As editor I take overall responsibility for the balance of the Voice - the front page is mine, as much as Airman Brown, and while I generally run things with a light touch I do try to make sure there is a spread of views. That doesn't necessarily mean equal space. It's a fanzine, not a public service broadcaster, and it sits alongside the unremittingly one-sided output of the club, which has to be seen as context.
Generally speaking people don't want it to be too miserable, which is something I understand and sought to reflect better in the current issue and the previous one, I had thought with some success. Still it is bound to reflect my preoccupations and I can't say I am remotely interested in Roland's other clubs, so I am content to leave that to those who may be.
As far as Richard Murray is concerned, he can't be above criticism just because of his contribution in the past. He has repeatedly made highly personal and in my view spiteful and unjustified criticisms of individuals in public forums and if he chooses to do that then he must expect them to be rebutted - the fact that he says they are "off the record" simply illustrates his unwillingness to put them up for critical examination by those who know different. Remember that in some cases these are people he relied upon heavily for many years, and who did not let him or the club down.
His recent claims about what went on at the beginning of the year are openly disputed by many of the participants. Nevertheless anyone who reads my book will see that Richard is praised without reservation for his role in the new chapters. I certainly don't hold him in any way responsible for the circumstances of my departure from the club. He played no part.
Anyone who wants to unpick arguments made in the Voice is welcome to do so in its pages, as well as on here if they wish. I would prefer to publish letters instead of more articles by me, but I've rather given up on the assumption that one-off comment is now easier on here. Still, I wrote ten out of 36 pages in the current issue, four of which were biographies of the new players and the background to the new Battle for The Valley, hardly trenchant criticism of RD and his works. A three page article about Johnnie Jackson by a new contributor, Weegie's 5-4 piece, Peter Cordwell's obituary of his friend Tony Smith, Craig Norris on the 20th anniversary of Target 10,000 and Dicko on Grimsby in 1991 are hardly negative, Wyn Grant on Katrien Meire (two pages) and Simon Matthews (five pages) on why the network is wonderful obviously not. Even Matt's piece on Reza is focused on the "brilliant" work done by the comms team during the World Cup, as much as the player's own contribution.
I'm not sure where the reference to Roger Alwen comes from as I don't recall writing about him recently, certainly in the Voice. He was completely out of his depth when it came to the return to The Valley and was rescued by Murray and Simons, which was very clear to those of us close to events at the time and the book has to reflect that because it's an honest record. However, I actually thought I'd softened the tone of the original towards him somewhat in the new edition.
Still a great read. Will always buy, unlike the programme!
Me to, is a good read, unlike the programme that I just skim. You don't have to agree with everything and it does have a range of views. Should be above reacting like a Grauniad reader finding a few pages from the Daily Mail had been thrown in.
I feel the Fanzine should reflect all the moods if possible. From the glass half Full :optimists the glass half empty :pessimists the glass shattered :what is the number for the samaritans (that's me after a defeat) where the hell has my glass gone: Goodbye cruel world.
Good to hear Airman Brown's comments and the glass half full feel to the recent edition.
So you guys who are critical did not wonder what the hell was going on when our best players at the time were being sold and the manager was being cajole into picking inferior network players.
That my friends are very much the job of a fanzine not just to act like a yes man but to counterweight the views from Roland, Richard and Katrien( she a cracker) so we have a balanced picture.
We do seem to be going in the right direction but it is so important who the custodians of our club are.
As going right back to the lack of investment from the Gliksten family over 50 years from 32-82.
where we could of become the Arsenal of South London and moaned that being 4th is just not good enough!
I have always bought it and enjoy my little chats with Mrs Everitt. I think it is up to the fanzine to take a more abrasive approach to the official stuff that comes out of the Club. This in general VOTV does. But with things going well with the club both off and on the field. It must be getting harder to find a balancing act between positive and negative.
Thanks for the heads up - just reminded me to put in my subscription for the yer as I've not seen the latest edition.
Wouldn't miss a copy for the World. The controversial bits make for all the more fun reading it - even if I disagree with certain points.
On its way.
One point worth making, perhaps, is that while I take responsibility for what appears in VOTV, I don't make my judgements about what to say, what to include or indeed the tone, in a vacuum. From a professional perspective I get a lot of useful pre-publication input from Matt Wright and Corinna Huxley (who has a publishing background), as well as views from many other Charlton supporters who will let me know if they enjoy this or that or think I've got something wrong in a particular issue. I also get a lot of feedback when selling. It's much more collaborative than people might think.
