I think some people on here do confuse freelancing and contributing to media with employment.
  • L0rd_M0ntagu3
    L0rd_M0ntagu3 Posts: 329
    Now we’re gonna have to rely on FLW and nonsense from fans pretending to be pundits and journalists 
  • ateamofcorygibbs
    ateamofcorygibbs Posts: 1,193
    ElliotCAFC said:
    Awful news
    Bit harsh, they were doing their best!
  • Isawlearyplay
    Isawlearyplay Posts: 273
    Return of the Voice ?
  • SteveACS
    SteveACS Posts: 376
    But...but...but, what about deadline day!
  • Chunes
    Chunes Posts: 17,349
    edited May 28
    Who needs local press when you've got local Facebook groups filled with nutters telling you they saw a gang of kidnappers driving around in a Volvo...

    In all seriousness, it will feel like there's a big hole in Charlton coverage if Cawley can no longer cover us. 
  • fenlandaddick
    fenlandaddick Posts: 1,770
    edited May 28
    West2003 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 

    They try, but are very limited and have tunnel vision. Here is a cherry picked example


    No mentioned of JJ triumph or ours in an article that certainly sums us up in the headline, but they tell us about Bologna, Stuttgart, the Go Ahead Eagles. Glad to see the Dungannon Swifts got a mention from NI, but really poor.

    I'm buzzing for those German, Dutch and Italian teams they made my weekend.
    I’m sorry but this is a poor example. It’s a simple article for a general audience about underdog stories across the football season just gone by. I really don’t think we or AFC Wimbledon were underdogs in our respective play-off finals nor in our league campaigns so it would’ve just been shoehorning us in without actually fitting the theme of the article. The only other actual underdog story from the EFL from this season that I can think of is Peterborough United beating Birmingham City in the EFL Trophy final.
    Nope it is a very good example.

    The article is called 'The season of the underdog - and the underachiever'

    I would suggest Charlton was the underachiever, and no disrespect to AFC Wimbledon but they were IMO underdogs. 🤔


  • redlanered
    redlanered Posts: 2,196
    We're all collectively responsible I reckon (i certainly am) - I've barely spent a penny on SLP content over the years (but would happily read it when I could). 

    They could have pushed harder to put some exclusive/premium content behind a paywall, which is happening with football coverage in local papers in other towns/cities.  Maybe that's what Rich will try on his own?
  • Sponsored links:



  • West2003
    West2003 Posts: 386
    fenlandaddick said:
    West2003 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 

    They try, but are very limited and have tunnel vision. Here is a cherry picked example


    No mentioned of JJ triumph or ours in an article that certainly sums us up in the headline, but they tell us about Bologna, Stuttgart, the Go Ahead Eagles. Glad to see the Dungannon Swifts got a mention from NI, but really poor.

    I'm buzzing for those German, Dutch and Italian teams they made my weekend.
    I’m sorry but this is a poor example. It’s a simple article for a general audience about underdog stories across the football season just gone by. I really don’t think we or AFC Wimbledon were underdogs in our respective play-off finals nor in our league campaigns so it would’ve just been shoehorning us in without actually fitting the theme of the article. The only other actual underdog story from the EFL from this season that I can think of is Peterborough United beating Birmingham City in the EFL Trophy final.
    Nope it is a very good example.

    The article is called 'The season of the underdog - and the underachiever'

    I would suggest Charlton was the underachiever, and no disrespect to AFC Wimbledon but they were IMO underdogs. 🤔


    Agree to disagree
  • InspectorSands
    InspectorSands Posts: 5,188
    redlanered said:
    We're all collectively responsible I reckon (i certainly am) - I've barely spent a penny on SLP content over the years (but would happily read it when I could). 

    They could have pushed harder to put some exclusive/premium content behind a paywall, which is happening with football coverage in local papers in other towns/cities.  Maybe that's what Rich will try on his own?

    I think you're right in principle, but in practice...

