Regarding the last issue, if you took out Airman Brown's Diary, the OP would have no case whatsoever worth making.
But I am uneasy about some of the Diary's targets and how it addresses them, which I have mentioned to Airman directly. Hopefully people will have "information for Airman" which takes "him" out of the confines of SE7. Maybe across the water to alight on targets such as Dame Karren Brady, and the Mayor of London.
Regarding the last issue, if you took out Airman Brown's Diary, the OP would have no case whatsoever worth making.
But I am uneasy about some of the Diary's targets and how it addresses them, which I have mentioned to Airman directly. Hopefully people will have "information for Airman" which takes "him" out of the confines of SE7. Maybe across the water to alight on targets such as Dame Karren Brady, and the Mayor of London.
If you can point me to inaccuracies then I would be interested. However, I think your concern is misplaced if you want to defend the likes of Bradshaw, Prothero and Tugwell. Otherwise, you'll need to be more specific.
Should a fanzine ignore, for example, club claims that the pitch was the biggest building project at The Valley since 1992 or not poke fun at Richard Murray's bizarre claims to fondly remember watching Colin Powell? You'd better tell the staff who were laughing at both over the summer.
Crossbars membership has collapsed from 230 to 35, should this be concealed? Is it not likely to be because the person responsible got it completely and utterly wrong? Is it not ridiculous to state re the catering: "We have had to work hard to get the right partners to ensure the club's visions, values and ambitions are aligned"? and wrong to point out they are Arsenal's caterers.
I've never met Ben Kensell (or for that matter Bradshaw) but everyone tells me he's a nice guy and I'm sure he is, but if you send out first-person letters and write articles about "my ideas and plans" then you can't really be surprise if they are attributed to you and examined on that basis.
For what it's worth someone you know very well commented that the most recent ABD was the best yet, so perhaps you see my difficulty? Obviously I don't get everything right and there will be different views about it, but happy to leave you to write about Karren Brady and Boris Johnson in the Trust News.
Regarding the last issue, if you took out Airman Brown's Diary, the OP would have no case whatsoever worth making.
But I am uneasy about some of the Diary's targets and how it addresses them, which I have mentioned to Airman directly. Hopefully people will have "information for Airman" which takes "him" out of the confines of SE7. Maybe across the water to alight on targets such as Dame Karren Brady, and the Mayor of London.
If you can point me to inaccuracies then I would be interested. However, I think your concern is misplaced if you want to defend the likes of Bradshaw, Prothero and Tugwell. Otherwise, you'll need to be more specific.
Should a fanzine ignore, for example, club claims that the pitch was the biggest building project at The Valley since 1992 or not poke fun at Richard Murray's bizarre claims to fondly remember watching Colin Powell? You'd better tell the staff who were laughing at both over the summer.
Crossbars membership has collapsed from 230 to 35, should this be concealed? Is it not likely to be because the person responsible got it completely and utterly wrong? Is it not ridiculous to state re the catering: "We have had to work hard to get the right partners to ensure the club's visions, values and ambitions are aligned"? and wrong to point out they are Arsenal's caterers.
I've never met Ben Kensell (or for that matter Bradshaw) but everyone tells me he's a nice guy and I'm sure he is, but if you send out first-person letters and write articles about "my ideas and plans" then you can't really be surprise if they are attributed to you and examined on that basis.
For what it's worth someone you know very well commented that the most recent ABD was the best yet, so perhaps you see my difficulty? Obviously I don't get everything right and there will be different views about it, but happy to leave you to write about Karren Brady and Boris Johnson in the Trust News.
might be a bit late for that as its about to go to press.. for the AGM, Watford and Wolves if we have any left - big Exclusive in there but you'll need to follow our updates to find out more.
So am I allowed to write for both VOTV and Trust News, or do I have to choose sides? ;-)
She's a literary fly-by-night who did a hit and run on us. One Duchatelet article and her bags were packed. A heartless one-night-stand merchant who didn't even turn around to wave goodbye...
So am I allowed to write for both VOTV and Trust News, or do I have to choose sides? ;-)
She's a literary fly-by-night who did a hit and run on us. One Duchatelet article and her bags were packed. A heartless one-night-stand merchant who didn't even turn around to wave goodbye...
That was (apparently) in 2007. I have zero recollection before 2010 i'm afraid !
Interestingly, i just looked back at your RD piece. The opening page was clicked on 7,200 times, by 4,621 unique visitors. Very decent readership levels. Perhaps i should up your expenses :-)
Crossbars membership has collapsed from 230 to 35, </blockquote
What a suprise.....me and everybody I knew who used the place told them what they proposed was a bad idea , but I suspect it was set in stone by the time it was announced.
