Bassett bombshell
1:55pm Friday 29th June 2007
Comments (69)FORMER Watford manager Dave Bassett acted as a consultant to Aidy Boothroyd last season, the Watford Observer can reveal.
Bassett was employed by the Hornets at a reported cost of around £1,500 per week during their ill-fated Premiership campaign and was a regular at home and away matches last season.
Boothroyd met with Bassett on a weekly basis for up to an hour-and-a-half at Bassett's home in Denham, talking tactics and discussing the best way to try and keep Watford in the Premiership.
The Watford boss has made no secret of the way in which he picks other manager's brains and he has sought the advice of the likes of Alan Pardew, Paul Jewell, Sir Clive Woodward and Sir Alex Ferguson in the past.
Bassett was renowned for deploying a direct style of play during his time as a manager. Boothroyd came under fire from many fans for adopting the same tactics last season and tried to develop a more measured approach towards the end.
Bassett, 62, is not thought to have had any involvement in team selection but he is believed to have overseen atleast one training session at the club's London Colney training ground. Bassett was keen to keep a low profile following a disastrous half-a-season spell in charge of the Hornets in 1987/1988.
Appointed as the successor to Graham Taylor after six years at Wimbledon, Bassett was thought to be too quick to dismantle the side that had finished ninth in the league the previous season.
Crowd favourites such as Kevin Richardson, who went on to be a member of Arsenal's championship-winning side in 1989, David Bardsley, Lee Sinnott and Mark Falco were all sold as the Stanmore-born Bassett removed backroom staff and brought in his own men.
Watford started the 1987-88 season terribly and Bassett was eventually sacked in January 1988 when relegation to the Second Division looked certain.
Bassett was back in employment just days after leaving Vicarage Road, taking over at Sheffield United but failing to prevent the Blades from sliding in the Third Division.
However, he then turned things around, enjoying back-to-back promotions and steering the Blades to the top tier of English football for the irst time since the 1970's.
United finished in 13th place and an impressive ninth in the next two seasons and took their place in the newly-formed Premier League.
Following a 14th-place finish and a run to the semi-finals of the FA Cup in 1993, Bassett's reign at Bramall Lane finally ended on the last day of the 1993-94 season when they lost 3-2 at Chelsea and were relegated.
An eighth-place finish in the 1994-95 Division One campaign was not enough to land them a play-off place and Bassett resigned the following December.
Bassett went on to reach the Play-off finals with Crystal Palace but was unable to prevent Nottingham Forest from being relegated in 1997. He brought the Division One championship crown to the City Ground in 1998 but was sacked again in October of that year. Forest have remained outside the Premiership ever since.
The former Hornets boss then enjoyed a mixed spell at Barnsley between May 1999 and December 2000 and was then in charge at Filbert Street as Leicester dropped out of the top flight for the first time in six years in 2002.
Bassett briefly became director of football at the club but took over as manager again in October 2004 after Micky Adams resigned.
His next job took him to Southampton where he assisted Harry Redknapp and he then became caretaker manager, along with Dennis Wise, once Redknapp moved across the south coast to Portsmouth.
He eventually left the club in 2005 after George Burley was appointed full-time manager.
A Watford spokesman said: "Dave Bassett is a long-standing friend of Aidy Boothroyd's and was simply invited to attend Watford's games on occasion last season for his thoughts."
Your Say YourWatford Observer
DoctorOfLetters, Cambridge says...
3:29pm Fri 29 Jun 07
Jaw-dropping stuff. That's £1,000 per hour. Can I be Aidy's friend, too? I'd only charge him £750.00 per week. Don't know if I can stretch to one & a half hours, though. And there'll be no refreshments. (I bet Dave didn't pay to get in either. Blast. If only I'd known, I'd have nominated him for Supporter of the Season.)
Peter, Chiswell Green says...
4:40pm Fri 29 Jun 07
What a waste we could have funded a young player for that money and at least had some sort of return for the investment. It's lucky there were none of our supporters around the directors box where Bassett presumably sat as I'm sure he would have been subjected to much verbal abuse being solely responsible for the destruction of our club inside 6 months.
Bob Bell, Norwich says...
5:38pm Fri 29 Jun 07
I hate Bassett more than these pages will allow me to express.What he did to our club first time around was disgraceful...what did he achieve second time ? Please god not a third !! Get this idiot out of the door for good and that includes him as a spectator.
JD, Berkhamsted says...
7:14pm Fri 29 Jun 07
Why is everything so secreative at the club these days? If it's not boardroom rows, it's hiden employees, not wonder we went down if bassett had something to do with the club.
Robbo3, Hampshire says...
7:41pm Fri 29 Jun 07
Directors at large companies often employ consultants at these types of prices. Does it really matter? If this was to have happened during our promotion season we wouldn't have cared one bit.
mike, says...
10:26pm Fri 29 Jun 07
Dave Bassett was a disaster as Watford Manager, however he has an excellent managerial record equal to Graham Taylor in terms of promotions i think.
Aidy was about 16 years old when Bassett was here so why shouldnt he consult with an experienced former manager?
Aidy was about 16 years old when Bassett was here so why shouldnt he consult with an experienced former manager?
Dorset Horn, Dorset says...
9:08am Sat 30 Jun 07
Ahh - That explains last season then !!!!
Michael Hr., Cambridge says...
11:44am Sat 30 Jun 07
'Directors at large companies often employ consultants at these types of prices. Does it really matter?' Ah, Robbo! Such cynicism encapulates precisely why I've all but lost my interest in the Watford FC 'business.' More fool those who continue to pump their money into it via the turnstyles. In 6 months, Bassett caused 10 years of disaster. And now supporters are rewarding him at four times the rate of the average wage.
Luther Blissett, Brinkley says...
2:43pm Sat 30 Jun 07
Well said, Michael Hr; what Robbo & the racketeers running corporate football fail to include within their cost-ledgers is supporter memory & intelligence. Paying Bassett is a moral outrage & an insult to us all. He's also a failure & cretin. This club has travelled a long, long way since the 1970s & '80s - mainly downwards.
Jack, Midlands says...
3:21pm Sat 30 Jun 07
Another day, another WO negative story on Aidy and the Board. You have been desparate to say 'I told you so' ever since the Lewington exit and, as it
hasn't happened on the pitch to talk us there.....
I am no fan of Bassett as with anyone who lived through that era at Watford but get this in perspective - high profile ex managers are employed on a regular basis to do ad hoc work at clubs up and down the land.
Why don't you shock us sometime and try a positive story......it's not three years ago or even twenty so stop living in the past.
hasn't happened on the pitch to talk us there.....
I am no fan of Bassett as with anyone who lived through that era at Watford but get this in perspective - high profile ex managers are employed on a regular basis to do ad hoc work at clubs up and down the land.
Why don't you shock us sometime and try a positive story......it's not three years ago or even twenty so stop living in the past.
Herbie, says...
7:36pm Sat 30 Jun 07
Jack
Like those running the club, it seems you have decided the only stories the WO is 'permitted' to run are happy, good news stories.
However, they have to generate good news for it to be possible to be written about.
Off the field, the club is secretive and scoffs at us fans by barely telling us anything. As paying customers, we've a right to know what is going on.
Last season was miserable, in terms of results and performances.
Now we discover that a man who (bar Vialli) has done more in my lifetime to destroy my club is being paid to advise the manager.
You're right, there are lots of ex-managers being paid for consultancy work - so let's find someone who is a less contentious choice in the minds of Watford fans.
And for me, this begs one very important question: the manager has been held up by so many happy clappers as a forward-thinking, innovative, ground-breaking manager, who is very much his own man.
So, why do we need to be shelling out £6k to seek the opinions of a manager who is far removed from those qualities?
Perhaps we should go the whole way and get Vinnie Jones in for some training sessions - or perhaps Dave Beasant is available to explain to Poom and Lee the key to whacking the ball 80 yards down the pitch.
The Watford Observer has run a story because it is of interest to the fans. The fact you think is a negative story reflects on the fact that employing Bassett as a consultant is indeed that - a negative.
Why do you think the club didn't say anything themselves?
Like those running the club, it seems you have decided the only stories the WO is 'permitted' to run are happy, good news stories.
However, they have to generate good news for it to be possible to be written about.
Off the field, the club is secretive and scoffs at us fans by barely telling us anything. As paying customers, we've a right to know what is going on.
Last season was miserable, in terms of results and performances.
Now we discover that a man who (bar Vialli) has done more in my lifetime to destroy my club is being paid to advise the manager.
You're right, there are lots of ex-managers being paid for consultancy work - so let's find someone who is a less contentious choice in the minds of Watford fans.
And for me, this begs one very important question: the manager has been held up by so many happy clappers as a forward-thinking, innovative, ground-breaking manager, who is very much his own man.
So, why do we need to be shelling out £6k to seek the opinions of a manager who is far removed from those qualities?
Perhaps we should go the whole way and get Vinnie Jones in for some training sessions - or perhaps Dave Beasant is available to explain to Poom and Lee the key to whacking the ball 80 yards down the pitch.