    Unless you lived in its core patch - Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth - why would you have paid for it in the past ten years? They were giving the thing away in dump bins for years, and sticking its content online for all to read, free of charge (albeit smeared in ads and, towards the end, with a crappy Bet365 pop-under ad). For the past five years they were appealing to readers to send them money, but there was never any transparency about where it was going and how it was being spent.

    Apart from a few (usually very good) bits of original reporting, the news side of it was stretched beyond belief, packing in press releases and other free copy from 15 different boroughs - rather than the core four the paper covered for years - because they were trying chase council advertising. (Which was why they started covering Chelsea and QPR - because they were getting ad money from TfL whenever it needed to announce the Hammersmith flyover was closed.)

    Why on earth would you pay a pound or so for a newspaper containing a few original stories about places you don't care about, and maybe one or two crappy press releases from your local council? The model was completely broken. The business was a mess, bailed out by councils having no choice to place advertising there because the government insists that local authorities must advertise in print. A competitor was launched a year or so ago by the publisher of Southwark News - South London Weekly - directly aiming for those council ads, and that may be what did for the SLP the end.

    Now the council advertising cash cow has gone...

    Are there enough people who would be willing to pay a fiver/tenner a month to replicate the SLP's football coverage - just Charlton, or for all the clubs - in a Substack or something similar? Because ultimately, the solution is going to have to have to involve people putting their hands in their pockets. If anyone could do it, Rich Cawley probably could, as he's got such trust and name recognition, but it's a big old gamble in a very precarious industry  - and I speak from experience. 
  • valleynick66
    valleynick66 Posts: 4,891
    InspectorSands said:
    redlanered said:
    We're all collectively responsible I reckon (i certainly am) - I've barely spent a penny on SLP content over the years (but would happily read it when I could). 

    They could have pushed harder to put some exclusive/premium content behind a paywall, which is happening with football coverage in local papers in other towns/cities.  Maybe that's what Rich will try on his own?

    I think you're right in principle, but in practice...

    Unless you lived in its core patch - Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth - why would you have paid for it in the past ten years? They were giving the thing away in dump bins for years, and sticking its content online for all to read, free of charge (albeit smeared in ads and, towards the end, with a crappy Bet365 pop-under ad). For the past five years they were appealing to readers to send them money, but there was never any transparency about where it was going and how it was being spent.

    Apart from a few (usually very good) bits of original reporting, the news side of it was stretched beyond belief, packing in press releases and other free copy from 15 different boroughs - rather than the core four the paper covered for years - because they were trying chase council advertising. (Which was why they started covering Chelsea and QPR - because they were getting ad money from TfL whenever it needed to announce the Hammersmith flyover was closed.)

    Why on earth would you pay a pound or so for a newspaper containing a few original stories about places you don't care about, and maybe one or two crappy press releases from your local council? The model was completely broken. The business was a mess, bailed out by councils having no choice to place advertising there because the government insists that local authorities must advertise in print. A competitor was launched a year or so ago by the publisher of Southwark News - South London Weekly - directly aiming for those council ads, and that may be what did for the SLP the end.

    Now the council advertising cash cow has gone...

    Are there enough people who would be willing to pay a fiver/tenner a month to replicate the SLP's football coverage - just Charlton, or for all the clubs - in a Substack or something similar? Because ultimately, the solution is going to have to have to involve people putting their hands in their pockets. If anyone could do it, Rich Cawley probably could, as he's got such trust and name recognition, but it's a big old gamble in a very precarious industry  - and I speak from experience. 
    No. 
  • redlanered
    redlanered Posts: 2,196
    InspectorSands said:
    redlanered said:
    We're all collectively responsible I reckon (i certainly am) - I've barely spent a penny on SLP content over the years (but would happily read it when I could). 

    They could have pushed harder to put some exclusive/premium content behind a paywall, which is happening with football coverage in local papers in other towns/cities.  Maybe that's what Rich will try on his own?

    I think you're right in principle, but in practice...