Thanks for the heads up - just reminded me to put in my subscription for the yer as I've not seen the latest edition.
Wouldn't miss a copy for the World. The controversial bits make for all the more fun reading it - even if I disagree with certain points.
On its way.
One point worth making, perhaps, is that while I take responsibility for what appears in VOTV, I don't make my judgements about what to say, what to include or indeed the tone, in a vacuum. From a professional perspective I get a lot of useful pre-publication input from Matt Wright and Corinna Huxley
Christ, you do even less for your money than i thought ! :-)
VOTV is an extremely well-written and neatly-produced magazine - 'fanzine' doesn't do justice to its range and depth of articles - one of the very best of its kind in the business. I've never understood the vigour with which many Lifers are offended or repelled by opinions with which they don't agree. For many years Airman has been a driving force in the cause of the fans and the club - both when they coincide and when they don't. We are lucky to have such an intelligent and expressive reporter and campaigner on our side.
The cover of the latest issue suggested the contents would achieve some level of balance but sadly this isn't the case. Airman and his cohort are free to print whatever they like of course. I'm not naive enough to believe they should even be expected to be publishing an entirely unbiased, open-minded magazine. The latest issue majored on familiar ground and opinions with a healthy dose of advertising for Airman's other recent publication. I chiefly don't understand at whom that is aimed. Anyone who has even the slightest notion who he is and the jobs he previously had will be well aware of his opinions. Some readers may share his views, some not, but I'm sure few if any will be converted by having the same grudges repeated again. Even slagging off the pariah Pardew has a shelf life. I'd be pleased to see an uncynical appraisal of the start to this season but I'd be even more surprised if it happens. My recollection of VOTV in its previous incarnation was that the mostly humourous and often unintentionally hilarious content made up for the many grave offences against written English. The much greater let's say focus of the recent incarnation is to the serious detriment of its entertainment value. All of this in the context of the medium of print having long passed into anachronism as a contemporary let alone influential organ for comment.
The cover of the latest issue suggested the contents would achieve some level of balance but sadly this isn't the case. Airman and his cohort are free to print whatever they like of course. I'm not naive enough to believe they should even be expected to be publishing an entirely unbiased, open-minded magazine. The latest issue majored on familiar ground and opinions with a healthy dose of advertising for Airman's other recent publication. I chiefly don't understand at whom that is aimed. Anyone who has even the slightest notion who he is and the jobs he previously had will be well aware of his opinions. Some readers may share his views, some not, but I'm sure few if any will be converted by having the same grudges repeated again. Even slagging off the pariah Pardew has a shelf life. I'd be pleased to see an uncynical appraisal of the start to this season but I'd be even more surprised if it happens. My recollection of VOTV in its previous incarnation was that the mostly humourous and often unintentionally hilarious content made up for the many grave offences against written English. The much greater let's say focus of the recent incarnation is to the serious detriment of its entertainment value. All of this in the context of the medium of print having long passed into anachronism as a contemporary let alone influential organ for comment.
The cover of the latest issue suggested the contents would achieve some level of balance but sadly this isn't the case. Airman and his cohort are free to print whatever they like of course. I'm not naive enough to believe they should even be expected to be publishing an entirely unbiased, open-minded magazine. The latest issue majored on familiar ground and opinions with a healthy dose of advertising for Airman's other recent publication. I chiefly don't understand at whom that is aimed. Anyone who has even the slightest notion who he is and the jobs he previously had will be well aware of his opinions. Some readers may share his views, some not, but I'm sure few if any will be converted by having the same grudges repeated again. Even slagging off the pariah Pardew has a shelf life. I'd be pleased to see an uncynical appraisal of the start to this season but I'd be even more surprised if it happens. My recollection of VOTV in its previous incarnation was that the mostly humourous and often unintentionally hilarious content made up for the many grave offences against written English. The much greater let's say focus of the recent incarnation is to the serious detriment of its entertainment value. All of this in the context of the medium of print having long passed into anachronism as a contemporary let alone influential organ for comment.
Why the bitter personal comments?
If you know what's in it you can save yourself some money and not buy it. Like most buyers I don't have a deep insight into what the contributors have done in the past or why they have certain biased opinions.