The Watford Observer has run a story because it is of interest to the fans. The fact you think is a negative story reflects on the fact that employing Bassett as a consultant is indeed that - a negative.
Why do you think the club didn't say anything themselves?
gordon kelly, CONSULTANTSVILLE says...
10:55pm Sat 30 Jun 07
as a MNGMNT consltnt i`m unhappy with "harry" offering cut rates! some of you guys need to stop being paranoid & over the top about EVERYTHING! You are distorting the hourly rate through malice/stupidity/ign
orance,etc
If he was NOT seeking other input i would worry!
orance,etc
If he was NOT seeking other input i would worry!
BORIS, watford says...
9:22am Sun 1 Jul 07
Fascinating that bassett is employed as a consultant but then why are Watford paying an experienced assistant manager KB. The risable Mr Ashton says they call KB Ledge as he is a legend but are they saying not enough experince to be consulted?
Jack, Midlands says...
10:18am Sun 1 Jul 07
Herbie,
thanks for the lecture! You have your opinion I have mine.....ever so sorry for having the temerity to disagree with you again which I am going to.
Read my words correctly and stop your spin.........I haven't 'decided' anything! I am just making a request for balance in the WO's coverage........larg
e coverage given to the Kabba case (a non story) and our alledged failure to sign two forwards that most other websites don't even seem to think we are after versus the virtual non coverage of the Poom signing being the latest example. There are countless others the last 3 years.
Given the sort of response they have got I am not shocked the club is not communicating with the WO......I can only say any 'secrecy' is the complete opposite of the openess I have experienced at club events etc....
And if thinking Aidy did miracles to get us promoted the year before last makes me a 'happy clapper' then thanks for that as well......
thanks for the lecture! You have your opinion I have mine.....ever so sorry for having the temerity to disagree with you again which I am going to.
Read my words correctly and stop your spin.........I haven't 'decided' anything! I am just making a request for balance in the WO's coverage........larg
e coverage given to the Kabba case (a non story) and our alledged failure to sign two forwards that most other websites don't even seem to think we are after versus the virtual non coverage of the Poom signing being the latest example. There are countless others the last 3 years.
Given the sort of response they have got I am not shocked the club is not communicating with the WO......I can only say any 'secrecy' is the complete opposite of the openess I have experienced at club events etc....
And if thinking Aidy did miracles to get us promoted the year before last makes me a 'happy clapper' then thanks for that as well......
Herbie, says...
1:09pm Sun 1 Jul 07
Jack
I love the debate, and please, keep it coming. That is what life is all about - two differing points of view held between two adults who can have a reasoned debate and, most possibly, agree to disagree at the end of the day.
And that is exactly what Watford don't want. They don't want debate. They don't want to hear other viewpoints. And they msot certainly don't want (or expect) anyone to disagree with them.
Watford FC has changed out of all recognition in the last three years. There has been progress - but it has come at a hefty price.
Watford isn't a friendly club anymore. They don't really value the fans - other than the hard-earned cash they part with. Their communication with us is appalling.
Take this bassett story. Put aside whether we think it's right or wrong - why didn't they tell us? If it's a secret, why is it a secret? perhaps, as another poster points out, we are already paying one former manager with years of experience a full-time wage (Burkinshaw) so why are we paying another one?
You may have experienced openness at club events. On the other hand, I have written letters to the chairman and the CEO, neither doing anything more than asking a couple of questions. No response.
Not talking to the Watford Observer will not help the paper - but is it good for the fans either?
If the club are only going to talk to us through the programme and website, then we are only going to get more of their unbalanced, rose-tinted view of life.
How can the paper present both sides of the story if the club won't give their side?
If the club decides to stop communicating with evert paper that writes stories based on rumours or reports something it doesn't like, we'll be lucky to get to Christmas before they aren't talking to anyone.
I go back to my original point Jack - you and I are having debate and we appear to disagree. But if I now refuse to talk to you, does thta me more right than you or better than you?
Nope, it just makes me look stupid.
As for thinking the manager did a great job in getting us promoted, I agree.
But how long can he continue to trade on that success?
We may do well this season - if we don't, how many months of mid-table life in the Championship do we take before we are allowed to question him?
I can see where you're coming from Jack, but with the club not talking to the paper, they have to write something.
I am sure many fans are interested to know the club has been paying Bassett. Personally I can't see many positives in it (especially bearing in mind the Burkinshaw point), so I can see why the WO story is painted with a negative tone.
However, if you and others find it positive, that's a viewpoint you are perfectly entitled to.
The fact remians we are both interested in the story - but we wouldn't have known if we had waited for the club to tell us.
Makes me wonder what else they're not telling us!
I love the debate, and please, keep it coming. That is what life is all about - two differing points of view held between two adults who can have a reasoned debate and, most possibly, agree to disagree at the end of the day.
And that is exactly what Watford don't want. They don't want debate. They don't want to hear other viewpoints. And they msot certainly don't want (or expect) anyone to disagree with them.
Watford FC has changed out of all recognition in the last three years. There has been progress - but it has come at a hefty price.
Watford isn't a friendly club anymore. They don't really value the fans - other than the hard-earned cash they part with. Their communication with us is appalling.
Take this bassett story. Put aside whether we think it's right or wrong - why didn't they tell us? If it's a secret, why is it a secret? perhaps, as another poster points out, we are already paying one former manager with years of experience a full-time wage (Burkinshaw) so why are we paying another one?
You may have experienced openness at club events. On the other hand, I have written letters to the chairman and the CEO, neither doing anything more than asking a couple of questions. No response.
Not talking to the Watford Observer will not help the paper - but is it good for the fans either?
If the club are only going to talk to us through the programme and website, then we are only going to get more of their unbalanced, rose-tinted view of life.
How can the paper present both sides of the story if the club won't give their side?
If the club decides to stop communicating with evert paper that writes stories based on rumours or reports something it doesn't like, we'll be lucky to get to Christmas before they aren't talking to anyone.
I go back to my original point Jack - you and I are having debate and we appear to disagree. But if I now refuse to talk to you, does thta me more right than you or better than you?
Nope, it just makes me look stupid.
As for thinking the manager did a great job in getting us promoted, I agree.
But how long can he continue to trade on that success?
We may do well this season - if we don't, how many months of mid-table life in the Championship do we take before we are allowed to question him?
I can see where you're coming from Jack, but with the club not talking to the paper, they have to write something.
I am sure many fans are interested to know the club has been paying Bassett. Personally I can't see many positives in it (especially bearing in mind the Burkinshaw point), so I can see why the WO story is painted with a negative tone.
However, if you and others find it positive, that's a viewpoint you are perfectly entitled to.
The fact remians we are both interested in the story - but we wouldn't have known if we had waited for the club to tell us.
Makes me wonder what else they're not telling us!
boris, watford says...
9:30am Mon 2 Jul 07
Is Herbie the club's pet poodle? As for the balanced coverage, if the club doesnt talk to the paper then they have to write the stories the club obviously prefer to hide. As for non coverage of the keeper signing, it was reported and he was interviewed. End of story.
Jack, Midlands says...
11:40am Mon 2 Jul 07
Herbie - fair play, we will agree to disagree. I do also see where you are coming from and agree with much of it but, like I said, I have always personally found the people at Watford really open including recently and it takes two to tango........
Boris - I am guessing you are talking about me rather than Herbie but you struggle with names so I won't get offended by that. I guess the concept of 'why that is the case' might be beyond you.
Was hoping I could say 'end of story' as well to make my point look really hard and conclusive - sadly I guess as a 'poodle' I can't because I am not as big and tough or self-righteous as you.
Oh well I will just have to give up then.....
Boris - I am guessing you are talking about me rather than Herbie but you struggle with names so I won't get offended by that. I guess the concept of 'why that is the case' might be beyond you.
Was hoping I could say 'end of story' as well to make my point look really hard and conclusive - sadly I guess as a 'poodle' I can't because I am not as big and tough or self-righteous as you.
Oh well I will just have to give up then.....
Herbie, says...
12:11pm Mon 2 Jul 07
Jack - very refreshing to have debated with you!
I think one thing we can hopefully agree on is that the club do need to look at their channels of communication. While you may well have found them open with you in person, that level of contact is something few fans can experience for themselves.
The club has had periods of non contact with the paper before (I remember the Vialli era) but such a stance always ends at some point.
The paper will continue to cover the club, and if the club suits continue with their 'vow of silence', the only people I can really see being affected are the fans.
I think we deserve better than to be the victims of the club's stance with the local paper.
I think one thing we can hopefully agree on is that the club do need to look at their channels of communication. While you may well have found them open with you in person, that level of contact is something few fans can experience for themselves.
The club has had periods of non contact with the paper before (I remember the Vialli era) but such a stance always ends at some point.
The paper will continue to cover the club, and if the club suits continue with their 'vow of silence', the only people I can really see being affected are the fans.
I think we deserve better than to be the victims of the club's stance with the local paper.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
5:32pm Mon 2 Jul 07
Herbie, I also think we deserve better than the recent standard of reporting from the paper.
Veally, says...