    Unless you lived in its core patch - Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth - why would you have paid for it in the past ten years? They were giving the thing away in dump bins for years, and sticking its content online for all to read, free of charge (albeit smeared in ads and, towards the end, with a crappy Bet365 pop-under ad). For the past five years they were appealing to readers to send them money, but there was never any transparency about where it was going and how it was being spent.

    Apart from a few (usually very good) bits of original reporting, the news side of it was stretched beyond belief, packing in press releases and other free copy from 15 different boroughs - rather than the core four the paper covered for years - because they were trying chase council advertising. (Which was why they started covering Chelsea and QPR - because they were getting ad money from TfL whenever it needed to announce the Hammersmith flyover was closed.)

    Why on earth would you pay a pound or so for a newspaper containing a few original stories about places you don't care about, and maybe one or two crappy press releases from your local council? The model was completely broken. The business was a mess, bailed out by councils having no choice to place advertising there because the government insists that local authorities must advertise in print. A competitor was launched a year or so ago by the publisher of Southwark News - South London Weekly - directly aiming for those council ads, and that may be what did for the SLP the end.

    Now the council advertising cash cow has gone...

    Are there enough people who would be willing to pay a fiver/tenner a month to replicate the SLP's football coverage - just Charlton, or for all the clubs - in a Substack or something similar? Because ultimately, the solution is going to have to have to involve people putting their hands in their pockets. If anyone could do it, Rich Cawley probably could, as he's got such trust and name recognition, but it's a big old gamble in a very precarious industry  - and I speak from experience. 
    You're spot on with this... but we can't bemoan the lack of proper local reporting (on football or anything) without dipping our hands in our pockets.  The difficulty, though,  is convincing people that it's worth paying to get extra news/analysis/features beyond what you can get for free elsewhere (inc. here of course)
  • gringo
    gringo Posts: 587
    Simpler to put Louis or Rich on the payroll.
  • InspectorSands
    InspectorSands Posts: 5,188
    redlanered said:
    InspectorSands said:
    redlanered said:
    We're all collectively responsible I reckon (i certainly am) - I've barely spent a penny on SLP content over the years (but would happily read it when I could). 

    They could have pushed harder to put some exclusive/premium content behind a paywall, which is happening with football coverage in local papers in other towns/cities.  Maybe that's what Rich will try on his own?

    I think you're right in principle, but in practice...

    Unless you lived in its core patch - Lewisham, Southwark, Lambeth, Wandsworth - why would you have paid for it in the past ten years? They were giving the thing away in dump bins for years, and sticking its content online for all to read, free of charge (albeit smeared in ads and, towards the end, with a crappy Bet365 pop-under ad). For the past five years they were appealing to readers to send them money, but there was never any transparency about where it was going and how it was being spent.

    Apart from a few (usually very good) bits of original reporting, the news side of it was stretched beyond belief, packing in press releases and other free copy from 15 different boroughs - rather than the core four the paper covered for years - because they were trying chase council advertising. (Which was why they started covering Chelsea and QPR - because they were getting ad money from TfL whenever it needed to announce the Hammersmith flyover was closed.)

    Why on earth would you pay a pound or so for a newspaper containing a few original stories about places you don't care about, and maybe one or two crappy press releases from your local council? The model was completely broken. The business was a mess, bailed out by councils having no choice to place advertising there because the government insists that local authorities must advertise in print. A competitor was launched a year or so ago by the publisher of Southwark News - South London Weekly - directly aiming for those council ads, and that may be what did for the SLP the end.

    Now the council advertising cash cow has gone...

