I read it and thought 'what a wanker'. Did'nt sound anything like the CL I read and inhabit. Couldn't even have the grace to mention the money raised for charity, the money paid for shirt sponsorship, the help given to those needing advice, the help given to those looking for work, the various threads we have had when people have passed on or had various illnesses etc. A pile of crap from start to finish. Wasn't even very well written.
Just read the article and to be honest I think it's one of the worst I've ever read in VOTV. Not because it criticises this site - everyone is entitled to an opinion but because the article is incredibly badly written.
Example - Lawson states that "it's not necessarily a good place to find out how the team has performed in the last match" however this is contradicted twice in the piece. First the image of the CL homepage accompanying the article shows a sticky post linking to the Matchday Centre thread which is almost certainly the most comprehensive place anywhere on the Internet to discover exactly how Charlton performed in the last game (with views from people that actually go to the games, John).
Secondly how is it possible that this site which makes it so difficult to learn how Charlton have played offers "at least 25 different views" of exactly that ?
Finally this catastrophe of an article bizarrley concludes with Lawsons own views on the Millwall game apparently "the anger should be pointed at ourselves for falling for it". That's your opinion John, not one I agree with, but thankfully this site exists so I can discuss my opinions on games and so can many other Addicks.
The Charlton supporter base is undergoing some interesting changes with lots of new avenues for fans to make their voice heard but 30% use this place as their primary source of information for Charlton related matters. I think it's incredibly exciting that we are becoming a more engaged support base after a few years of being more apathetic and that manifests itself in a number of ways, unfortunately some will use the opportunity this gives them to take shots at other parts of our supporter infrastructure and sometimes they will be valid however due to the conflicting statements Lawson has made I don't think this is an example of that.
Don't wind yourself up mate, you are certainly not a twat, just someone that devotes an inordinate amount of time to ensure that CAFC fans can have their say and when our unique family need to pull together you enable it to do so.
Very disappointing article. I suppose if there's a gagging order on criticising the club then turning on other fans is going to be VOTVs new angle for stirring controversy. Not really sure why there was the need to publish it at all. Most of the criticisms in the article could be levelled at any message board on the internet, and some were just not true. Very bad call editorially in my opinion. If they had to write an article on Charlton message boards it should have reviewed all of them (although I would still question the need…)
So, as far as I can make out, the main criticism appears to be that this site offers a number of different views, some, many or most of which might be bollocks?
Quelle surfuckingprise - it's an Internet forum ffs!
Please tell me it wasn't two pages devoted to just that - there must have been something with a bit more substance to it?
So, as far as I can make out, the main criticism appears to be that this site offers a number of different views, some, many or most of which might be bollocks?
Quelle surfuckingprise - it's an Internet forum ffs!
Please tell me it wasn't two pages devoted to just that - there must have been something with a bit more substance to it?
VOTV is an independent fanzine. If you don't agree with an opinion or a dig against a mates website, deal with it. That's what makes VOTV what it is.
Fair enough. But it can't expect free advertising on here then, can it?
Depends if the owner values free speach or not which via the internet is a null point. The CL article will attract punters in return.
Free speech?
As far as I'm aware the fellas that run CL don't make a penny from it. In fact, it costs them money.
Someone takes advantage of the platform they offer advertise their own commercial venture - which they do use to make money - and then allows the first bunch of fellas to get slagged off via their commercial venture.
Money is made because of the free advertising this site affords VOTV.
That's not freedom of speech - that's taking the piss.
I can already tell you know the owner.
An internet message board is all about peoples opinions and the debate between them. That's what supplies the interest and demand. If you don't supply the contrary opinion then you are supplying the interesting content via the argument.
The owner will benefit out of this one way or the other, whether that be financially or socially who knows. But every effort ends in a reward.
VOTV offers an opinion, that's what makes it what it is, nothing more, nothing less.
I suggest you have a dip back into this site and take another look. There are threads running concerning people beating cancer, auctions raising money for good causes, advice being given for all sorts of tradesmen etc, etc.
None of the above is driven by opinion, debate or reward. Just a bunch of normal folk with one common bond of a football club.
VOTV will be lining people's cat litter boxes by this time next week, this site won't.
Oh and before you say it, I have never met AFKA or Lookie.
