Henry, you are always a bit touchy when anyone has a pop at our web-site for being slow with news. I agree that posting premature stuff isn't right on the other hand I think it's not unreasonable for Charlton fans to want to get the correct information from their Club OS rather than from another clubs site.
On the Gray story, it actually says
"The official website will be updated with the latest news regarding the striker's switch from Turf Moor to The Valley when available."
No doubt we will find out in the morning whether Burnley's site has jumped the gun, but there is a prima facie case that the information is already "available".
I suspect this is a resourcing issue for our club. The bloke who updates the news stories isn't required to work of an evening unless there are matches on. Whereas Burnley's site, along with most of the Championship sites is managed externally and they have committed resources to cover stories as they break even on a Friday evening.
If it is a question of not resourcing the OS sufficiently so that these breaking stories can be covered when they happen, lets just admit it rather than keeping up the pretense that we are just slower because we want to get the story right. I am afraid I just don't buy that one, except on the very odd occasion.
Sensible response Bing, I think you are bang on, nowt wrong with constructive criticism, my own experiences of dealing with the communications dept would echo your sentiments. Maglor, thats my understanding of the situation.....seeya at Euston mate.
Im really excited about this signing......I hope he lives up to expectations...looking forward to the game this afternoon more so than I can remember for a long while...time to get ready for the game....Come on you reds!
It is not primarily a resourcing issue. In my lengthy experience the relevant communications staff will work whatever hours are required to cover stories like this, although it isn't completely possible to guarantee 24 hour cover with a tiny number of people as they are entitled to a life outside work.
The main issue is that the decision to release such stories is not made by communications staff. It is made by the club's playing management/directors and they are always likely to be more cautious than those whose agenda is simply reporting the news, even assuming they are available to give the go-ahead.
Airman Brown has already made the point that the Comms team can't always, even if they wanted to, release information just to beat another site. They have to wait for the nod from someone else.
The Southend story is a one good example of why.
The OS is regularly criticised for being slow but they do not have the advantage of being allowed to use the stock phrases employed by SKY and the press of "we understand that.." or "about to move". They and the club would be slated, and quite rightly, for pulling the stunt Southend did.
Looking at the OS this morning they had the confirmed story on Friday night and they also had the first interview with Grey.
No problem with the OS getting the news to us when they do - as far as Burnley were concerned the deal was agreed and Gray was on his way to us. Matt can only put the info on the OS once he gets the go ahead from above and that can only be done when the new player signs at our end.
At least Matt can spell the players name correctly, eh Henry!
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]How's the Funkix going Airman? ;-)
No problem with the OS getting the news to us when they do - as far as Burnley were concerned the deal was agreed and Gray was on his way to us. Matt can only put the info on the OS once he gets the go ahead from above and that can only be done when the new player signs at our end.
At least Matt can spell the players name correctly, eh Henry!
That's why he's the pro journo and I'm just the star columnist ; - )
Matt and Airman Brown will tell you how much fun they have editing my copy.
Airman Brown summed it up succinctly. As I understand it then:
The Burnley official site is externally managed by the Premium TV company. No one there is directly connected to the clubs and they've got a full time team managing most of the Football League sites. Basically, they're just another media news group and report 'news' in the same way as other media groups like the BBC or SKY.
At Charlton, we own our site independently. And, I take it, any news stories are first sanctioned by the club once they've actually happened and not while they are just probabilities.
"Hopefully I can bring some goals," said the forward, who has been given the number nine jersey, replacing Marcus Bent (who is on a season-long loan with Wigan Athletic) in the Charlton squad.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]It is not primarily a resourcing issue. In my lengthy experience the relevant communications staff will work whatever hours are required to cover stories like this, although it isn't completely possible to guarantee 24 hour cover with a tiny number of people as they are entitled to a life outside work.
The main issue is that the decision to release such stories is not made by communications staff. It is made by the club's playing management/directors and they are always likely to be more cautious than those whose agenda is simply reporting the news, even assuming they are available to give the go-ahead.
AB, I was not criticising in any way the chap who writes the stories on the website, who is of course entitled to a life. You have acknowledged though that the site has problems with providing a 24-hour cover with the tiny number of staff. Isn't that a resourcing issue?
If I understand you, you are saying that the way that the club "signs off" on stories to go onto the web site is to ensure their accuracy and that sometimes authority for so doing is not always available?
If I also understand you, you are saying that the "premium tv" web-site managers who run most of the Football League club web-sites for which they receive a fee from their client clubs, can willy-nilly publish unsubstantiated/unauthorised stories? This sounds odd to me? Sure there are going to be mistakes made from time to time but I find it hard to believe that these arrangements are merely like newspapers, trying to out-scoop one another. Would there not be a service level agreement between club and web site manager setting out how stories may be released/handled?
The club has made a policy decision to run its own web site. Nothing wrong with that. I much prefer it to the same old stuff doled out by the "premium tv" mob. That decision has been taken, at least in part, on the basis of cost and means that we have a tiny number of staff that cannot, for perfectly understandable reasons, cover stories on a 24-hour basis. The club has set it’s face against joining the “premium tv mob”. So as a consequence of this we get some stories held up by lack of resources/the unwillingness/unavailability of those who could sign them off, like last night. I've no problem with the club taking this stance if that's what they want but they will be criticised from time to time for dragging their feet, even by loyal, friendly and reasonable supporters like me.