Your opinions are biased, my opinions are biased, how can you have an "unbiased opinion" (one for the oxymoron thread). And I can read VOTV on the train home without carrying my laptop to the match - why is the programme not just sold online? - its part of the day's experience.
It would be a poorer place without the people that commit to producing a fanzine and they are entitled to advertise what they want.
I've just been catching up and I am, suddenly, really impressed that Richard Rufus managed to win three player of the year awards, despite on playing 27 games for the club in his career.
I think VOTV did enough back in the day to warrant a certain level of respect, whatever your current point of view. I still read all of it, and even if the footy news side of the internet has replaced it's urgency, I don't believe it's entirely proved a substitute.
I've just been catching up and I am, suddenly, really impressed that Richard Rufus managed to win three player of the year awards, despite on playing 27 games for the club in his career.
I've just been catching up and I am, suddenly, really impressed that Richard Rufus managed to win three player of the year awards, despite on playing 27 games for the club in his career.
;-)
If you read the article you'll realise you've misunderstood the table. It's correct. :-)
VOTV is a fanzine. It's independently produced by Airman, with contributions from whosoever wishes to contribute. I find it quite interesting that dissenting views apparently haven't been sent to the Editor himself (correct me if I'm wrong, Airman?) but instead, criticism - some of it a bit personal - has been levied on here, an entirely different platform altogether.
Yes, we're in the Age of Information and multimedia and that, but if you read VOTV and disagree with it, then given you're [now] fully aware that the Editor is happy to print responses in his fanzine, surely you should write your response in kind (i.e. another fanzine, or via a letter to the publication itself)?
I don't see much in the way of articles on CL - and if there are, they're usually stickied and called "ARTICLE:" - so I think VOTV fills a niche in the market, so to speak.
Just purely out of curiosity (as I wondered when you re-lauched how it would do in a new world of the internet forums etc) how are sales doing this time around?
Glad the VOTV is still appearing in print, read the thing cover to cover on the way home from games and always learn something new about the club and its history. Worth every penny regardless of the opinions contained within.
I think VOTV offers something very different for Charlton fans than any football forum, blog or social media platform does at the moment. I've always bought it and will continue to do so.
The Voice is a vital component of our recent history, and without it there might not be Charlton playing at The Valley, or even no Charlton at all - how can this be so easily forgotton by some poeple ? !!!
I quote from issue 104 - the last issue before the recent relaunch which came out following the 4-2 win at Arsenal in Nov 2001 - "the Valley reclaimed and restored - a lost generation of support rebuilt, the team winning at Arsenal" - Rick then went on to explain the reasons why the Voice was stopping production before ending the fanzine with "and one day, sooner than any of us realise, there may again be cause and justification for the tattered standard to be raised again. We should be vigilan
half my last post didnt come through - continued...
" we should be vigilant and so should those who threaten our success"
And the time to re-establish the Voice arrived sooner than we would have hoped. Its ver simple - if you dont like it dont buy, but dont then moan when bad things happen to the Club and you didnt see it coming. The Club nearly went into adminsitration twice in the last four years remember ? IMO The Voice is a beaon of truth in a sometimes mirky world and I end with a quote from Dr Martin Luther King " nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"
Comments
Generally speaking people don't want it to be too miserable, which is something I understand and sought to reflect better in the current issue and the previous one, I had thought with some success. Still it is bound to reflect my preoccupations and I can't say I am remotely interested in Roland's other clubs, so I am content to leave that to those who may be.
As far as Richard Murray is concerned, he can't be above criticism just because of his contribution in the past. He has repeatedly made highly personal and in my view spiteful and unjustified criticisms of individuals in public forums and if he chooses to do that then he must expect them to be rebutted - the fact that he says they are "off the record" simply illustrates his unwillingness to put them up for critical examination by those who know different. Remember that in some cases these are people he relied upon heavily for many years, and who did not let him or the club down.
His recent claims about what went on at the beginning of the year are openly disputed by many of the participants. Nevertheless anyone who reads my book will see that Richard is praised without reservation for his role in the new chapters. I certainly don't hold him in any way responsible for the circumstances of my departure from the club. He played no part.