5:39pm Mon 2 Jul 07
I agree with much of these comments above. Bassett is not fit to lace the shoes of an average football fan, and less so for a Watford fan in light of what he did to us. I am becoming a little disillusioned with the "visionary" label applied to much of what is going on now. Much of it may be useful, but when there does bnot appear to the outside to be a definitive strategy to the tacticcal elements being assembled, then questions will get asked. It would be more useful if the WO (for example) did this rather than populate two thirds of a worthwhile news story with stats of DB's "achievements". Likewise stories of Clarke Carlisle going to Plymouth because he worked with Holloway a while back. On that basis..............H
o Hum. A bit more structure rather than an assemblage of pieces would be a good thing to see.
o Hum. A bit more structure rather than an assemblage of pieces would be a good thing to see.
DW, says...
6:57pm Mon 2 Jul 07
Putting aside the role of Observer so eloquently discussed above and focusing on the employment of Basset, doesn't AB have the right to employee who he wants? I always find it amusing that football fans consider themselves more knowledgeable on the beautiful game than those who have spent their lives working in the industry. It is one thing to highlight the ludicrous decision to sell Kevin Richardson or purchase of Ramon Vega but quite another to suggest that your average football fan could do a better overall job. That is not to say we should bow to those more knowledgeable or experienced than ourselves but lets keep a sense of perspective.
Herbie, says...
8:36pm Mon 2 Jul 07
Jonathan - it costs me about £20 a year to buy the WO. I only get about one game at Vicarage Road for that. I think we are getting a better return for our investment in the paper than the club right now.
And I would ask you this question - if the club will not supply the paper with anything, what other methods of reporting do you suggest?
DW - I wouldn't claim to be an authority on coaching, tactics or anything else. However, I do believe I have a stake in Watford FC (having paid to support them home and away for 30 years). So, I feel I have every right to be critical of, and question, the sense, value for money and thought behind paying £1,500 a week for an ex-manager to be 'consulted'. Especially as we have another ex-manager with even more experience on a full-time salary probably sitting in the same office as the manager.
If Bassett is a good friend of the manager's, as the club suggested in last weeks' paper, why does he feel the need to charge the club such a large sum for his wisdom? The club are trying to make us believe this was an ad-hoc arrangement with Bassett merely asked for a bit of advice. As they have made no attempt to deny the fact he was being paid, that would suggest to an outsider that this was more than some informal arrangement.
Putting personalities aside, as a fan, are you not a little concerned that we might have paid as much as £70,000 for advice from an out of work manager - and the club wanted to keep it a secret?
What else are they paying for and not telling us about?
The Watford Observer has merely brought to the surface something that many fans will have a strong opinion on.
Perhaps the club are doing themselves more harm than good by not talking to the paper.
If they were more forthcoming the WO wouldn't need to unearth such stories - and we fans might also have a better idea of what is going on at OUR club.
And I would ask you this question - if the club will not supply the paper with anything, what other methods of reporting do you suggest?
DW - I wouldn't claim to be an authority on coaching, tactics or anything else. However, I do believe I have a stake in Watford FC (having paid to support them home and away for 30 years). So, I feel I have every right to be critical of, and question, the sense, value for money and thought behind paying £1,500 a week for an ex-manager to be 'consulted'. Especially as we have another ex-manager with even more experience on a full-time salary probably sitting in the same office as the manager.
If Bassett is a good friend of the manager's, as the club suggested in last weeks' paper, why does he feel the need to charge the club such a large sum for his wisdom? The club are trying to make us believe this was an ad-hoc arrangement with Bassett merely asked for a bit of advice. As they have made no attempt to deny the fact he was being paid, that would suggest to an outsider that this was more than some informal arrangement.
Putting personalities aside, as a fan, are you not a little concerned that we might have paid as much as £70,000 for advice from an out of work manager - and the club wanted to keep it a secret?
What else are they paying for and not telling us about?
The Watford Observer has merely brought to the surface something that many fans will have a strong opinion on.
Perhaps the club are doing themselves more harm than good by not talking to the paper.
If they were more forthcoming the WO wouldn't need to unearth such stories - and we fans might also have a better idea of what is going on at OUR club.
Pete, London says...
8:50am Tue 3 Jul 07
The reason Watord FC are reluctant to speak to the Watford Observer is surely because of the recent sniping, factually incorrect reporting and third-rate tabloid-style journalism from Kevin Affleck. It is hardly surprising Aidy is not massively keen to share his thoughts with a man who seems to have a personal vendetta against him. There is only one winner in this battle and it's certainly not a very average journalist who should probably go back to reporting on sunday league football.
gordon kelly, RELEVANT EXPERIENCE says...
9:19am Tue 3 Jul 07
I think that DW puts it well-Herbie & I would probably not agree on how many days there are in a week! ( he thinks that the devils behind WFC have a hidden,secret agenda that they spend all day,every day building on)
I have made my points on the difference between Line Management & consultants in detail under other topic headings on this site,and as a consultant I can confirm that ALL organisations use such people particularly to give an independent view.the points re £70k,etc appear not to based on fact-a running rate cannot be trated as annually or hourly unless it is effectively full time-Herbie & the rest of us have every right to disagree but why the constant cynicism-if you cannot see that these are the good times when you take an overall view of our history then I despair.
i generally support the management of the club but have expressed reservations about some issues & would accept that the "mood & tone" of things could be improved but people such as Herbie appear only to see the downside of every issue-which you will always find if you look hard enough!
Affleck does worry me-he does not seem to have as good sources as you would expect and some of his aqrticles are too silly for words.He certainly does not see the matches that I do ( i had no problem with match reports from Olly or Matthews)
I have made my points on the difference between Line Management & consultants in detail under other topic headings on this site,and as a consultant I can confirm that ALL organisations use such people particularly to give an independent view.the points re £70k,etc appear not to based on fact-a running rate cannot be trated as annually or hourly unless it is effectively full time-Herbie & the rest of us have every right to disagree but why the constant cynicism-if you cannot see that these are the good times when you take an overall view of our history then I despair.
i generally support the management of the club but have expressed reservations about some issues & would accept that the "mood & tone" of things could be improved but people such as Herbie appear only to see the downside of every issue-which you will always find if you look hard enough!
Affleck does worry me-he does not seem to have as good sources as you would expect and some of his aqrticles are too silly for words.He certainly does not see the matches that I do ( i had no problem with match reports from Olly or Matthews)
Chris, says...
11:18am Tue 3 Jul 07
You couldn't make this up!
Employing someone whose recent record is abject, to stop us from being relegated.
Apart from his dreadful record with us, why would Aidy look to him for advice?
I think this seriously brings to mind that whether Aidy is capable of doing the job. Surely his judgement has to be questioned?
We were always told that Aidy "was his own man".
Obviously, Aidy does not believe he has the methods or management skills to motivate the team he has assembled.And we payed for this "advice". Bassett could not have believed that he was to be payed for his input. We are being made to look like mugs.
SACK AIDY!.
Employing someone whose recent record is abject, to stop us from being relegated.
Apart from his dreadful record with us, why would Aidy look to him for advice?
I think this seriously brings to mind that whether Aidy is capable of doing the job. Surely his judgement has to be questioned?
We were always told that Aidy "was his own man".
Obviously, Aidy does not believe he has the methods or management skills to motivate the team he has assembled.And we payed for this "advice". Bassett could not have believed that he was to be payed for his input. We are being made to look like mugs.
SACK AIDY!.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
11:33am Tue 3 Jul 07
Herbie, like you considerably more of my money goes into the coffers of the football club than those of the paper, frankly that is irrelevant.
I expect basic journalisitic integrity from any newspaper I read regardless of how much I may pay for it, or even if it's free.
The fact that the football club may no longer be spoon-feeding the paper stories is irrelevant.
It doesn't excuse the fact that the match reports no longer tell you what happened on the pitch and are just weekly instalments in Kevin Affleck thesis on why Aidy was doing a bad job.
When reporting the level of season ticket renewals this summer, the paper seemed to devote most of the story to an irrelevant comparison with renewals at Charlton Athletic and Sheffield United, which were unsurprisingly higher as they're bigger clubs.
I expect basic journalisitic integrity from any newspaper I read regardless of how much I may pay for it, or even if it's free.
The fact that the football club may no longer be spoon-feeding the paper stories is irrelevant.
It doesn't excuse the fact that the match reports no longer tell you what happened on the pitch and are just weekly instalments in Kevin Affleck thesis on why Aidy was doing a bad job.
When reporting the level of season ticket renewals this summer, the paper seemed to devote most of the story to an irrelevant comparison with renewals at Charlton Athletic and Sheffield United, which were unsurprisingly higher as they're bigger clubs.
gordon kelly, STUNNED DISBELIEF! says...
1:02pm Tue 3 Jul 07
CHRIS-are you on medication? sack a mngr who has just signed an improved 3 yr deal? Clearly you struggle with concepts re consultants/mngmnmt/
contracts/business,e
tc.