The whole entity of VOTV is not turning on other fans to stir controversy. One person wrote one article. What is very unfortunate is that a printed piece has more permanence than the transient nature of this forum, and that is a big shame. A big shame because both VOTV and CL are positive phemomena and this is being spun into a VOTV verses CL thing, which it really shouldn't be.
Knowing airman use this site to post his views and to advertise his publication I can't understand the mentality to publish an article that will rock the boat, you've gotta question the logic behind allowing it
I think people are over-reacting a bit, possibly because there are people on here who can't wait to put the boot in to Airman at every opportunity. I understand AFKA's annoyance cos it's his project, he does the work and it must feel like a thankless task. However, as hatchet jobs go it was quite mild and Airman put the counter-view on the same page.
I think people are over-reacting a bit, possibly because there are people on here who can't wait to put the boot in to Airman at every opportunity. I understand AFKA's annoyance cos it's his project, he does the work and it must feel like a thankless task. However, as hatchet jobs go it was quite mild and Airman put the counter-view on the same page.
I think people are over-reacting a bit, possibly because there are people on here who can't wait to put the boot in to Airman at every opportunity. I understand AFKA's annoyance cos it's his project, he does the work and it must feel like a thankless task. However, as hatchet jobs go it was quite mild and Airman put the counter-view on the same page.
Why print a "hatchet job" in the first place, the only thing about the club at the minute that is united is the fan base because the board of directors & management team do not appear to be.
The last thing we want in this season of all seasons is shit dividing fans in print and on here.
VOTV is an independent fanzine. If you don't agree with an opinion or a dig against a mates website, deal with it. That's what makes VOTV what it is.
Fair enough. But it can't expect free advertising on here then, can it?
Depends if the owner values free speach or not which via the internet is a null point. The CL article will attract punters in return.
Free speech?
As far as I'm aware the fellas that run CL don't make a penny from it. In fact, it costs them money.
Someone takes advantage of the platform they offer to advertise their own commercial venture - which they do use to make money - and then allows the first bunch of fellas to get slagged off via their commercial venture.
Money is made because of the free advertising this site affords VOTV.
That's not freedom of speech - that's taking the piss.
Dunno about that. I wouldn't think votv makes a profit. In fact, it's probably in the same boat as this site in that respect.
Maybe not, but it charges for it's product, doesn't it? Therefore it is a commercial venture.
Grey area for me. It might charge for its product, but unless there is a definite profit shows at the end of each run, I can't see how the fact that there is a cover charge for it makes much difference. Of course, you could argue semantics - the fact that they are charging for something and then allowing individuals to use it as a platform to badmouth potential rivals might seem a bit off, but if RE has taken the time to put counter arguments to the snide remarks, then I don't see that being an issue.
What is a problem for me, is that this site has been pretty supportive of VOTV in general - historically and during its more recent revival - giving someone who clearly has an odd dislike of CL and doesn't even have an account to post here is a bit sour to say the least.
Plenty of businesses don't make a profit Leroy - Charlton for starters.
If it's done for a charge then it's a commercial activity, even if it doesn't make a profit. I could point you in the direction of case law on the subject, but I know you'll be happy to take my word for it. ;-)
I think people are over-reacting a bit, possibly because there are people on here who can't wait to put the boot in to Airman at every opportunity. I understand AFKA's annoyance cos it's his project, he does the work and it must feel like a thankless task. However, as hatchet jobs go it was quite mild and Airman put the counter-view on the same page.
I think people are over-reacting a bit, possibly because there are people on here who can't wait to put the boot in to Airman at every opportunity. I understand AFKA's annoyance cos it's his project, he does the work and it must feel like a thankless task. However, as hatchet jobs go it was quite mild and Airman put the counter-view on the same page.
Why print a "hatchet job" in the first place, the only thing about the club at the minute that is united is the fan base because the board of directors & management team do not appear to be.
The last thing we want in this season of all seasons is shit dividing fans in print and on here.
I'd have preferred it if the article hadn't been printed and it wasn't helpful. However, there is often a lot of division on here anyway, so I can't see it doing much damage.
Ironically by printing the article it's kind of proving the point of why the printed word is less relevant these days than the past - if someone wrote an article ripping VOTV apart on here then it would be followed by endless comments and discussions providing counter viewpoints and giving Rick an immediate way to respond. Something that a printed occasional fanzine simply can't offer.