Anyone who wants to unpick arguments made in the Voice is welcome to do so in its pages, as well as on here if they wish. I would prefer to publish letters instead of more articles by me, but I've rather given up on the assumption that one-off comment is now easier on here. Still, I wrote ten out of 36 pages in the current issue, four of which were biographies of the new players and the background to the new Battle for The Valley, hardly trenchant criticism of RD and his works. A three page article about Johnnie Jackson by a new contributor, Weegie's 5-4 piece, Peter Cordwell's obituary of his friend Tony Smith, Craig Norris on the 20th anniversary of Target 10,000 and Dicko on Grimsby in 1991 are hardly negative, Wyn Grant on Katrien Meire (two pages) and Simon Matthews (five pages) on why the network is wonderful obviously not. Even Matt's piece on Reza is focused on the "brilliant" work done by the comms team during the World Cup, as much as the player's own contribution.
I'm not sure where the reference to Roger Alwen comes from as I don't recall writing about him recently, certainly in the Voice. He was completely out of his depth when it came to the return to The Valley and was rescued by Murray and Simons, which was very clear to those of us close to events at the time and the book has to reflect that because it's an honest record. However, I actually thought I'd softened the tone of the original towards him somewhat in the new edition.
From the glass half Full :optimists
the glass half empty :pessimists
the glass shattered :what is the number for the samaritans (that's me after a defeat)
where the hell has my glass gone: Goodbye cruel world.
Good to hear Airman Brown's comments and the glass half full feel to the recent edition.
So you guys who are critical did not wonder what the hell was going on when our best players at the time were being sold and the manager was being cajole into picking inferior network players.
That my friends are very much the job of a fanzine not just to act like a yes man but to counterweight the views from Roland, Richard and Katrien( she a cracker) so we have a balanced picture.
We do seem to be going in the right direction but it is so important who the custodians of our club are.
As going right back to the lack of investment from the Gliksten family over 50 years from 32-82.
where we could of become the Arsenal of South London and moaned that being 4th is just not good enough!
Wouldn't miss a copy for the World. The controversial bits make for all the more fun reading it - even if I disagree with certain points.
One point worth making, perhaps, is that while I take responsibility for what appears in VOTV, I don't make my judgements about what to say, what to include or indeed the tone, in a vacuum. From a professional perspective I get a lot of useful pre-publication input from Matt Wright and Corinna Huxley (who has a publishing background), as well as views from many other Charlton supporters who will let me know if they enjoy this or that or think I've got something wrong in a particular issue. I also get a lot of feedback when selling. It's much more collaborative than people might think.
Enjoyed the last issue more than any since its return, there was a lighter touch,
There is nobody who's views are more opposed to AB's than me. I am concerned about his ambitions and feelings about the club.
But, if that is how you feel, don't buy it! That way, whatever your views, you can have nothing to complain about.
Ignorance is bliss, as the saying goes...
If you know what's in it you can save yourself some money and not buy it. Like most buyers I don't have a deep insight into what the contributors have done in the past or why they have certain biased opinions.
Your opinions are biased, my opinions are biased, how can you have an "unbiased opinion" (one for the oxymoron thread). And I can read VOTV on the train home without carrying my laptop to the match - why is the programme not just sold online? - its part of the day's experience.
It would be a poorer place without the people that commit to producing a fanzine and they are entitled to advertise what they want.
;-)
:-)
Yes, we're in the Age of Information and multimedia and that, but if you read VOTV and disagree with it, then given you're [now] fully aware that the Editor is happy to print responses in his fanzine, surely you should write your response in kind (i.e. another fanzine, or via a letter to the publication itself)?
I don't see much in the way of articles on CL - and if there are, they're usually stickied and called "ARTICLE:" - so I think VOTV fills a niche in the market, so to speak.
Just purely out of curiosity (as I wondered when you re-lauched how it would do in a new world of the internet forums etc) how are sales doing this time around?
I quote from issue 104 - the last issue before the recent relaunch which came out following the 4-2 win at Arsenal in Nov 2001 - "the Valley reclaimed and restored - a lost generation of support rebuilt, the team winning at Arsenal" - Rick then went on to explain the reasons why the Voice was stopping production before ending the fanzine with "and one day, sooner than any of us realise, there may again be cause and justification for the tattered standard to be raised again. We should be vigilan
" we should be vigilant and so should those who threaten our success"
And the time to re-establish the Voice arrived sooner than we would have hoped. Its ver simple - if you dont like it dont buy, but dont then moan when bad things happen to the Club and you didnt see it coming. The Club nearly went into adminsitration twice in the last four years remember ? IMO The Voice is a beaon of truth in a sometimes mirky world and I end with a quote from Dr Martin Luther King " nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"