Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Louis Mendez "asked" to stop doing Charlton commentaries
Comments
-
I know people's opinions of the club have sunk so low that the club could announce the signings of Messi, Ronaldo and Lewandowski and Roland could give every season ticket holder £100,000 each and it'd still be greeted with mass derision on here, but I have to say this seems a perfectly understandable decision by the club, and Louis seems to agree.
I'll miss Louis' commentary as he's pretty good at it and if it means we have to put up with more away games where only the home team's commentators are available it'll definitely be to the detriment of the CAFCPlayer service, but it's very difficult to do work for an organisation while very publicly criticising it.
I don't suppose someone working on advertising for McDonald's would last long in the job if he started up a blog slating how McDonald's was run and saying all their burgers were crap. Can't have your cake and eat it on these things, unfortunately.
We have lots of sticks to beat the club with at the moment, don't personally see the controversy on this one. If Louis is replaced by a commentator from Belgium who doesn't mention when the opposition scores, like some kind of North Korean minister for information, then we'll have something to complain about.6 -
Surely this means you don't have to worry about any criticism you may level at the club via the SLP and/or BBC now?
Seems like a huge foot bullet to me.1 -
Anyone know what he said to cause this? Assume it was something about the ownership on last night's podcast?0
-
Nothing to do with the podcast last night, found out beforehand.JaShea99 said:Anyone know what he said to cause this? Assume it was something about the ownership on last night's podcast?
Like I say it's a conflict of interest, I'm sure there's bits and pieces in SLP reports recently that don't represent the club in the light that they want to be represented in and therefore I am not a viable candidate to commentate.
Was gonna keep it quiet TBH but then thought it's gonna get out there anyway so I might as well mention it first that it's a conflict of interest thing, I think probably the right decision from a clubs point of view.
3 -
The controversy is embedded in the notion of a conflict of interests. I take that to mean that the club want the Charlton commentary to be only club friendly propaganda, rather than to allow the free judgement of those doing the commentary to express themselves in their other activities.
The club are trying to control the message, which judging by the Guardian article as of today/yesterday, they even now are failing clumsily and embarrassingly to do.
The message seems to be exactly the same as the message from the November meeting, as in nothing is going to change fundamentally.
The hierarchy think they can throw kids days, free travel, Jacko exhortations, Guardian interviews (!), blinds down in the directors room, tannoys up in the stadium, Jose Riga, any number of new blokes and lengths of contracts, any pronouncements by Richard Murray, any Facebook's by staff associated relatives, any Tweets by Tracey Leaburn and that's it! Problem solved! Like a good old dose of powerpoints.
Different day, same chite.
The whole farce screams of a club that does NOT think the supporters are the lifeblood of the club (despite Katriens hollow words yesterday). Yet we also have the whole huge existentially absurd ambiguity, that despite the parent club hating the support, the playing staff are asking for that self same support.
5 -
10 -
Not a conflict of interest for a normal club Louis ...Just the Iikes of us and Blackpool, both run by a dictatorship.LouisMend said:
Nothing to do with the podcast last night, found out beforehand.JaShea99 said:Anyone know what he said to cause this? Assume it was something about the ownership on last night's podcast?
Like I say it's a conflict of interest, I'm sure there's bits and pieces in SLP reports recently that don't represent the club in the light that they want to be represented in and therefore I am not a viable candidate to commentate.
Was gonna keep it quiet TBH but then thought it's gonna get out there anyway so I might as well mention it first that it's a conflict of interest thing, I think probably the right decision from a clubs point of view.8 -
Isn't that what PR and Marketing is - a means to try and control the way your business/brand/organisation or whatever is portrayed and perceived outside the organisation? You can call that propaganda if you like, but propoganda and PR/marketing always have been two sides of the same coin.seth plum said:The controversy is embedded in the notion of a conflict of interests. I take that to mean that the club want the Charlton commentary to be only club friendly propaganda, rather than to allow the free judgement of those doing the commentary to express themselves in their other activities.
As I understand it, the club provides the platform and the equipment for the commentators and the commentary goes out through a service with Charlton's branding all over it. They are well within their rights to want it to be done in a way which puts the club in a more positive light but there doesn't seem to be any suggestion that the club have banned criticism from the commentary - I don't think we'll see a situation where the people left doing it have to pretend we are always playing well, or that all the players are doing great, or that the crowd are really chanting Booourns.
Louis can't, on a Thursday, do a Charlton Live podcast which consist almost entirely of criticism of the club, its staff and owners, and write an SLP article highlighting all the clubs failures and then go into to do work for the club, under the clubs branding on a Saturday. None of us would be able to do that with our employers and expect to be allowed to just carry on unchallenged by the company management. It is a conflict of interest.
4 -
I have never listened to it but I assume the match commentary is supposed to be a match commentary. If the person doing it is elsewhere slating the club then there is every chance the commentary might become distorted. That's not a fact, it's a thought.seth plum said:The controversy is embedded in the notion of a conflict of interests. I take that to mean that the club want the Charlton commentary to be only club friendly propaganda, rather than to allow the free judgement of those doing the commentary to express themselves in their other activities.
