I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
IA now that is naughty. It is Toby's behaviours and words that have been criticised, not him as a person. There is a very real difference and I do not begin to understand how you can consider that it constitutes abuse.
So Toby Porter's behaviour is "shitty", "shameful" and "spiteful" according to the description of several posters on here. But that's not abuse because apart from his shitty, shameful and spiteful behaviour nobody has a word to say against him "as a person"? Very droll. Worthy of Alistair Campbell. I'll try to remember that one!
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
I have spoken to Barnie and explained the situation to him. I haven't seen any comments on me - I am a reporter, and report facts. If anyone wants to aim comments at me, that is fine, because it is their issue, not mine, as I know I do that job conscientiously and with care.
OK
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Would you feel able to go on record therefore and clarify whether it is still your understanding that the Harris bid has been withdrawn, and if so, was ACV a factor in that withdrawal?
Speaking only for myself, this would help to clear up the one and only problem I have with any of the SLP reporting of CAFC, which otherwise provides a valuable service in a tough business climate.
Poor old Newshopper ........... No-one's even consider that poor bastards feelings, all this because they put a few more adverts on the website
The Shopper has one page of sport a week (in most editions), in which it also covers non-League, Millwall and, in some editions, Palace. Within that they do quite well, I think. The SLP has about 15-17 pages of sport a week on average, of which two or three are allocated to Charlton, plus what is almost invariably a secondary story on the back page. It's hardly comparable.
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
Fair enough but as a journalist you will understand why these issues are of great interest to some Charlton fans.
As the newspaper with largest local coverage of Charlton and, more importantly, it seems the current board's chosen avenue for leaking news/information you are now more than a neutral observer and reporter but an active and willing participant in what is being played out at Charlton.
Just to be clear, is there any evidence that the acv process / highlighting the importance of The Valley, need for community / supporter involvement etc did NOT have any impact (even the slightest) whatsoever on the Harris group's reason for not persuing ?
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
The correct and proper course of action, Toby.
Your sources tell you things in confidence with a clear understanding about what is reportable. Everything else is private and off the record and it would be unethical and unprofessional to divulge any more on a public message board.
I'm sorry you were subjected to such abuse when you were simply doing your job conscientiously and to the best of your abilities.
Sorry, but I really don't want to get involved in a discussion about any of this. It will seem like a cop-out to some, but all that stuff is private - and yes, I know use of that word is heretical on a messageboard. I don't normally post on them if I can avoid it, but felt that, as a company, we were being unfairly attacked and to answer that point under a pseudonym would have been dishonorable.
The correct and proper course of action, Toby.
Your sources tell you things in confidence with a clear understanding about what is reportable. Everything else is private and off the record and it would be unethical and unprofessional to divulge any more on a public message board.
I'm sorry you were subjected to such abuse when you were simply doing your job conscientiously and to the best of your abilities.
This is why the internet can sometimes do more harm than good.
I too thank you for coming on Toby,I understand that journalists normally know probably 3 times more than they can print and to divulge such information on CL would mean the sources would dry up.Like others I am now becoming bored with all this speculation and just hope the club can stay up this year and get taken over because I believe the crop of youngsters coming through could help us kick on over the next few seasons.
Also apologies for thinking you supported Millwall,as I now understand you just report on their games as your paper's number one geographical catchment area club.
I too thank you for fronting up Toby, not an easy thing to do on CL at times. I will tell you what bothers me, and it is the possibility that you were manipulated and used by Michael Slater to try and deflect the blame for the failed takeover onto the ACV in particular and CAFTrust in general. Charlton supporters are very loyal people, so on top of an already difficult and exceptionally testing time, we needed the divide and rule strategy like a hole in the head. I accept that you want 'scoops' that's your job, but please do not expect us to behave like sheep, I think we are a bit more intelligent than that, something Michael Slater needs to take on board. Perhaps you would remind him of this, in private, at your next meeting?
Will be good to remember that if you are told something in "private" and "off the record" and then don't reveal it on CL until other sources have made it public that is now OK and not a reason for you to be attacked for keeping secrets : - )
Comments
admin this week? not a chance in my opinion ... but I know nothing so as usual I will wait and see
I accept that your coverage of games iprobably matches up to your claim. Would you concede that your linking of the alleged breakdown of talks to ACV was a mistake, and do you understand the distress it caused Barnie and The Trust who had in good faith tried to help you write your previous exclusive - in- print article on ACV being passed?
Respect to you for coming on here, either way
Can you explain what happened when CAFC banned the SLP for running the Koc takeover rumour?
And given that ban were you surprised that Michael Slater picked the SLP to run the takeover story involving "a British based property company"?
Given that it later appeared that the takeover was from the American Josh Harris do you still feel that the first leak was true?
Richard Cawley is the Charlton correspondent for the SLP. Why then have the takeover leaks run under your name?
Thanks in advance
Just to clear things up, which team do you support ?
Barnie and the rest of the Trust were accused by people on here of being responsible for a bid apparently failing. That is a most unpleasant thing to read, regardless of who wrote it.
Would you feel able to go on record therefore and clarify whether it is still your understanding that the Harris bid has been withdrawn, and if so, was ACV a factor in that withdrawal?
Speaking only for myself, this would help to clear up the one and only problem I have with any of the SLP reporting of CAFC, which otherwise provides a valuable service in a tough business climate.
The Shopper has one page of sport a week (in most editions), in which it also covers non-League, Millwall and, in some editions, Palace. Within that they do quite well, I think. The SLP has about 15-17 pages of sport a week on average, of which two or three are allocated to Charlton, plus what is almost invariably a secondary story on the back page. It's hardly comparable.
Will there be any Charlton takeover rumours in this weeks SLP?
As the newspaper with largest local coverage of Charlton and, more importantly, it seems the current board's chosen avenue for leaking news/information you are now more than a neutral observer and reporter but an active and willing participant in what is being played out at Charlton.
Your sources tell you things in confidence with a clear understanding about what is reportable. Everything else is private and off the record and it would be unethical and unprofessional to divulge any more on a public message board.
I'm sorry you were subjected to such abuse when you were simply doing your job conscientiously and to the best of your abilities.
This is why the internet can sometimes do more harm than good.
I too thank you for coming on Toby,I understand that journalists normally know probably 3 times more than they can print and to divulge such information on CL would mean the sources would dry up.Like others I am now becoming bored with all this speculation and just hope the club can stay up this year and get taken over because I believe the crop of youngsters coming through could help us kick on over the next few seasons.
Also apologies for thinking you supported Millwall,as I now understand you just report on their games as your paper's number one geographical catchment area club.