[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Waiting to pull it to pieces no doubt Large???
No, unless of course there is something to pull to pieces. I thought the other day they said there was to be news on a new Shirt Sponsor so just wanted to see if there was any news. OK with you ?
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]He says he is dedicating his interview to Henry Irving....no, not that one, but the great actor/manager who died in 1904.
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Waiting to pull it to pieces no doubt Large???
No, unless of course there is something to pull to pieces. I thought the other day they said there was to be news on a new Shirt Sponsor so just wanted to see if there was any news. OK with you ?
Sorry Large, I think my comment should have been targeted at seth....I'm getting you two mixed up I think!
i need a translator. listening but can't understand him lol.
he talking about huge amount of budget work to be done - deficit of £16m - budgets of every area of the club been looked at hence the 14 redundancies. Now the contracts etc of players being looked at.
The big screen needs sponsorship - this has been mentioned elsewhere though - TALKING TO VARIOUS PARTNERS about sponsoring it not just one.
New kit - looks highly likely that JD sports and cabrni will not renew contract. 1 or 2 discussions ongoing with 1 or 2 partners for shirt sponsorship - if they are agreed 2 new kits will be manafactured within the next month. 30 clubs in football league are withut shirt sponsorship so a lot of competition but is confident we can attract a sponsor because we are seen still as a big club because of our community work
ST/HOSPITALITY - Encouraging figures on track to hit the target of ST sales they set and knows fans are waiting on announcements on kits etc. Says fans are pivotal to our success as are the ST sales.
Exec Boxes - have sold well. Lounge sales are 80% and exceeded targets they set.
Players were in last week for mid summer fitness test - groundstaff working hard on the training ground/ valley etc.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]....when I say died in 1904.....I mean Irving's comedy routine about King Ewards Prince Albert, died a death that one in the Royal variety.
[cite]Posted By: leftbehind[/cite]so nothing we dont know
and people pay for this ?
yeah they sneakily stitched me up on this. I got an offer of having it for the last 2 minths of season for a fiver. Then they automatically renewed it for £34 for th season. I have rung them insisting I never agreed to it but they reckong I did so I an stuck with it. LOL.
It's alright though - as I don't live in the charlton area and don't read local papers/ radio etc it's quite good for me.
Useless, the interview takes place indoors, filmed against bright daylight behind so that Waggott is basically a silhouette. This shadowy figure speaks in a very dull voice, and one can't read any additional non-verbal information from his facial expression, because it is filmed in such a useless way we can't see any facial expression. The voice basically says the club are doing this and that, looking for shirt sponsorship and screen sponsorship, and that without television money fans and the buying of season tickets is vital. The voice intimated that there are cuts being made all over the place (those made redundant will be well aware of that), and all in all the whole thing was as dull as dishwater. It would have been good if the interviewer asked some challenging questions. The level of interaction was very poor, and I reckon that Steve Waggotts 'performance' would be worth a £25 fee at most from media outlets. The interview did not impress me (then again I have a very negative opinion of Waggott to start with), at the very least, as a communicator he should have sat with a decent background in order to come across better visually, it might have helped to counterbalance his rather monotonous verbal style. My mark would be 3/10.
A rare posting on my part, but thanks for the feedback Seth (and others), and I take your comments - and criticism - on board.
The main selling point of CAFC TV is indeed the commentary, and also the highlights packages, which I believe are worth the subscription fee, especially next season when the media coverage the club receives will no doubt diminish further due to our League One status.
I have to claim responsibility for the lighting/shadow issue with the Steve Waggott interview. The idea was to provide a more interesting backdrop (ie the pitches outside) than merely a blank wall or somesuch, but, although it looked fine on the camera during filming (and it was late in the evening, rather than bright daylight outside), obviously it didn't work.
A similar thing happened with another interview we did with Rob Elliot, which was ultimately unusable due to sound problems. Hopefully, you will appreciate that the situation being as it is, we are striving to produce as good as service as possible with the resources and equipment we have available. Efforts are being made to improve this, and we're also learning as we go along.
Hopefully, you'll agree the interview with Paddy Powell also posted today, conducted by another interviewer and cameraman (ie not me!) is somewhat better.....