Henry, I was up on line at 2.00am and the story had not been updated. I suspect that it probably wasn’t updated until after 9.30am when the FL confirmed his clearance. Maybe the club was right to be cautious and wait until then. On the other hand, it could have been reported last night that Gray’s medical was successful and that he will be in the squad for the game pending final approval by the League in the morning.
Credit where credits due, it was nice that the interview with Gray was published speedily this morning.
Comments
As Mart says, passed his medical tonight -the loan's all done according to Burn-leh.
straight into the Charlton squad to face Watford.
Like the way Southend released the news of the Walker "deal" before the OS.
Who's looking silly now? Us or Southend?
On the Gray story, it actually says
"The official website will be updated with the latest news regarding the striker's switch from Turf Moor to The Valley when available."
No doubt we will find out in the morning whether Burnley's site has jumped the gun, but there is a prima facie case that the information is already "available".
I suspect this is a resourcing issue for our club. The bloke who updates the news stories isn't required to work of an evening unless there are matches on. Whereas Burnley's site, along with most of the Championship sites is managed externally and they have committed resources to cover stories as they break even on a Friday evening.
If it is a question of not resourcing the OS sufficiently so that these breaking stories can be covered when they happen, lets just admit it rather than keeping up the pretense that we are just slower because we want to get the story right. I am afraid I just don't buy that one, except on the very odd occasion.
GRAY INTERVIEW
The main issue is that the decision to release such stories is not made by communications staff. It is made by the club's playing management/directors and they are always likely to be more cautious than those whose agenda is simply reporting the news, even assuming they are available to give the go-ahead.
Airman Brown has already made the point that the Comms team can't always, even if they wanted to, release information just to beat another site. They have to wait for the nod from someone else.
The Southend story is a one good example of why.
The OS is regularly criticised for being slow but they do not have the advantage of being allowed to use the stock phrases employed by SKY and the press of "we understand that.." or "about to move". They and the club would be slated, and quite rightly, for pulling the stunt Southend did.
Looking at the OS this morning they had the confirmed story on Friday night and they also had the first interview with Grey.
So why does that warrent "quelle suprise!!!"
No problem with the OS getting the news to us when they do - as far as Burnley were concerned the deal was agreed and Gray was on his way to us. Matt can only put the info on the OS once he gets the go ahead from above and that can only be done when the new player signs at our end.
At least Matt can spell the players name correctly, eh Henry!
That's why he's the pro journo and I'm just the star columnist ; - )
Matt and Airman Brown will tell you how much fun they have editing my copy.
The Burnley official site is externally managed by the Premium TV company. No one there is directly connected to the clubs and they've got a full time team managing most of the Football League sites. Basically, they're just another media news group and report 'news' in the same way as other media groups like the BBC or SKY.
At Charlton, we own our site independently. And, I take it, any news stories are first sanctioned by the club once they've actually happened and not while they are just probabilities.
"Hopefully I can bring some goals," said the forward, who has been given the number nine jersey, replacing Marcus Bent (who is on a season-long loan with Wigan Athletic) in the Charlton squad.
Number 9, Marcus Bent Andy Gray.........
ha ha. If i was Pardew my next port of call would be Sheffield Wednesday for Glenn Whelan
AB, I was not criticising in any way the chap who writes the stories on the website, who is of course entitled to a life. You have acknowledged though that the site has problems with providing a 24-hour cover with the tiny number of staff. Isn't that a resourcing issue?
If I understand you, you are saying that the way that the club "signs off" on stories to go onto the web site is to ensure their accuracy and that sometimes authority for so doing is not always available?
If I also understand you, you are saying that the "premium tv" web-site managers who run most of the Football League club web-sites for which they receive a fee from their client clubs, can willy-nilly publish unsubstantiated/unauthorised stories? This sounds odd to me? Sure there are going to be mistakes made from time to time but I find it hard to believe that these arrangements are merely like newspapers, trying to out-scoop one another. Would there not be a service level agreement between club and web site manager setting out how stories may be released/handled?
The club has made a policy decision to run its own web site. Nothing wrong with that. I much prefer it to the same old stuff doled out by the "premium tv" mob. That decision has been taken, at least in part, on the basis of cost and means that we have a tiny number of staff that cannot, for perfectly understandable reasons, cover stories on a 24-hour basis. The club has set it’s face against joining the “premium tv mob”. So as a consequence of this we get some stories held up by lack of resources/the unwillingness/unavailability of those who could sign them off, like last night. I've no problem with the club taking this stance if that's what they want but they will be criticised from time to time for dragging their feet, even by loyal, friendly and reasonable supporters like me.
Henry, I was up on line at 2.00am and the story had not been updated. I suspect that it probably wasn’t updated until after 9.30am when the FL confirmed his clearance. Maybe the club was right to be cautious and wait until then. On the other hand, it could have been reported last night that Gray’s medical was successful and that he will be in the squad for the game pending final approval by the League in the morning.
Credit where credits due, it was nice that the interview with Gray was published speedily this morning.