Taking advice is normal biz mngmnt practice-you are suggesting that it implies a lack of skill/knowlegde/conf
idence,etc-so why does any tiop company (such as banks) who have in house legal teams still use expensive law firms/ or Financial directors in companies still use external ACCOUNTANCY practices? You are clearly either not very experienced or you have some other issue because you make no sense at all.
contracts/business,e
tc.
Taking advice is normal biz mngmnt practice-you are suggesting that it implies a lack of skill/knowlegde/conf
idence,etc-so why does any tiop company (such as banks) who have in house legal teams still use expensive law firms/ or Financial directors in companies still use external ACCOUNTANCY practices? You are clearly either not very experienced or you have some other issue because you make no sense at all.
Herbie, says...
1:18pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Jonathan
It seems to me what you are saying is that the paper should run positive stories or reports that reflect Watford in a good light.
That's fine - if the stories are there.
I think a comparison of season ticket renewals at the three relegated clubs is very relevant. After all, if Charlton have sold 20,000 season tickets in a stadium that holds 27,000, we know they have sold 75% of the available seats. That percentage means we can draw a fair comparison with Watford, who might have fewer fans, but also have fewer seats.
I have been to Charlton's website, and the fact they have such good numbers is probably due to the offer they have made (buy a ST for 07/08, and if they go up, you get a free ST for 08/09). Again, that shows what can be done with creative thinking and allows us to consider and compare what a similarly relegated club has done to maintain ST sales.
As for match reports, I really don't rely on the WO for minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow reports of games. I can get those from the internet, TV or daily papers.
Therefore, I am looking for more analysis, which is what the WO and Kevin Affleck have aimed for.
Analysing last season's games can't have been easy - there weren't too many positives to be taken from lots of defeats and some very neanderthal football.
It all comes back to my original point - you can only write about positive things if they are there to be written about.
The club may be doing lots of positive things right now - but if they choose not to tell the WO, whose fault is that?
And in my opinion, giving news stories to the local paper is not spoon-feeding: I would call it honest and important communication with the target audience in their heartland.
It seems to me what you are saying is that the paper should run positive stories or reports that reflect Watford in a good light.
That's fine - if the stories are there.
I think a comparison of season ticket renewals at the three relegated clubs is very relevant. After all, if Charlton have sold 20,000 season tickets in a stadium that holds 27,000, we know they have sold 75% of the available seats. That percentage means we can draw a fair comparison with Watford, who might have fewer fans, but also have fewer seats.
I have been to Charlton's website, and the fact they have such good numbers is probably due to the offer they have made (buy a ST for 07/08, and if they go up, you get a free ST for 08/09). Again, that shows what can be done with creative thinking and allows us to consider and compare what a similarly relegated club has done to maintain ST sales.
As for match reports, I really don't rely on the WO for minute-by-minute, blow-by-blow reports of games. I can get those from the internet, TV or daily papers.
Therefore, I am looking for more analysis, which is what the WO and Kevin Affleck have aimed for.
Analysing last season's games can't have been easy - there weren't too many positives to be taken from lots of defeats and some very neanderthal football.
It all comes back to my original point - you can only write about positive things if they are there to be written about.
The club may be doing lots of positive things right now - but if they choose not to tell the WO, whose fault is that?
And in my opinion, giving news stories to the local paper is not spoon-feeding: I would call it honest and important communication with the target audience in their heartland.
Tommy, says...
1:27pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Pete
If you're going to start hurling personal abuse at Kevin Affleck, how about citing some examples?
Was the Bassett story made up? Was the Russos story made up? Was the Chris Cummins story made up?
Perhaps the WO adjusted the league table to make it look worse than it really was?!
And did Kevin Affleck pick the team each week, or fail to sign anyone of anyone substance in January? Was it Kevin Affleck who said we were looking at establishing ourselves in the top half with one eye on Europe? Was it Kevin Affleck who kept telling us we wouldn't go down?
A personal vendetta? Ridiculous.
What we have is manager, and other senior figures at the club, who don't aceept criticism, who won't hear a counter argument, who won't consider a second opinion and who think they can do and say exactly as they please.
Unless things change on the pitch, it could be the manager who is going back to working at a lower level.
If you're going to start hurling personal abuse at Kevin Affleck, how about citing some examples?
Was the Bassett story made up? Was the Russos story made up? Was the Chris Cummins story made up?
Perhaps the WO adjusted the league table to make it look worse than it really was?!
And did Kevin Affleck pick the team each week, or fail to sign anyone of anyone substance in January? Was it Kevin Affleck who said we were looking at establishing ourselves in the top half with one eye on Europe? Was it Kevin Affleck who kept telling us we wouldn't go down?
A personal vendetta? Ridiculous.
What we have is manager, and other senior figures at the club, who don't aceept criticism, who won't hear a counter argument, who won't consider a second opinion and who think they can do and say exactly as they please.
Unless things change on the pitch, it could be the manager who is going back to working at a lower level.
gordon kelly, SACK EM ALL! says...
1:39pm Tue 3 Jul 07
AIDY & DAVIES FIRED!
Billy Davies signed a new contract @ Derby yesterday & has apptntd CRAIG BROWN ( 1 club in England-fired from it (PNE)) as FOOTBALL CONSULTANT -Herbie ,Chris ,etc -you are quite right this proves that Davies like AB has no self-belief & must go!
I understand in the light of your brilliant analysis the CEO`s of all FTSE100 companies are resigning as they all use consultants & all other c`hip teams are giving away free tickets!
Charl;ton HAVE to repay their fans ( who in many cases deserve what has happened0 they have lots of people like you-They increasingly moaned at Curbs for not getting theim into Europe ( every `phone in on saturdays) until he got fed up-the board offered Davies the job & then gave it to Dowie-a totally self -inflicted wound! Charlton have had yrs of TV money + sales of Bent-the board Must get fans back on side as relegation was caused by Weak chmn listenuing to malcontent fans & then panicking.
Billy Davies signed a new contract @ Derby yesterday & has apptntd CRAIG BROWN ( 1 club in England-fired from it (PNE)) as FOOTBALL CONSULTANT -Herbie ,Chris ,etc -you are quite right this proves that Davies like AB has no self-belief & must go!
I understand in the light of your brilliant analysis the CEO`s of all FTSE100 companies are resigning as they all use consultants & all other c`hip teams are giving away free tickets!
Charl;ton HAVE to repay their fans ( who in many cases deserve what has happened0 they have lots of people like you-They increasingly moaned at Curbs for not getting theim into Europe ( every `phone in on saturdays) until he got fed up-the board offered Davies the job & then gave it to Dowie-a totally self -inflicted wound! Charlton have had yrs of TV money + sales of Bent-the board Must get fans back on side as relegation was caused by Weak chmn listenuing to malcontent fans & then panicking.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
2:22pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Herbie, I'm not saying that "the paper should run positive stories or reports that reflect Watford in a good light."
They should accurately report the news without putting any slant on it, negative or positive.
The story itself may cast the club in a particular light, not the manner in which it is reported.
The success or otherwise of season ticket sales should be judged against the size of the fan-base, not of the stadium.
The catchment area for Charlton is big enough that their programme for our game their reported their plans to increase their capacity to 40,000. Maybe their season ticket sales should be compared to that figure.
One could interpret from their offer to their fans that they were so concerned about their fickleness that they had to offer the incentive of free Premiership season tickets for the next season.
And despite all those fans renewing their season tickets and the benefit of considerably more years of Premiership TV money than we've had, they still had to axe their ladies team to save money.
"Analysing last season's games can't have been easy" - Is that their excuse for what they produced?
I don't remember the coverage being so poor in the previous Premiership season, when we played a poorer standard of football overall than we did last season.
"And in my opinion, giving news stories to the local paper is not spoon-feeding: I would call it honest and important communication with the target audience in their heartland." If the club want to communicate with its target audience, all it needs to do is put the information on their web-site and they will more effectively reach a greater proportion of their fans than the paper ever can.
Tommy, you ask if the Russos story was made up.
If it had been accurately reported, would the paper have needed to issue an apology and pay damages?
They should accurately report the news without putting any slant on it, negative or positive.
The story itself may cast the club in a particular light, not the manner in which it is reported.
The success or otherwise of season ticket sales should be judged against the size of the fan-base, not of the stadium.
The catchment area for Charlton is big enough that their programme for our game their reported their plans to increase their capacity to 40,000. Maybe their season ticket sales should be compared to that figure.
One could interpret from their offer to their fans that they were so concerned about their fickleness that they had to offer the incentive of free Premiership season tickets for the next season.
And despite all those fans renewing their season tickets and the benefit of considerably more years of Premiership TV money than we've had, they still had to axe their ladies team to save money.
"Analysing last season's games can't have been easy" - Is that their excuse for what they produced?
I don't remember the coverage being so poor in the previous Premiership season, when we played a poorer standard of football overall than we did last season.
"And in my opinion, giving news stories to the local paper is not spoon-feeding: I would call it honest and important communication with the target audience in their heartland." If the club want to communicate with its target audience, all it needs to do is put the information on their web-site and they will more effectively reach a greater proportion of their fans than the paper ever can.
Tommy, you ask if the Russos story was made up.