Gosh, a response and I didn't even send an e-mail. You're right that people like me sign up for the away commentaries, but we pay money for the service, so I reckon we're at liberty to comment on the nature of the service. As part of my job I have to arrange (more complicated than the Waggott piece) material for a website. It isn't really that hard to get right once the proper kit has been bought. An ok camera and tripod, a good microphone rather than any inbuilt one, a computer programme that will help with simple editing and captioning, and a facility to burn copy and upload. All of the hardware can surely be put together for £2000 tops. It does then need a commonsense approach to filming and creating pieces, and maybe experience will help things to improve....mind you, when I think of the tannoy situation at the Valley we have to put up with, I won't hold my breath about commonsense approaches. May I say here about the away commentary, I don't know the deal with Radio London, but the commentator we regularly have is really dire. It would be much much better when it is only a CAFCTV broadcast to have one of us, a biased commentator, maybe with an away supporter (Charlton) as a guest voice. As long as what is happening is accurately described (which did not happen with the bloke we had for most games), then a Charlton spin would be very palatable. In addition, the commentary is not available on my little asus eee mozilla platform, why not? it's not the visuals we want most but the sound commentaries, but microsoft don't dominate all of our computers. Finally the service from Radio London, in trying to be efficient about linking and getting the commentary from the start, is really poor...it gives the continual message that we are an afterthought and maybe somebody might be bothered to do it once they've finished their tea or something. If Charlton Athletic are serious about CAFCTV then they should use our subscriptions to vastly improve the service, and eventually the service will make the club money...at the moment it's Ryman league southern division level, when with a bit of effort it could be good.
[cite]Posted By: Matt_Wright[/cite]A rare posting on my part, but thanks for the feedback Seth (and others), and I take your comments - and criticism - on board.
The main selling point of CAFC TV is indeed the commentary, and also the highlights packages, which I believe are worth the subscription fee, especially next season when the media coverage the club receives will no doubt diminish further due to our League One status.
I have to claim responsibility for the lighting/shadow issue with the Steve Waggott interview. The idea was to provide a more interesting backdrop (ie the pitches outside) than merely a blank wall or somesuch, but, although it looked fine on the camera during filming (and it was late in the evening, rather than bright daylight outside), obviously it didn't work.
A similar thing happened with another interview we did with Rob Elliot, which was ultimately unusable due to sound problems. Hopefully, you will appreciate that the situation being as it is, we are striving to produce as good as service as possible with the resources and equipment we have available. Efforts are being made to improve this, and we're also learning as we go along.
Hopefully, you'll agree the interview with Paddy Powell also posted today, conducted by another interviewer and cameraman (ie not me!) is somewhat better.....
MW
Matt, can you stop sticking up the your boss and taking all the blame. We all know it was obviously Waggott's fault how the interview was lit.
And while you're here can you explain why you made up those stories about ZZ being in discussions over a contract and ST sales being at 7k+
One of those smiley things that you love so much : - )
The main selling point of CAFC TV is indeed the commentary
Having subscribed to CAFCTV last season I will not be subscribing again BECAUSE of the commentary. Absolutely dreadful. The CAFCTV service was dreadful.
I've decided to just go to more away games next season. It'll cost me more money but at least I know I'll get what I pay for.
[cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Gosh, a response and I didn't even send an e-mail. You're right that people like me sign up for the away commentaries, but we pay money for the service, so I reckon we're at liberty to comment on the nature of the service. As part of my job I have to arrange (more complicated than the Waggott piece) material for a website. It isn't really that hard to get right once the proper kit has been bought. An ok camera and tripod, a good microphone rather than any inbuilt one, a computer programme that will help with simple editing and captioning, and a facility to burn copy and upload. All of the hardware can surely be put together for £2000 tops.
It does then need a commonsense approach to filming and creating pieces, and maybe experience will help things to improve....mind you, when I think of the tannoy situation at the Valley we have to put up with, I won't hold my breath about commonsense approaches.
Wow. Matt comes on here and sincerely addresses your criticisms and you have nothing but sarcastic, self-aggrandising drivel in response. So sad. You may think your shit does not stink, but I can smell it from here.
This is not sarcastic , self aggrandising (why the strange overly French vocab?) drivel.