    Are there enough people who would be willing to pay a fiver/tenner a month to replicate the SLP's football coverage - just Charlton, or for all the clubs - in a Substack or something similar? Because ultimately, the solution is going to have to have to involve people putting their hands in their pockets. If anyone could do it, Rich Cawley probably could, as he's got such trust and name recognition, but it's a big old gamble in a very precarious industry  - and I speak from experience. 
    You're spot on with this... but we can't bemoan the lack of proper local reporting (on football or anything) without dipping our hands in our pockets.  The difficulty, though,  is convincing people that it's worth paying to get extra news/analysis/features beyond what you can get for free elsewhere (inc. here of course)
    Yes, that's the perennial problem for news - particularly locally. But in many cases that's broken down now, because some of the core elements of local news - councils, courts - don't get reported on in many areas (beyond perhaps extraordinarily-motivated individuals, sometimes posing as journalists, keen to expound a certain point of view). Bexley is the one example I always give - there is no dedicated outlet for Bexley and no individual keeping a specific eye on what that specific council is doing. The same applies in Bromley, which is crazy as it's such a big borough. 

    (Cards on the table - I run greenwichwire.co.uk part-time, I ask for donations and get a part-time wage out of it, but that's all and I have to do other work alongside it. And I really should be writing up a council meeting rather than procrastinating here.)

    We may have reached that point for reporting of Charlton - and it'd be far worse if we hadn't been promoted on Sunday. Who's going to attend the pre-match press conference? Who's going to be picking up stories during the week? Who's going to raise the alarm if it all goes horribly wrong again? Who's going to be holding the owners to account? The SLP was the last one standing - what it did was followed/copied by others - and it's gone.

     Without paying for someone to do that (not least because as I understand it - others may know more - EFL media access is only for paid reporters), that's gone forever.
  • Blucher
    Blucher Posts: 4,136
    felix_31 said:
    West2003 said:
    felix_31 said:
    fenlandaddick said:
    Think this is where the BBC should be providing more. They also stick to the Prem and European games at same level mainly. Have to dig deep for a few lines of any other football. There is one exception, and they have also been promoted.
    I've always thought the BBC should focus more on the EFL (and the stories and people within it) than try to compete with Sky Sports and the others for coverage of the Prem.  So many big teams (with big fan bases) are underreported below the Prem, especially in League One and Two.  Is Liverpool beating Bournemouth (again) really that interesting?  
    BBC Sport online does do a lot of EFL coverage, it just does a poor job of promoting it. For example, how many of you knew that each Championship club has a dedicated rolling page - similar to the Premier League ones - on the website? We’ll get one next season. 
    They don't do anywhere near enough for me.   The constant Wrexham content last year did my head in - there'd be 5/6 articles after a Wrexham win then 3 short paragraphs for us (might as well be AI generated) with a stock photo used as the cover image.  The Wrexham Charlton BBC live match thread was a disgrace too, for an outlet that is surely supposed to be neutral.  210,000 fans attending the Play-Off weekend is testament to the popularity of football outside of the Prem. it's about time is this is properly reflected in the coverage. 

    Surely the BBC - funded by licence payers from all over the country - therefore not reliant on advertisement revenue or subscriptions (so have no commercial need to focus on Wrexham and the international 'circus') are the perfect outfit to do this.  

    I've been so reliant on the SLP for Charlton content in recent years, so will miss them greatly - although I'm sure Rich will get a role related to Charlton in some form.  It's been great to have non-supporting passionate journalists cover us over the years (Benjy Nurick (?) an example) as they provide a slightly different perspective. 

    Whilst we're on the topic of media - shout out to Charlton Live, best podcast going 
    Someone in the ‘Comments’ section of the BBC report on our game against Orient observed that it was the 38th item on the BBC’s Football page the next day. That is pretty dismal, especially given some of the vacuous guff on the Premier League clubs. 

    A real shame about the SLP, although local papers have been dying for many years. Rich Cawley is a fine journalist and a good friend of the club - hopefully he can find some decent alternative employment. 
  • Pelling1993
    Pelling1993 Posts: 6,674
    killerandflash said:
    Wasn't expecting this tribute. Yes, it is the SCP.


    Expect nothing less from maybe the nicest man on the planet. What a legend that man is  <3

Categories

“Marketplace”