I have no doubt that the cheerleaders are a "Kensell idea" as well. But it's the Arsenal shirt we're playing in that really takes the piss! I bet he thinks he's clever.
I have no doubt that the cheerleaders are a "Kensell idea" as well. But it's the Arsenal shirt we're playing in that really takes the piss! I bet he thinks he's clever.
I really have tried to follow this with rapt attention but Pastis and wine have taken their toll. However beware of people who claim to be Henry Irving, he sells badges wot fall off before you can finish reading VOTV . Nighty byes all.
I have just come across an item which I feel is very apposite wrt to the supporter's Trust - the whole piece on ITTV articulates my view on the Supporters' Trust. The paragraph below appears particularly relevant and applies to all fan based organisations:
The challenge is THERE IS ONLY ONE FOOTBALL CLUB to support. If you attack one part of the club you are still attacking the club. As we have seen it is divisive at every level and breaks people into factions which then leads to the personal abuse.
Ben Kensell is not a player on a multi-million contract. He's not an elected official and he's not on the board. So why is his performance out of all of the hundreds of full time and casual staff at CAFC being reviewed in such a detailed manner?
We have £150 Season tickets sold out; a winning team which is the youngest squad in the league; we have £275 Season tickets which need promoting and selling off the back of the best start in years. We have the old sponsors AND a new deal with University of Greenwich worth ??? in contra value. New caterers who are delivering a better service.
So why is a publication with a circulation of c. 2,000 Charlton fans not promoting the changes and offers for empty seats? Unequivocally... no blame... wtf is the reason for the emphasis on £30,000 of lost revenue at Crossbars - what percentage of the annual £17M turnover is that? That's it 200 fans at £150 per head. Why sneer at the style of introduction to the caterers. Why try to box a member of the management team of our club into a corner.
As per the poster above THERE IS ONLY ONE FOOTBALL CLUB to support. If you attack one part of the club you are still attacking the club.
The problem with Grapevine's argument in general (as above) is that the club does not always work in its own interests, never mind those of supporters. This is not just true of Charlton, but the move to Selhurst is the obvious example.
Was it in Charlton's interests to employ Bradshaw, for another? You know enough of how he behaved, I assume, to be able to answer that question, but if not you could ask the people who left on his watch because of him or some of those still there. And even then you could ask why such a senior person subsequently departed with no public announcement by the club at the time and the only reference in the programme buried. He was the chief operating officer - wasn't that a bit odd? (Although I suppose it's an improvement from the chief executive being sacked by announcement on the OS).
Should a fanzine ignore all that and is that of itself an honest approach to its readers?
This would also, by the way, be a rationale for supporting Pardew regardless of results.
Kensell's performance likewise is going to be analysed because he was one of the three/four most senior people employed by the club on the non-football side - according to the club itself - and responsible, indeed publicly claimed ownership, of the initiatives you describe. It is laughable, even by your standards, to expect that he will be regarded in the same way as "hundreds of full-time and part-time staff", especially as most of these people work matchday only and their names are not even known to us.
I'm not aware of Ben's involvement in the playing side but certainly he is responsible for commercial initiatives. Whatever the merit of £150 season tickets, it is hardly a surprise that they are sold out when offered in such limited numbers. A proper analysis would look at the overall revenue effect of the changes, which is negative. I dare say you could sell all the stock in the Superstore quickly if you discounted it by 50-66 per cent, but that wouldn't make it a sensible thing to do.
You say that Crossbars is only worth £30k but tell that to the staff who were made redundant over the summer to save smaller sums or the many people now complaining about the Millennium while the north stand lounge is left virtually unused by paying supporters on matchdays. This is idiotic, not just financially, but also in terms of how the club is treating its other hospitality customers.
Is all this down to Ben? Not really, especially at this point. It's also a management failure above him at board level because it's their job to intervene when things go wrong, if not oversee the original decision-making. What you are really saying is that the club must not be criticised, but ultimately someone is always making the decisions. Whoever that person is they will be criticised. Like it or not that is part of the job. In this case Ben claimed ownership and doubtless would want to be lauded for those perceived successes.
You say we should "promote" the changes, but that's a very strange interpretation of the role of a fanzine, especially given that its readers are almost by definition diehard supporters of the club with access to other sources of information. Aren't they able to process different views and reject them as they find? And in that case, don't all posters on here have the same duty not to criticise the club in any way?
Unfortunately, you come from the perspective of how best to ingratiate yourself with the people running the club and always have. Indeed, that's why you've revived this thread.
I have to add to this: how can a fanzine promote anything the club do when since roughly January even the Supporters' Trust aren't able to, much as we'd like to and have offered.
Things may be changing on that front for the better but its a slow process, you will have to read TNT7 (shameless plug) this week and make up your own mind, regardless of that we must remain constructively critical as a Trust, while supporting CAFC.