I just want to say that CAFCTV was crap when I paid for it which was when it first began. Half the time the commentary was on another match, and when it was the Charlton match the commentator didn't even tell you what was happening on the pitch.
I paid for one month and then never subscribed again.
Since then I only read comments indicating that nothing's improved.
They need to close the whole thing down, get it sorted out, and then offer a month's free subscription to all those who've subscribed before.
If not, it's doomed to failure because eventually everyone will just do something like what I do, which is to go out and come home at full-time.
[quote][cite]Posted By: LoOkOuT[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: seth plum[/cite]Gosh, a response and I didn't even send an e-mail. You're right that people like me sign up for the away commentaries, but we pay money for the service, so I reckon we're at liberty to comment on the nature of the service. As part of my job I have to arrange (more complicated than the Waggott piece) material for a website. It isn't really that hard to get right once the proper kit has been bought. An ok camera and tripod, a good microphone rather than any inbuilt one, a computer programme that will help with simple editing and captioning, and a facility to burn copy and upload. All of the hardware can surely be put together for £2000 tops. It does then need a commonsense approach to filming and creating pieces, and maybe experience will help things to improve....mind you, when I think of the tannoy situation at the Valley we have to put up with, I won't hold my breath about commonsense approaches.[/quote]
Wow. Matt comes on here and sincerely addresses your criticisms and you have nothing but sarcastic, self-aggrandising drivel in response. So sad. You may think your shit does not stink, but I can smell it from here.[/quote]
To Lookout.
'Nothing but sarcastic self-aggrandising drivel in response', not at all, I think it's feedback, which your friend Matt seemed to welcome and invite from his post, but you're entitled to your opinion. Of course my s*it stinks, and given the nature of your post, yours does too. However I'm sure Matt welcomes the helpful feedback contained in your post.
Give feedback of course, but a little politeness in the mix wouldn't go a miss, would it ? Someone has gone out of their to reply to indirect criticism / feedback.
Comments
Sarcastic? What Me?
No, unless of course there is something to pull to pieces. I thought the other day they said there was to be news on a new Shirt Sponsor so just wanted to see if there was any news. OK with you ?
1905. And it's Sir Henry.
Sorry Large, I think my comment should have been targeted at seth....I'm getting you two mixed up I think!
he talking about huge amount of budget work to be done - deficit of £16m - budgets of every area of the club been looked at hence the 14 redundancies. Now the contracts etc of players being looked at.
The big screen needs sponsorship - this has been mentioned elsewhere though - TALKING TO VARIOUS PARTNERS about sponsoring it not just one.
New kit - looks highly likely that JD sports and cabrni will not renew contract. 1 or 2 discussions ongoing with 1 or 2 partners for shirt sponsorship - if they are agreed 2 new kits will be manafactured within the next month. 30 clubs in football league are withut shirt sponsorship so a lot of competition but is confident we can attract a sponsor because we are seen still as a big club because of our community work
ST/HOSPITALITY - Encouraging figures on track to hit the target of ST sales they set and knows fans are waiting on announcements on kits etc. Says fans are pivotal to our success as are the ST sales.
Exec Boxes - have sold well. Lounge sales are 80% and exceeded targets they set.
Players were in last week for mid summer fitness test - groundstaff working hard on the training ground/ valley etc.
That;'s about it
And that Millwall stayed down.
and people pay for this ?
An interesting Dilemma for me. It's on CAFCTV but not the OS. Does this mean it is true or not?
Always ahead of the times.
yeah they sneakily stitched me up on this. I got an offer of having it for the last 2 minths of season for a fiver. Then they automatically renewed it for £34 for th season. I have rung them insisting I never agreed to it but they reckong I did so I an stuck with it. LOL.
It's alright though - as I don't live in the charlton area and don't read local papers/ radio etc it's quite good for me.
Dunno about anyone else but I reckon the commentry alone has made it a worth while investment.
The voice basically says the club are doing this and that, looking for shirt sponsorship and screen sponsorship, and that without television money fans and the buying of season tickets is vital. The voice intimated that there are cuts being made all over the place (those made redundant will be well aware of that), and all in all the whole thing was as dull as dishwater.