Most importantly though, the person who this affects most (or perhaps who it only affects) doesn't mind and understands the decision.2 -
PWR but has anyone explained why Louis has asked to not do commentaries anymore? I mean I know the football has been shit under these morons but I'd have thought he quite enjoys commentating never the less?3
-
Sponsored links:
-
It does read two ways, that why the English Language is the dogs.
As the Queen herself would say.0 -
Maybe Katrien wants to have a go at doing the commentary herself, considering her excellent knowledge of The Championship.0
-
You have an opinion on something you haven't listened too... Good heavens, whatever next?!?!?!PL54 said:
I have never listened to it but I assume the match commentary is supposed to be a match commentary. If the person doing it is elsewhere slating the club then there is every chance the commentary might become distorted. That's not a fact, it's a thought.seth plum said:The controversy is embedded in the notion of a conflict of interests. I take that to mean that the club want the Charlton commentary to be only club friendly propaganda, rather than to allow the free judgement of those doing the commentary to express themselves in their other activities.
Most importantly though, the person who this affects most (or perhaps who it only affects) doesn't mind and understands the decision.10 -
Don't feel too sorry for Louis.
He's still got his day job to fall back on!
8 -
The truth obviously hurts and Katrien wants tame commentators who can't state the bleeding obvious. I really hope she's there tomorrow to face the barrage. I am pleased to hear Louis is ok with it but I am not and we shouldn't be. She has to go.1
-
Not going to be popular with this view but to me this is a definite conflict of interest and actually by stopping the direct Charlton piece it should help Louis to focus in his other roles without being concerned about what another employer may think. I have absolutely no issue with this whatsoever.
Undoubtedly Louis will be a loss as a good commentator etc but that is not really the point here.4 -
I have heard football match commentary before, amazingly.LoOkOuT said:
You have an opinion on something you haven't listened too... Good heavens, whatever next?!?!?!PL54 said:
I have never listened to it but I assume the match commentary is supposed to be a match commentary. If the person doing it is elsewhere slating the club then there is every chance the commentary might become distorted. That's not a fact, it's a thought.seth plum said:The controversy is embedded in the notion of a conflict of interests. I take that to mean that the club want the Charlton commentary to be only club friendly propaganda, rather than to allow the free judgement of those doing the commentary to express themselves in their other activities.
Most importantly though, the person who this affects most (or perhaps who it only affects) doesn't mind and understands the decision.
Is the stuff that he was doing different?0 -
32 -
Free the SLP one5
-
Thanks for all the excellent broadcasts Louis, good luck.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Louis is hardly gonna come out and slate the club for this decision when in the future he will need access to players and whoever else at the club to continue his work for SLP/BBC4
-
If you can't organize the club and bolster the team, shoot the messenger.1
-
Question @LouisMend, did you see this coming?0
-
But if you do not have an independent editorial policy you end up with a 'glorified advertorial,' promoting whatever the business, organisation wants to feed its listeners\readers etc. It is one of the key issues that the new head of communication will have to balance in there role at CAFC, with KM being her head of department, and in many ways the managing editor.
I do remember when Steve Brown was quite critical of the team performance on the commentary, what do CAFC expect a commentator to say when it is a poor performance, and the manager refuses to ask a direct but obvious question after several weeks of inept and poor performances?.
There has to be a balance of opinion , transparency and independence otherwise it just does not work in my opinion. Often as a freelancer, you have to ask provocative, and at times difficult questions. You also have to have a regard a to balance and fairness. I do not expect a 'Panorama' or Paxman approach to commentaries\articles, or an anti management rant, but in the present situation, what does the CEO expect the commentator to speak about?, especially when 11 goals in one week are conceded.
Ever heard the phrase 'do not shoot the messenger' KM?5 -
Yeh I had been given a warning a few weeks agoChunes said:Question @LouisMend, did you see this coming?
2 -
I thought i saw you sitting on the Naughty step.LouisMend said:
Yeh I had been given a warning a few weeks agoChunes said:Question @LouisMend, did you see this coming?
9 -
They should have given you 14 more shows to see if there was an improvement. Or until it was clear you'd lost the studio dressing room.LouisMend said:
Yeh I had been given a warning a few weeks agoChunes said:Question @LouisMend, did you see this coming?
Hopefully we'll get that new commentator bounce today against Blackburn. Murray has just put out a statement that the 12 year old Palace fan they have recruited to replace you after overhearing him waxing lyrical about Zaha's hair style on the 75 bus the other week is the man to take the commentary forward.
Don't worry too much mate Roland will probably give you a begging phone call in a year to come back on an 18 month contract when the interim replacement turns out to not be much kop ;-)23 -
They warned you off any more critical pieces?LouisMend said:
Yeh I had been given a warning a few weeks agoChunes said:Question @LouisMend, did you see this coming?
0 -
Louis will be on celebrity big brother next year at this rate3
-
Harsh on the age front.... would not want to work for this rabble anyway...Redmidland said:
Fixed it for you!!grumpyaddick said:Can we assume Pete F is being re-signed on a lucrative four and a half year deal that will secure his career til his mid-
thirtiessixties ?0