If it had been accurately reported, would the paper have needed to issue an apology and pay damages?
Chris, says...
4:06pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Gordon, I do not struggle re consultants.
But what I cannot understand is why we had employ "Harry" Bassett.
Of all the people to help us why we do pick a man who is so hated by ALL the supporters.
Why do we have KB on our books, then?
I have been saying for months that AB should have been sacked.
I think that is why the Russo's have been ousted. These were the people who bailed the club out.
But what I cannot understand is why we had employ "Harry" Bassett.
Of all the people to help us why we do pick a man who is so hated by ALL the supporters.
Why do we have KB on our books, then?
I have been saying for months that AB should have been sacked.
I think that is why the Russo's have been ousted. These were the people who bailed the club out.
gordonkelly, BAFFLED says...
4:34pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Chris
you contradict yourself in virtually every paragraph-i don`t HATE Bassett-i hate child molesters,terrorists
-get some perspective-i am at LEAST as much aupporter as you,so don`t speak for me!
You cannot seperate issues such as assistant MNGR ( with consultants -you claim to u`std but show that you don`plc`s have Financial directors so why do they use external Accountancy firms/consultants etc? I cannot put this stuff any simpler!
you contradict yourself in virtually every paragraph-i don`t HATE Bassett-i hate child molesters,terrorists
-get some perspective-i am at LEAST as much aupporter as you,so don`t speak for me!
You cannot seperate issues such as assistant MNGR ( with consultants -you claim to u`std but show that you don`plc`s have Financial directors so why do they use external Accountancy firms/consultants etc? I cannot put this stuff any simpler!
Muzzy, Abbots says...
4:37pm Tue 3 Jul 07
The anti-WO reporter sentiments among these comments are laughable. Granted Affleck can be a bit harsh in his match reports for example his Doyley-bashing probably didn't help the player's confidence much.
But as far as I can tell he has always tried to maintain an impartial view on matters, rather than toadying to the club. I'm sure he could make his own job much easier by just writing what the manager, etc want to read.
But I personally don't always want to hear the latest Aidy spin. The stories he has come up with are obviously worth reporting or they wouldn't attract so much debate in these pages
But as far as I can tell he has always tried to maintain an impartial view on matters, rather than toadying to the club. I'm sure he could make his own job much easier by just writing what the manager, etc want to read.
But I personally don't always want to hear the latest Aidy spin. The stories he has come up with are obviously worth reporting or they wouldn't attract so much debate in these pages
gordon kelly, TYPO HELL says...
4:42pm Tue 3 Jul 07
APOLOGIES FOR ERRORS ON MY LAST BLAST!
Chris the Russos did NOT bail us out-this has been accepted as part of WO climbdown as FACT,so don`t peddle such rubbish.
Muzzy-if you believe what you write then why is this comment column titled BASSETT BOMBSHELL? it is a very minor point presented stupidly to get people who cannot think to react adversely.
Chris the Russos did NOT bail us out-this has been accepted as part of WO climbdown as FACT,so don`t peddle such rubbish.
Muzzy-if you believe what you write then why is this comment column titled BASSETT BOMBSHELL? it is a very minor point presented stupidly to get people who cannot think to react adversely.
Chris, says...
4:53pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Gordon, haven't the Russo's got approx £9m of shares?
I presume all this will have to repaid to them?
Perhaps Bassett was not hated by fans, but he has been much maligned by all the Watford fans that I know.
A total disaster. But I think you concur with his appointment, and would gladly see him back there next season.
I presume all this will have to repaid to them?
Perhaps Bassett was not hated by fans, but he has been much maligned by all the Watford fans that I know.
A total disaster. But I think you concur with his appointment, and would gladly see him back there next season.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
5:47pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Chris - The fact that the Russos own a significant chunk of shares gives them a certain say in the running of the club, for example being able to call an EGM, but having £9m of shares doesn't mean the club has to repay them £9m, although I think they may still have a loan outstanding to the club.
If anything, having such a large amount of money invested in the club means that if they want to see a return on their investment it would be against their interests to do anything to imperil the club's financial stability.
If anything, having such a large amount of money invested in the club means that if they want to see a return on their investment it would be against their interests to do anything to imperil the club's financial stability.
gordon kelly, HAVING A BRAIN says...
6:11pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Chris
how dumb are you?
shareholding & loans were AFTER GS saved club (part of WO apology for getting it as wrong as you) Who says I want him back-GROW UP! This is childish when you lose the key points you make comments about rubbish-I already said to keep AB so how can you be so ridiculous?
However at the time I knew "harry" quite well & he thought he was going to Villa or Man city-only when GT went for the villa job ( and i know ALL the detail as GT,Harry,Bertie Mee & Eddie Plumley ALL individually told me the story)did Elton go for "harry" so by the time I knew on Monday he was appointed I never had time to think about it as GT only left same day.Incidentally if like "harry" you came home from connentating on Cup Final to Find Elton & Eddie plumley sitting in your house wouldn`t you have taken the Wfd job? They were all watching the Final @john reid`s house (round corner from Bassett`s) & listening to harry commentate they decided he was the guy!
Although Eddie & I quickly thought it was wrong guy we ALL thought he was a good choice at first-INCLUDING MAJORITY OF FANS. I actually use it on M<NGMNT course I run to show diff between getting promoted in a biz to going in at a senior level without taking time ti undstnd it. Harry knows he screwed up but AFFLECK is wroing again-he was NOT SACKED1 he actuually resigned fairly early because he knew he could not turn it around at that point but thought someone new may be able to-quite decent really-even OLLY thought that keeping him would bring us back up!
how dumb are you?
shareholding & loans were AFTER GS saved club (part of WO apology for getting it as wrong as you) Who says I want him back-GROW UP! This is childish when you lose the key points you make comments about rubbish-I already said to keep AB so how can you be so ridiculous?
However at the time I knew "harry" quite well & he thought he was going to Villa or Man city-only when GT went for the villa job ( and i know ALL the detail as GT,Harry,Bertie Mee & Eddie Plumley ALL individually told me the story)did Elton go for "harry" so by the time I knew on Monday he was appointed I never had time to think about it as GT only left same day.Incidentally if like "harry" you came home from connentating on Cup Final to Find Elton & Eddie plumley sitting in your house wouldn`t you have taken the Wfd job? They were all watching the Final @john reid`s house (round corner from Bassett`s) & listening to harry commentate they decided he was the guy!
Although Eddie & I quickly thought it was wrong guy we ALL thought he was a good choice at first-INCLUDING MAJORITY OF FANS. I actually use it on M<NGMNT course I run to show diff between getting promoted in a biz to going in at a senior level without taking time ti undstnd it. Harry knows he screwed up but AFFLECK is wroing again-he was NOT SACKED1 he actuually resigned fairly early because he knew he could not turn it around at that point but thought someone new may be able to-quite decent really-even OLLY thought that keeping him would bring us back up!
Herbie, says...
6:24pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Jonathan - I can see what you want the WO t do, but I just don't see how it's possible! As you and I are demonstrating, people are very different in their views and beliefs.
If the WO tried to run a totally neutral story, some would find it sycophantic towards the club and others would say it was too harsh.
You interpret the Charlton ST offer as possibly sucking up to fickle fans. I see it as a very positive way of getting a full stadium - and if they go up, the cost of the free ST will be more than covered by the increased TV income etc.
I can't agree with you that we played better football last season than in 99/00. I went home and away in 99/00 and we actually had a go in games. We tried to win games. last season, all too often our main aim was to stop the other team and strangle the life out of the game. Bearable if it leads to a victory, but pretty sturgid stuff when it doesn't.
As for the club website, it's virtually Pravda! The sun is always shining on watfordfc.com, and everyone loves everyone else. They can certainly reach a wider audience but in reality, it is extremely rose-tinted stuff. It's like a restaurant - if I wanted a real review I'd buy a paper, because they're hardly going to criticse their own food!
You cannot rely on the club to report everything, warts and all. Nor should we expect them to - but stopping anyone else doing it either isn't right.
ncidentally, the story that led to the legal proceedings was the one involving Steve Simmons. The initial stories about the Russos and their removal from the board did not lead to any action.
And when the club made that announcement on their website, were you really and honestly happy with the lame, one paragraph explanation?
If the WO tried to run a totally neutral story, some would find it sycophantic towards the club and others would say it was too harsh.
You interpret the Charlton ST offer as possibly sucking up to fickle fans. I see it as a very positive way of getting a full stadium - and if they go up, the cost of the free ST will be more than covered by the increased TV income etc.
I can't agree with you that we played better football last season than in 99/00. I went home and away in 99/00 and we actually had a go in games. We tried to win games. last season, all too often our main aim was to stop the other team and strangle the life out of the game. Bearable if it leads to a victory, but pretty sturgid stuff when it doesn't.
As for the club website, it's virtually Pravda! The sun is always shining on watfordfc.com, and everyone loves everyone else. They can certainly reach a wider audience but in reality, it is extremely rose-tinted stuff. It's like a restaurant - if I wanted a real review I'd buy a paper, because they're hardly going to criticse their own food!