VOTV it seems to me has its own unique style and no such obligation -it will be up to their readers I guess to decide whether that's appropriate.
In my view there is always room for a fully independent critical press, it is what keeps us honest in theory at least.
seriously red you are in danger of diluting many decent points you make by not letting go of some more personal disputes. You have written elsewhere that half the supporters trust members would leave if Airman became active within the trust...based on conversations you have had, and your own judgement. In the light of the positive response to Voice of the Valley I don't think that would be the case, not that I think Airman is standing for a role in the trust on Thursday at the Bugle (7 for 7.30 :-) )...are you standing Airman? You also have an ongoing thing with Henry Irving (we've all been there) who is establishing the Charlton museum...don't you see that 'thing' as an attack on part of the club? I wish VOTV was sometimes a bit more, errr, celebratory, but it is right that there are voices out there, not just VOTV, that point out failings within the club. Because there are problems with aspects of the club it does not always mean support melts away...for instance I still go despite the catering for vegetarians being useless :-)
seriously red you are in danger of diluting many decent points you make by not letting go of some more personal disputes. You have written elsewhere that half the supporters trust members would leave if Airman became active within the trust...based on conversations you have had, and your own judgement. In the light of the positive response to Voice of the Valley I don't think that would be the case, not that I think Airman is standing for a role in the trust on Thursday at the Bugle (7 for 7.30 :-) )...are you standing Airman? You also have an ongoing thing with Henry Irving (we've all been there) who is establishing the Charlton museum...don't you see that 'thing' as an attack on part of the club? I wish VOTV was sometimes a bit more, errr, celebratory, but it is right that there are voices out there, not just VOTV, that point out failings within the club. Because there are problems with aspects of the club it does not always mean support melts away...for instance I still go despite the catering for vegetarians being useless :-)
For seven years from 1991-98 I was secretary of the supporters' club, as well as editor of VOTV and (for much of that time) sports editor of the Mercury - surprisingly for some the sky did not fall in and at the end of it the club employed me for 14 years.
I've no interest in being any more closely involved with the trust, but I am a member and have a perfectly amicable relationship with those on its board.
I guess it comes down to individual opinions as to whether initiatives put forward by the Club such as abolishing Red, Red, Robin, imposing Cheer leaders and arbitarily removing long standing season ticket holders from their seats, seemingly without consultation, to name just three, should be meekly accepted in Stepford Wife fashion in order "not to attack the Club" or do we take ownership of the Club in as far as we are the Owner's "customers" and make our views known?
For myself I am very happy to have a forthright publication like 'Voice of The Valley' imposing a bit of sanity in the background and, since the Supporters Trust has been mentioned, as a paid up member whilst I fully support the Trust engaging in "constructive dialogue," or whatever the buzz phrase is, with the Club when push comes to shove I would expect the Trust to represent the interests of the supporters.
Comments
But I am uneasy about some of the Diary's targets and how it addresses them, which I have mentioned to Airman directly. Hopefully people will have "information for Airman" which takes "him" out of the confines of SE7. Maybe across the water to alight on targets such as Dame Karren Brady, and the Mayor of London.
Should a fanzine ignore, for example, club claims that the pitch was the biggest building project at The Valley since 1992 or not poke fun at Richard Murray's bizarre claims to fondly remember watching Colin Powell? You'd better tell the staff who were laughing at both over the summer.
Crossbars membership has collapsed from 230 to 35, should this be concealed? Is it not likely to be because the person responsible got it completely and utterly wrong? Is it not ridiculous to state re the catering: "We have had to work hard to get the right partners to ensure the club's visions, values and ambitions are aligned"? and wrong to point out they are Arsenal's caterers.
I've never met Ben Kensell (or for that matter Bradshaw) but everyone tells me he's a nice guy and I'm sure he is, but if you send out first-person letters and write articles about "my ideas and plans" then you can't really be surprise if they are attributed to you and examined on that basis.
For what it's worth someone you know very well commented that the most recent ABD was the best yet, so perhaps you see my difficulty? Obviously I don't get everything right and there will be different views about it, but happy to leave you to write about Karren Brady and Boris Johnson in the Trust News.
:-)
With the fees you pay I don't blame her
And you've also clearly completely forgotten the "In defence of Dennis" piece I wrote for you long ago.
Maybe one day I will return, but for now, pastures new beckon, where the grass is literally greener than last season, or they pay travel expenses.
;-)
Interestingly, i just looked back at your RD piece. The opening page was clicked on 7,200 times, by 4,621 unique visitors. Very decent readership levels. Perhaps i should up your expenses :-)
He'll promise you the world, likes, LOLs, promotes, stickies, the lot but once he's got what he wants he won't want to know you any more.