I really like Voice and am definitely not in the anti-Rick camp at all but I just can't work out why it was selected as a suitable piece for publication. Are the merits of this site really of interest to the wider offline fan base? And if the answer is yes, then surely it should have been counter balanced with all the many indisputable plus points (charity auctions etc) and also have given AFKA a right of reply?
I know it wasn't written by Rick but he edits it and has to take responsibility. I'd be genuinely very interested to know the reasons for choosing to publish it.
Well, at least it goes to prove that there are all sorts of opinions and views on CL and that we don't all follow one particular mantra or standpoint.
One of the worst aspects of the article is that he says we all think the same thing and that we all think completely different things. I'm putting a cross in the box for 'coherent argument'.
Strange decision to publish a negative article on a site that has supported the fanzine. However, it doesn't actually criticise the site but the people that post on it? That's us.
Still, an odd choice and odd article as it achieves little. It just points out a few home truths.
In the same way that people don't have to read what he's written, he shouldn't read the site if he doesn't like it either. Hope someone's said that to the writer.
Love charlton life - where would we discuss gossip otherwise?
1. If the price for Europe is higher (assumedly to coover postage) why then does another postage charge get added on Palpal?
2. If I buy three copies, why do I pay for postage three times? Effectively I am paying four postage fees for one order! 14 quid for three VOTVs to be sent to France is a bit steep. The real cost would be about 8 to 9 quid.Copied below is my 'shopping cart' on Palpal:
Voice of The Valley 108 - November 2013 Item no. VOTV108 Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity| £3.78
Voice of The Valley 106 - April 2013 Item no. VOTV106 Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity| £3.78
Voice of The Valley 105 - February 2013 Item no. VOTV105 Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity| £3.78 Item total:£11.34 Postage and packaging: loading£2.70 Total:£14.04 GBP
VOTV is going to struggle to if this is its future
VOTV is going to struggle because the days fanzines in print format are long gone.
This!
30% of the fanbase use this site which updates all the time and has brilliant coverage of the away matches as well as all the other angles mentioned above 15% of the fanbase use the Trust website which has been going less than a year There are numerous blogs which have a smaller audience ... and then there is Twitter and Facebook
Some of the threads on here generate 5,000+ hits and the Trust can generate 1,000+ hits for one of its articles using the network built up - all of this information is both immediate and free.
AND you can research deeper / add to discussion or put the odd two footed tackle in if you don't like what someone says... but a paper fanzine just tells you how it is... full stop.
There is a body of opinion which says people like to read a fanzine at a match or on the way home and I'm sure VotV sales will hold up for a while because of the tradition built up over all the years...
Charlton fans are well served now by different independent channels as per SE9 Addicks post... perhaps next year we should ask fans what they think about these and how they might improve or even work together to ensure that we are all kept well informed about the club which we hold so dear.
Not read the article but do not understand why printed in first place. Did author approach Rick with a 'gonna do a piece bout that poxy website' or was it commissioned by Rick. Either way not sure what votv hoped to achieve with this article. Presumably he will post his reasons on here
1. If the price for Europe is higher (assumedly to coover postage) why then does another postage charge get added on Palpal?
2. If I buy three copies, why do I pay for postage three times? Effectively I am paying four postage fees for one order! 14 quid for three VOTVs to be sent to France is a bit steep. The real cost would be about 8 to 9 quid.Copied below is my 'shopping cart' on Palpal:
Voice of The Valley 108 - November 2013 Item no. VOTV108 Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity| £3.78
Voice of The Valley 106 - April 2013 Item no. VOTV106 Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity| £3.78
Voice of The Valley 105 - February 2013 Item no. VOTV105 Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity| £3.78 Item total:£11.34 Postage and packaging: loading£2.70 Total:£14.04 GBP
Stop changing the subject, jimmy !!!!
Have to say I was disappointed to read said article and felt it was a totally unnecessary inclusion in what is usually a good read from front to back cover.
Comments
Example - Lawson states that "it's not necessarily a good place to find out how the team has performed in the last match" however this is contradicted twice in the piece. First the image of the CL homepage accompanying the article shows a sticky post linking to the Matchday Centre thread which is almost certainly the most comprehensive place anywhere on the Internet to discover exactly how Charlton performed in the last game (with views from people that actually go to the games, John).
Secondly how is it possible that this site which makes it so difficult to learn how Charlton have played offers "at least 25 different views" of exactly that ?