You cannot rely on the club to report everything, warts and all. Nor should we expect them to - but stopping anyone else doing it either isn't right.
ncidentally, the story that led to the legal proceedings was the one involving Steve Simmons. The initial stories about the Russos and their removal from the board did not lead to any action.
And when the club made that announcement on their website, were you really and honestly happy with the lame, one paragraph explanation?
gordon kelly, SOVIET UNION? says...
6:43pm Tue 3 Jul 07
COMRADE Herbie
PRAVDA means TRUTH! unusual for you to compliment club!
Legal action was finally triggered by Simmons article but WO did print retraction of "russo rescue " story as part of whole situation as they had got it WRONG
Last season we did NOT set out to stop opposition enough-our downfall was attacking too much otherwise last minute defeats re arsenal/bolton/chels
ea/s utd/newcastle,etc would have been draws-if yo actually SAW those gamers you did not understand what you were watching-I actually think that a defensive approach from the start may have saved us ( just about)
OFF TO THE SALT MINES WITH YOU!
PRAVDA means TRUTH! unusual for you to compliment club!
Legal action was finally triggered by Simmons article but WO did print retraction of "russo rescue " story as part of whole situation as they had got it WRONG
Last season we did NOT set out to stop opposition enough-our downfall was attacking too much otherwise last minute defeats re arsenal/bolton/chels
ea/s utd/newcastle,etc would have been draws-if yo actually SAW those gamers you did not understand what you were watching-I actually think that a defensive approach from the start may have saved us ( just about)
OFF TO THE SALT MINES WITH YOU!
john, on says...
6:57pm Tue 3 Jul 07
i find it shocking that Aidy Boothroyd has been using D Bassett as a consultant. I find it shocking that Chris Cummins was sacked apparently over monies due to him. I find it shocking the WO has now run this ridiculous article about a trialist who wasnt happy.
Whats going on - whats happening to the family club !
The football was largely rubbish last season but at least I thought it was solely down to the internal management team.
I wonder if Mr Bassett was a consultant in our promotion year ?
Why was the man not paid on a results basis?
Whats going on - whats happening to the family club !
The football was largely rubbish last season but at least I thought it was solely down to the internal management team.
I wonder if Mr Bassett was a consultant in our promotion year ?
Why was the man not paid on a results basis?
alan, mk says...
8:02pm Tue 3 Jul 07
I do not want the WO to run a WFC fan club, but a sense of balance and the occasional postive story is not to much to ask, is it?
Herbie, says...
8:41pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Gordon
Are you ever WRONG? (I hate using caps, but it seems you like to do a bit of textual shouting).
You seem to accuse everyone else of being wrong, being stupid, being negative etc
Who made you judge and jury, sir?
Yes, I saw the games Gordon. Just as I saw them for 30-odd seasons before that.
In my opinion, we simply did not try to win games. At times, it was hard to decipher what exactly the game plan was.
One thing that was easy to spot was that Foster was asked to thump the ball as far down field as he could at every opportunity, and the defenders' stock pass was a 60-yard punt.
Now we know where the guidance for those tactics came from.
Like just about every other organisation, the WO has made mistakes.
But it seems to me that Watford FC, and you Gordon, are never wrong. It's just everyone else.
Spot on - Pravda means Truth. Well done.
It was the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party - another organisation which had some forceful tactics for dissentors and doubters.
My use of Pravda was ironic. Maybe it was lost on you.
I don't generally go in for the constant references to management courses, success in business or name-dropping you regularly pepper your posts with.
However, as you seem to know GT so well, perhaps you'd like to let me know how that is so? As I am meeting him for lunch next week, I can check your story.
And please, don't doubt me. That's not name dropping - that's fact.
Are you ever WRONG? (I hate using caps, but it seems you like to do a bit of textual shouting).
You seem to accuse everyone else of being wrong, being stupid, being negative etc
Who made you judge and jury, sir?
Yes, I saw the games Gordon. Just as I saw them for 30-odd seasons before that.
In my opinion, we simply did not try to win games. At times, it was hard to decipher what exactly the game plan was.
One thing that was easy to spot was that Foster was asked to thump the ball as far down field as he could at every opportunity, and the defenders' stock pass was a 60-yard punt.
Now we know where the guidance for those tactics came from.
Like just about every other organisation, the WO has made mistakes.
But it seems to me that Watford FC, and you Gordon, are never wrong. It's just everyone else.
Spot on - Pravda means Truth. Well done.
It was the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party - another organisation which had some forceful tactics for dissentors and doubters.
My use of Pravda was ironic. Maybe it was lost on you.
I don't generally go in for the constant references to management courses, success in business or name-dropping you regularly pepper your posts with.
However, as you seem to know GT so well, perhaps you'd like to let me know how that is so? As I am meeting him for lunch next week, I can check your story.
And please, don't doubt me. That's not name dropping - that's fact.
gordon kelly, KREMLIN says...
9:30pm Tue 3 Jul 07
GREETINGS COMRADE
yes i am sometimes wrong but compared to you very rarely!
You twist what people say (jack ) and make leaps of logic that fail any test of fact.
I dont give a FLYING F*** if you believe me but GT will tell you that when Elton Offered Harry the job GT had noyt even resigned at that point!
GT told me this & more when he was back in 97/98 as GENERAL MNGR & I was dealing with him & Mark Devlin about a potential joint enterprise with my company backing WFC branded training courses.(petchey wouldn`t fund it so it died)
I doubt your motives & intelligence but you feel it`s ok to doubt my integrity-so get lost!
yes i am sometimes wrong but compared to you very rarely!
You twist what people say (jack ) and make leaps of logic that fail any test of fact.
I dont give a FLYING F*** if you believe me but GT will tell you that when Elton Offered Harry the job GT had noyt even resigned at that point!
GT told me this & more when he was back in 97/98 as GENERAL MNGR & I was dealing with him & Mark Devlin about a potential joint enterprise with my company backing WFC branded training courses.(petchey wouldn`t fund it so it died)
I doubt your motives & intelligence but you feel it`s ok to doubt my integrity-so get lost!
gordon kelly, WATCHING THE GAME says...
9:33pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Herbie
askl GT if he thinhs we were too defensive? MUPPET!
Fosters kick was our overused ATTACKING ploy!
askl GT if he thinhs we were too defensive? MUPPET!
Fosters kick was our overused ATTACKING ploy!
Herbie, says...
9:49pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Oh Gordon
Why do you have to resort to such anger and unpleasantness at the first sign of someone quizzing you or disagreeing with you?
Please, look back through my posts: I may stand by my views but I have not resorted to the sort of aggressiveness, name-calling or foul language of your last message.
I think also, if you look to the exchange between myself and Jack, we both maintained a level of maturity and merely enjoyed a healthy debate.
You know, Gordon, people are entitled to have an opposing view to yours. And, may I add, those who do are not 'dumb' or 'on medication'.
As someone who has obviously operated at the highest level in the business world, do you not think launching such tirades and using such puerile language is the sort of unnecessary sensationalist provocation you accuse the WO of?
As for telling me to get lost - you don't really mean that Gordon, do you?
You love the banter, you love playing to an audience.
I will ask Graham whether he remembers what you have said here next week. I could also give Mark a call - you see, I was involved at Vicarage Road in professional capacity from 1989 until about three years ago.
One thing I don't understand is why Petchey would have been the person funding your joint venture - when GT returned in 1997 it was as part of the move to oust Petchey and put the club back in the hands of Sir Elton.
That's not you being wrong is it Gordon?
No, thought not . . .
Why do you have to resort to such anger and unpleasantness at the first sign of someone quizzing you or disagreeing with you?
Please, look back through my posts: I may stand by my views but I have not resorted to the sort of aggressiveness, name-calling or foul language of your last message.
I think also, if you look to the exchange between myself and Jack, we both maintained a level of maturity and merely enjoyed a healthy debate.
You know, Gordon, people are entitled to have an opposing view to yours. And, may I add, those who do are not 'dumb' or 'on medication'.
As someone who has obviously operated at the highest level in the business world, do you not think launching such tirades and using such puerile language is the sort of unnecessary sensationalist provocation you accuse the WO of?
As for telling me to get lost - you don't really mean that Gordon, do you?
You love the banter, you love playing to an audience.
I will ask Graham whether he remembers what you have said here next week. I could also give Mark a call - you see, I was involved at Vicarage Road in professional capacity from 1989 until about three years ago.
One thing I don't understand is why Petchey would have been the person funding your joint venture - when GT returned in 1997 it was as part of the move to oust Petchey and put the club back in the hands of Sir Elton.
That's not you being wrong is it Gordon?
No, thought not . . .
gordon kelly, ACCURACY says...
10:16pm Tue 3 Jul 07
I think your motives & approach are patronising & offensive -WRONG AGAIN!-GT got ELTON back involved @ end of Jackett`s season "elton is coming home" GT on pitch at end of season-how can you keep on being so very WRONG? please apologise when GT confirms all this (he told elton he was leaving again unless EJ bought JP out)-confusing if you are not very bright is it?
didn`t know you worked there-did you sell me a programme ?
didn`t know you worked there-did you sell me a programme ?