Crossbars membership has collapsed from 230 to 35, </blockquote
What a suprise.....me and everybody I knew who used the place told them what they proposed was a bad idea , but I suspect it was set in stone by the time it was announced.
Sssshhh - I haven't told Barnie about your travel expenses yet.
We have £150 Season tickets sold out; a winning team which is the youngest squad in the league; we have £275 Season tickets which need promoting and selling off the back of the best start in years. We have the old sponsors AND a new deal with University of Greenwich worth ??? in contra value. New caterers who are delivering a better service.
So why is a publication with a circulation of c. 2,000 Charlton fans not promoting the changes and offers for empty seats? Unequivocally... no blame... wtf is the reason for the emphasis on £30,000 of lost revenue at Crossbars - what percentage of the annual £17M turnover is that? That's it 200 fans at £150 per head. Why sneer at the style of introduction to the caterers. Why try to box a member of the management team of our club into a corner.
As per the poster above THERE IS ONLY ONE FOOTBALL CLUB to support. If you attack one part of the club you are still attacking the club.
Was it in Charlton's interests to employ Bradshaw, for another? You know enough of how he behaved, I assume, to be able to answer that question, but if not you could ask the people who left on his watch because of him or some of those still there. And even then you could ask why such a senior person subsequently departed with no public announcement by the club at the time and the only reference in the programme buried. He was the chief operating officer - wasn't that a bit odd? (Although I suppose it's an improvement from the chief executive being sacked by announcement on the OS).
Should a fanzine ignore all that and is that of itself an honest approach to its readers?
This would also, by the way, be a rationale for supporting Pardew regardless of results.
Kensell's performance likewise is going to be analysed because he was one of the three/four most senior people employed by the club on the non-football side - according to the club itself - and responsible, indeed publicly claimed ownership, of the initiatives you describe. It is laughable, even by your standards, to expect that he will be regarded in the same way as "hundreds of full-time and part-time staff", especially as most of these people work matchday only and their names are not even known to us.
I'm not aware of Ben's involvement in the playing side but certainly he is responsible for commercial initiatives. Whatever the merit of £150 season tickets, it is hardly a surprise that they are sold out when offered in such limited numbers. A proper analysis would look at the overall revenue effect of the changes, which is negative. I dare say you could sell all the stock in the Superstore quickly if you discounted it by 50-66 per cent, but that wouldn't make it a sensible thing to do.
You say that Crossbars is only worth £30k but tell that to the staff who were made redundant over the summer to save smaller sums or the many people now complaining about the Millennium while the north stand lounge is left virtually unused by paying supporters on matchdays. This is idiotic, not just financially, but also in terms of how the club is treating its other hospitality customers.
Is all this down to Ben? Not really, especially at this point. It's also a management failure above him at board level because it's their job to intervene when things go wrong, if not oversee the original decision-making. What you are really saying is that the club must not be criticised, but ultimately someone is always making the decisions. Whoever that person is they will be criticised. Like it or not that is part of the job. In this case Ben claimed ownership and doubtless would want to be lauded for those perceived successes.
You say we should "promote" the changes, but that's a very strange interpretation of the role of a fanzine, especially given that its readers are almost by definition diehard supporters of the club with access to other sources of information. Aren't they able to process different views and reject them as they find? And in that case, don't all posters on here have the same duty not to criticise the club in any way?
Unfortunately, you come from the perspective of how best to ingratiate yourself with the people running the club and always have. Indeed, that's why you've revived this thread.
Things may be changing on that front for the better but its a slow process, you will have to read TNT7 (shameless plug) this week and make up your own mind, regardless of that we must remain constructively critical as a Trust, while supporting CAFC.
VOTV it seems to me has its own unique style and no such obligation -it will be up to their readers I guess to decide whether that's appropriate.
In my view there is always room for a fully independent critical press, it is what keeps us honest in theory at least.
You also have an ongoing thing with Henry Irving (we've all been there) who is establishing the Charlton museum...don't you see that 'thing' as an attack on part of the club?
I wish VOTV was sometimes a bit more, errr, celebratory, but it is right that there are voices out there, not just VOTV, that point out failings within the club. Because there are problems with aspects of the club it does not always mean support melts away...for instance I still go despite the catering for vegetarians being useless :-)
I've no interest in being any more closely involved with the trust, but I am a member and have a perfectly amicable relationship with those on its board.
For myself I am very happy to have a forthright publication like 'Voice of The Valley' imposing a bit of sanity in the background and, since the Supporters Trust has been mentioned, as a paid up member whilst I fully support the Trust engaging in "constructive dialogue," or whatever the buzz phrase is, with the Club when push comes to shove I would expect the Trust to represent the interests of the supporters.