It would have been good if the interviewer asked some challenging questions. The level of interaction was very poor, and I reckon that Steve Waggotts 'performance' would be worth a £25 fee at most from media outlets. The interview did not impress me (then again I have a very negative opinion of Waggott to start with), at the very least, as a communicator he should have sat with a decent background in order to come across better visually, it might have helped to counterbalance his rather monotonous verbal style. My mark would be 3/10.
The main selling point of CAFC TV is indeed the commentary, and also the highlights packages, which I believe are worth the subscription fee, especially next season when the media coverage the club receives will no doubt diminish further due to our League One status.
I have to claim responsibility for the lighting/shadow issue with the Steve Waggott interview. The idea was to provide a more interesting backdrop (ie the pitches outside) than merely a blank wall or somesuch, but, although it looked fine on the camera during filming (and it was late in the evening, rather than bright daylight outside), obviously it didn't work.
A similar thing happened with another interview we did with Rob Elliot, which was ultimately unusable due to sound problems. Hopefully, you will appreciate that the situation being as it is, we are striving to produce as good as service as possible with the resources and equipment we have available. Efforts are being made to improve this, and we're also learning as we go along.
Hopefully, you'll agree the interview with Paddy Powell also posted today, conducted by another interviewer and cameraman (ie not me!) is somewhat better.....
MW
It does then need a commonsense approach to filming and creating pieces, and maybe experience will help things to improve....mind you, when I think of the tannoy situation at the Valley we have to put up with, I won't hold my breath about commonsense approaches.
May I say here about the away commentary, I don't know the deal with Radio London, but the commentator we regularly have is really dire. It would be much much better when it is only a CAFCTV broadcast to have one of us, a biased commentator, maybe with an away supporter (Charlton) as a guest voice. As long as what is happening is accurately described (which did not happen with the bloke we had for most games), then a Charlton spin would be very palatable.
In addition, the commentary is not available on my little asus eee mozilla platform, why not? it's not the visuals we want most but the sound commentaries, but microsoft don't dominate all of our computers. Finally the service from Radio London, in trying to be efficient about linking and getting the commentary from the start, is really poor...it gives the continual message that we are an afterthought and maybe somebody might be bothered to do it once they've finished their tea or something.
If Charlton Athletic are serious about CAFCTV then they should use our subscriptions to vastly improve the service, and eventually the service will make the club money...at the moment it's Ryman league southern division level, when with a bit of effort it could be good.
Matt, can you stop sticking up the your boss and taking all the blame. We all know it was obviously Waggott's fault how the interview was lit.
And while you're here can you explain why you made up those stories about ZZ being in discussions over a contract and ST sales being at 7k+
One of those smiley things that you love so much : - )
I've decided to just go to more away games next season. It'll cost me more money but at least I know I'll get what I pay for.
Wow. Matt comes on here and sincerely addresses your criticisms and you have nothing but sarcastic, self-aggrandising drivel in response. So sad. You may think your shit does not stink, but I can smell it from here.
I just want to say that CAFCTV was crap when I paid for it which was when it first began. Half the time the commentary was on another match, and when it was the Charlton match the commentator didn't even tell you what was happening on the pitch.
I paid for one month and then never subscribed again.
Since then I only read comments indicating that nothing's improved.
They need to close the whole thing down, get it sorted out, and then offer a month's free subscription to all those who've subscribed before.
If not, it's doomed to failure because eventually everyone will just do something like what I do, which is to go out and come home at full-time.
It does then need a commonsense approach to filming and creating pieces, and maybe experience will help things to improve....mind you, when I think of the tannoy situation at the Valley we have to put up with, I won't hold my breath about commonsense approaches.[/quote]
Wow. Matt comes on here and sincerely addresses your criticisms and you have nothing but sarcastic, self-aggrandising drivel in response. So sad. You may think your shit does not stink, but I can smell it from here.[/quote]
To Lookout.
'Nothing but sarcastic self-aggrandising drivel in response', not at all, I think it's feedback, which your friend Matt seemed to welcome and invite from his post, but you're entitled to your opinion. Of course my s*it stinks, and given the nature of your post, yours does too. However I'm sure Matt welcomes the helpful feedback contained in your post.
Thanks for your input Matt.