Herbie, says...
10:38pm Tue 3 Jul 07
Gordon
Why are you being so aggressive and unpleasant?
Surely flying off the handle in the way you appear to be is a sign of weakness?
I can't beleiev the way you are behaving on here is what you pass on to those attending your management courses?
GT returned to the club in February 1996 but failed to stop the team being relegated. KJ was appointed manager for the 96/97 season. At the end of that season, GT became manager again with KJ as coach.
Therefore, GT was manager (not general manager) during the 1997/98 season - and Petchey was certainly not chairman.
Of course, you'll tell me you're still right.
I have to say, I find your consult insult-throwing a tad tiresome.
I have tried to remaint polite but firm throughout - what a shame you have had to continue with the name-calling.
I didn't say I worked for the club - once again, how sad that you felt the need to suggest I was a programme seller. Never mind.
As I said, I didn't claim to work there. I said I was involved in professional capacity with the club that allowed me to get to know GT, Luther, Kenny, Gibbsy, as well as many others behind the scenes.
I also had a similar working relationship with two other Premiership football clubs.
I have, over the last 18 months, pulled away from football.
I am most certainly not a muppet, dumb, not very bright - or any of the other frankly silly names you choose to hurl at me (and at anyone else who who dares to disagree with you on the various areas around this site).
Please Gordon, keep airing your views. Debate is healthy. Conversation is stimulating. Exchanging viewpoints is refreshing and often educational.
Name-calling and ranting is not any of the above.
Why are you being so aggressive and unpleasant?
Surely flying off the handle in the way you appear to be is a sign of weakness?
I can't beleiev the way you are behaving on here is what you pass on to those attending your management courses?
GT returned to the club in February 1996 but failed to stop the team being relegated. KJ was appointed manager for the 96/97 season. At the end of that season, GT became manager again with KJ as coach.
Therefore, GT was manager (not general manager) during the 1997/98 season - and Petchey was certainly not chairman.
Of course, you'll tell me you're still right.
I have to say, I find your consult insult-throwing a tad tiresome.
I have tried to remaint polite but firm throughout - what a shame you have had to continue with the name-calling.
I didn't say I worked for the club - once again, how sad that you felt the need to suggest I was a programme seller. Never mind.
As I said, I didn't claim to work there. I said I was involved in professional capacity with the club that allowed me to get to know GT, Luther, Kenny, Gibbsy, as well as many others behind the scenes.
I also had a similar working relationship with two other Premiership football clubs.
I have, over the last 18 months, pulled away from football.
I am most certainly not a muppet, dumb, not very bright - or any of the other frankly silly names you choose to hurl at me (and at anyone else who who dares to disagree with you on the various areas around this site).
Please Gordon, keep airing your views. Debate is healthy. Conversation is stimulating. Exchanging viewpoints is refreshing and often educational.
Name-calling and ranting is not any of the above.
gordon kelly, BEING TALKED DOWN TO says...
8:05am Wed 4 Jul 07
it may have been 96/7 rather than 97/8-i didn`t look it up but your original WRONG claim was TOTALLY inaccurate -that GT came back as part of EJ buy out & JP would not have been involved-your correction just makes YOUR original statement even wider of the mark,but I may have got the year a season too late rather than too early-hardly affects my story does it? what does your claim about other clubs have to do with anything? I bought my current house from the Chief Exec of Leics City-does that make me an authority on them? (he`s the guy castigated in Martin o`neills autobiography but still a great guy to buy a house from-)where was I? -oh yes my annoyance is based on your totally destructive views that you try to dress up as considered-you correct contributors other than me on opinion ( i accept i did re your ridiculous "defensive football" claim) but don`t respond to challenges re FACTS-I.E my point re Davies of Derby using consultants,etc.Ever
y challenge sees you shifting direction-it is this intellectual dishonesty that exasperates-I can accept getting a year wrong but you cannot apologise for telling me that I could not have dealt with GT backed by Petchey-when you know that is the case by your own point above.interesting that that you appear NOT to have been involved for the last3 years-is this the cause of your continual destructive moaning?
y challenge sees you shifting direction-it is this intellectual dishonesty that exasperates-I can accept getting a year wrong but you cannot apologise for telling me that I could not have dealt with GT backed by Petchey-when you know that is the case by your own point above.interesting that that you appear NOT to have been involved for the last3 years-is this the cause of your continual destructive moaning?
gordon kelly, AND ANOTHER THING! says...
8:12am Wed 4 Jul 07
I see you have changed from GT coming back in 97 to Feb 96-unlike me you don`t point out your error-see what I mean?
Going out on biz for next 2 days thank God!
Going out on biz for next 2 days thank God!
Robert, Watford says...
8:34am Wed 4 Jul 07
Yes, thank God. What illiterate rubbish. I pity the people you do business with.
WatfordKev, Watford says...
9:06am Wed 4 Jul 07
Ah, employing a 'Management Consultant' - the last refuge of the desperate and the weak. In one fell swoop I have lost a fair amount of respect for Betty.
john, says...
9:19am Wed 4 Jul 07
never mind all the rantings I think Watfordkev has it in a nutshell for many of us.
Herbie, says...
9:50am Wed 4 Jul 07
Gordon
I'm sorry, but I cannot see the point in trying to talk to you. Everyone else is wrong, everyone else is stupid, you are better than everyone and you know more than everyone else.
You twist statements, wriggle out of corners and, if all else fails, resort to some name-calling and unfounded accusations.
I don't know why you expend so much time and energy talking to us plebs.
I think all of us on here should just simply agree you are utterly right, all the time - forever.
Then you can get on with enjoying life in your sweeping Midlands mansion.
I'm sorry, but I cannot see the point in trying to talk to you. Everyone else is wrong, everyone else is stupid, you are better than everyone and you know more than everyone else.
You twist statements, wriggle out of corners and, if all else fails, resort to some name-calling and unfounded accusations.
I don't know why you expend so much time and energy talking to us plebs.
I think all of us on here should just simply agree you are utterly right, all the time - forever.
Then you can get on with enjoying life in your sweeping Midlands mansion.
Chris, says...
10:30am Wed 4 Jul 07
I quite agree with you Herbie. Gordon must be captain of industry, and I do not know why bothers with us.
He is so knowledgable, I don't see how he has the time to waste, what with his job being so important.
He is very quick to rant and rave, and to abuse us with his name calling.
I certainly will not resort to that.
He is so knowledgable, I don't see how he has the time to waste, what with his job being so important.
He is very quick to rant and rave, and to abuse us with his name calling.
I certainly will not resort to that.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
10:41am Wed 4 Jul 07
Herbie, Every other newspaper I've read manages to factually report the news, so why wouldn't it be possible for the WO to manage it?
If the paper wants to provide its view of events, it should do it separately in an opinion piece, something they managed successfully in the old days.
We were left in no doubt of what Oliver Phillips's views were, but he didn't let it colour every piece he wrote about the club under him.
"If the WO tried to run a totally neutral story, some would find it sycophantic towards the club and others would say it was too harsh."
If the WO tried to run a totally neutral story, I'd think I was dreaming.
There were some aspects of the 99-00 season that were better than last season, but overall I think this season had the edge, with a sounder defence and no abject surrenders away from home against mediocre teams.
I think it also has to be viewed in the context of the fact that the gap between top and bottom had grown in the intervening years.
If the web-site is Pravda with rose-tinted spectacles, why do they publish Aidy's scathing post-match comments?
"You cannot rely on the club to report everything, warts and all."
One can't rely on the paper's reporting either.
"And when the club made that announcement on their website, were you really and honestly happy with the lame, one paragraph explanation?"
And we don't actually know any more as a result of the paper's coverage.
If the paper wants to provide its view of events, it should do it separately in an opinion piece, something they managed successfully in the old days.
We were left in no doubt of what Oliver Phillips's views were, but he didn't let it colour every piece he wrote about the club under him.
"If the WO tried to run a totally neutral story, some would find it sycophantic towards the club and others would say it was too harsh."
If the WO tried to run a totally neutral story, I'd think I was dreaming.
There were some aspects of the 99-00 season that were better than last season, but overall I think this season had the edge, with a sounder defence and no abject surrenders away from home against mediocre teams.
I think it also has to be viewed in the context of the fact that the gap between top and bottom had grown in the intervening years.
If the web-site is Pravda with rose-tinted spectacles, why do they publish Aidy's scathing post-match comments?
"You cannot rely on the club to report everything, warts and all."
One can't rely on the paper's reporting either.
"And when the club made that announcement on their website, were you really and honestly happy with the lame, one paragraph explanation?"
And we don't actually know any more as a result of the paper's coverage.
gordon kelly, On A BREAK!-I promise my final point says...
10:57am Wed 4 Jul 07
I promised myself I would not look at this site today but I have a group of people doing an exercise during a course and was tempted to catch up on emails,etc-but this is my last attempt for lots of reasons:
Chris calling for AB to be sacked -claiming Basset is hated by all-misclaiming Russo history would be fairly desribed as ranting by many.a captain of industry is generally someone who runs a major international biz-I run a very small consultancy nowadays-don`t use terms that you don`t u`stnd. YES compared to you I clearly am more knowledgeable as your various posts prove i-but that puts me in the majority of the global population!