Finally this catastrophe of an article bizarrley concludes with Lawsons own views on the Millwall game apparently "the anger should be pointed at ourselves for falling for it". That's your opinion John, not one I agree with, but thankfully this site exists so I can discuss my opinions on games and so can many other Addicks.
The Charlton supporter base is undergoing some interesting changes with lots of new avenues for fans to make their voice heard but 30% use this place as their primary source of information for Charlton related matters. I think it's incredibly exciting that we are becoming a more engaged support base after a few years of being more apathetic and that manifests itself in a number of ways, unfortunately some will use the opportunity this gives them to take shots at other parts of our supporter infrastructure and sometimes they will be valid however due to the conflicting statements Lawson has made I don't think this is an example of that.
Quelle surfuckingprise - it's an Internet forum ffs!
Please tell me it wasn't two pages devoted to just that - there must have been something with a bit more substance to it?
None of the above is driven by opinion, debate or reward. Just a bunch of normal folk with one common bond of a football club.
VOTV will be lining people's cat litter boxes by this time next week, this site won't.
Oh and before you say it, I have never met AFKA or Lookie.
What is very unfortunate is that a printed piece has more permanence than the transient nature of this forum, and that is a big shame.
A big shame because both VOTV and CL are positive phemomena and this is being spun into a VOTV verses CL thing, which it really shouldn't be.
The last thing we want in this season of all seasons is shit dividing fans in print and on here.
What is a problem for me, is that this site has been pretty supportive of VOTV in general - historically and during its more recent revival - giving someone who clearly has an odd dislike of CL and doesn't even have an account to post here is a bit sour to say the least.
If it's done for a charge then it's a commercial activity, even if it doesn't make a profit. I could point you in the direction of case law on the subject, but I know you'll be happy to take my word for it.
;-)
I really like Voice and am definitely not in the anti-Rick camp at all but I just can't work out why it was selected as a suitable piece for publication. Are the merits of this site really of interest to the wider offline fan base? And if the answer is yes, then surely it should have been counter balanced with all the many indisputable plus points (charity auctions etc) and also have given AFKA a right of reply?
I know it wasn't written by Rick but he edits it and has to take responsibility. I'd be genuinely very interested to know the reasons for choosing to publish it.
Still, an odd choice and odd article as it achieves little. It just points out a few home truths.
In the same way that people don't have to read what he's written, he shouldn't read the site if he doesn't like it either. Hope someone's said that to the writer.
Love charlton life - where would we discuss gossip otherwise?
1. If the price for Europe is higher (assumedly to coover postage) why then does another postage charge get added on Palpal?
2. If I buy three copies, why do I pay for postage three times? Effectively I am paying four postage fees for one order! 14 quid for three VOTVs to be sent to France is a bit steep. The real cost would be about 8 to 9 quid.Copied below is my 'shopping cart' on Palpal:
Voice of The Valley 108 - November 2013
Item no. VOTV108
Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity|
£3.78
Voice of The Valley 106 - April 2013
Item no. VOTV106
Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity|
£3.78
Voice of The Valley 105 - February 2013
Item no. VOTV105
Delivery location: Europe
£3.78
quantity|
£3.78
Item total:£11.34
Postage and packaging: loading£2.70
Total:£14.04 GBP
30% of the fanbase use this site which updates all the time and has brilliant coverage of the away matches as well as all the other angles mentioned above
15% of the fanbase use the Trust website which has been going less than a year
There are numerous blogs which have a smaller audience ... and then there is Twitter and Facebook
Some of the threads on here generate 5,000+ hits and the Trust can generate 1,000+ hits for one of its articles using the network built up - all of this information is both immediate and free.
AND you can research deeper / add to discussion or put the odd two footed tackle in if you don't like what someone says... but a paper fanzine just tells you how it is... full stop.
There is a body of opinion which says people like to read a fanzine at a match or on the way home and I'm sure VotV sales will hold up for a while because of the tradition built up over all the years...
Charlton fans are well served now by different independent channels as per SE9 Addicks post... perhaps next year we should ask fans what they think about these and how they might improve or even work together to ensure that we are all kept well informed about the club which we hold so dear.
Have to say I was disappointed to read said article and felt it was a totally unnecessary inclusion in what is usually a good read from front to back cover.
CL rules ! OK ?