Herbie,you claim black is white-name one position I have changed or statement I have twisted it is a complete fabrication & is exactly my problem with you -I would accept that my response is sometimes extreme but you & others just want to "knock" all the time and make statements that give opinion as fact.
THIS IS IT -FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS WHO PROBABLY HATE US BOTH BY NOW! (unless anything defamatory is said)
I look forward to a tough season with some hope,a number of you want failure so that you can be right-how pointless.
Chris calling for AB to be sacked -claiming Basset is hated by all-misclaiming Russo history would be fairly desribed as ranting by many.a captain of industry is generally someone who runs a major international biz-I run a very small consultancy nowadays-don`t use terms that you don`t u`stnd. YES compared to you I clearly am more knowledgeable as your various posts prove i-but that puts me in the majority of the global population!
Herbie,you claim black is white-name one position I have changed or statement I have twisted it is a complete fabrication & is exactly my problem with you -I would accept that my response is sometimes extreme but you & others just want to "knock" all the time and make statements that give opinion as fact.
THIS IS IT -FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS WHO PROBABLY HATE US BOTH BY NOW! (unless anything defamatory is said)
I look forward to a tough season with some hope,a number of you want failure so that you can be right-how pointless.
Herbie, says...
11:42am Wed 4 Jul 07
Jonathan - I think the relationship between paper and club is at a very, very low ebb.
Where we probably disagree is that I feel the club are as much - if not more - to blame than the paper.
I feel the club are very sensitive to criticism and do not seem receptive to a counter viewpoint.
Therefore, I have sympathy with the WO and can appreciate (although not in every case) why they approach things the way they are.
In terms of the website, they print the manager's comments of course - what I am saying is that you can't expect them to carry any third-party viewpoints or comments. They shut the message boards after all.
The club website will carry what the club says - be it the manager, the chairman etc. If the manager praises or criticises, it will still be largely 'the party line'.
You seem to feel the club is being open enough. I don't.
I'm not expecting them to tell us everything, but I think the current drip-feeding of detail is as insulting as it is disappointing.
I believe we, as fans, deserve some sort of explanation about the Russo situation, the Bassett story, etc.
However, at least we have managed to have this exhcnage without getting personal or hruling silly names at each other!
Gordon - you can't let it lie can you? I want us to fail now do I? Show me where I've said that.
I have always used phrases such 'in my opinion' or 'in my view'.
What I find depressing is that you simply will not see it from any other viewpoint other than your own. You see everyone who disagrees as attacking you.
You don't work for Watford at the moment do you?!
Where we probably disagree is that I feel the club are as much - if not more - to blame than the paper.
I feel the club are very sensitive to criticism and do not seem receptive to a counter viewpoint.
Therefore, I have sympathy with the WO and can appreciate (although not in every case) why they approach things the way they are.
In terms of the website, they print the manager's comments of course - what I am saying is that you can't expect them to carry any third-party viewpoints or comments. They shut the message boards after all.
The club website will carry what the club says - be it the manager, the chairman etc. If the manager praises or criticises, it will still be largely 'the party line'.
You seem to feel the club is being open enough. I don't.
I'm not expecting them to tell us everything, but I think the current drip-feeding of detail is as insulting as it is disappointing.
I believe we, as fans, deserve some sort of explanation about the Russo situation, the Bassett story, etc.
However, at least we have managed to have this exhcnage without getting personal or hruling silly names at each other!
Gordon - you can't let it lie can you? I want us to fail now do I? Show me where I've said that.
I have always used phrases such 'in my opinion' or 'in my view'.
What I find depressing is that you simply will not see it from any other viewpoint other than your own. You see everyone who disagrees as attacking you.
You don't work for Watford at the moment do you?!
alan, mk says...
11:52am Wed 4 Jul 07
" I look foward to a tough season with some hope, a number of you want failure so that you can be right-how pointless. Well said Gordan !
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
12:02pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Herbie, yes, the relationship between the paper and the club is at a low, but it is unprofessional of the paper to let it colour it's reporting of the facts.
They can affect the tone of any analysis and opinion pieces, but the paper has forgotten how to draw a distinction between those the reporting.
The shutting of the message bords wasn't about not carrying "off-message" opinions. It was to prevent the possibility of the club being liable for some of the things being written.
You've said that the fans deserve an explanation of various events, something with which I don't disagree, but the paper hasn't provided that and is it likely to, given the hostile nature of the relationship with the club?
So, maybe we'd benefit if the paper were to swallow it's pride and do a better job, which might also mean it might retain some of the readers it's losing over this.
They can affect the tone of any analysis and opinion pieces, but the paper has forgotten how to draw a distinction between those the reporting.
The shutting of the message bords wasn't about not carrying "off-message" opinions. It was to prevent the possibility of the club being liable for some of the things being written.
You've said that the fans deserve an explanation of various events, something with which I don't disagree, but the paper hasn't provided that and is it likely to, given the hostile nature of the relationship with the club?
So, maybe we'd benefit if the paper were to swallow it's pride and do a better job, which might also mean it might retain some of the readers it's losing over this.
Herbie, says...
12:33pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Jonathan - I can see your view on why the paper is reporting what it is and how it is.
However, I think the obvious non-communication of the club with the paper is every bit as much to blame for the current malaise.
They're not talking to the paper - but I will have a wager with you now that the club is asking the paper to carry pictures of and promote the new kits it is about to release.
They can't have it both ways.
I don't see why you don't feel the club shouldn't explain itself to the fans? I pay good money to the club, I think therefore I have a right to know why things are being done. I feel exactly the same with regard to other institutions to which I give a goodly portion of my money.
The club hasn't provided any sort of information about a number of recent stories (and I'm not referring to player rumours and the like of course), be it through the paper or its own website.
And don't ask me to write to the club for an answer - I have, and I got no recognition.
I agree that the paper has not helepd itself on occasion - the story about the disgruntled triallist does its cuase no good at all - but a relationship has to be two-way.
If the club won't talk or comment, then they cannot assume the high morale ground.
However, I think the obvious non-communication of the club with the paper is every bit as much to blame for the current malaise.
They're not talking to the paper - but I will have a wager with you now that the club is asking the paper to carry pictures of and promote the new kits it is about to release.
They can't have it both ways.
I don't see why you don't feel the club shouldn't explain itself to the fans? I pay good money to the club, I think therefore I have a right to know why things are being done. I feel exactly the same with regard to other institutions to which I give a goodly portion of my money.
The club hasn't provided any sort of information about a number of recent stories (and I'm not referring to player rumours and the like of course), be it through the paper or its own website.
And don't ask me to write to the club for an answer - I have, and I got no recognition.
I agree that the paper has not helepd itself on occasion - the story about the disgruntled triallist does its cuase no good at all - but a relationship has to be two-way.
If the club won't talk or comment, then they cannot assume the high morale ground.
WatfordKev, Watford says...
1:55pm Wed 4 Jul 07
Following on from Herbie's comment, I have written to the club three times in the last seven or eight years. All uncontroversial topics, and addressed to them in polite terms with a return address, but never received a reply to any of them. (I've listed below what I wrote to them about).
As such I employ the three strikes rule, and on top of that, being a season ticket holder I think I'm entitled to a shout...
I wrote about each of the following. You'd think/hope/assume that there would be at least an acknowledgement but no.
1. Concerning the poor conditions under the Rous
2. Congratulating the club on 1999 promotion and a couple of suggestions about merchandise
3. Some technical advice about the mammoth pdf documents they used to send out as the manager's bulletin every week. As well as unwieldly, they were inaccessible to customers with sight disabilities.
As such I employ the three strikes rule, and on top of that, being a season ticket holder I think I'm entitled to a shout...
I wrote about each of the following. You'd think/hope/assume that there would be at least an acknowledgement but no.
1. Concerning the poor conditions under the Rous
2. Congratulating the club on 1999 promotion and a couple of suggestions about merchandise
3. Some technical advice about the mammoth pdf documents they used to send out as the manager's bulletin every week. As well as unwieldly, they were inaccessible to customers with sight disabilities.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
11:48am Thu 5 Jul 07
WatfordKev, From my personal experience I have to say I've never failed to receive a response from the club, the most recent example being within the last week when I asked about the second friendly in Germany.
++++++++++++++++++++
+
Herbie - I think there is fault on both sides and no one's benefitting.
"I will have a wager with you now that the club is asking the paper to carry pictures of and promote the new kits it is about to release."
I will wager that putting the pictures of the new kit on its website and sending out a mass email will reach more people than the paper ever could.
I will also wager that the paper might be happy to run the pictures of the kit in the hope that might shift a few copies to fans who're interested to see what it looks like, but wouldn't otherwise buy it.
"I pay good money to the club, I think therefore I have a right to know why things are being done. I feel exactly the same with regard to other institutions to which I give a goodly portion of my money."
I suspect that you spend significantly more with Tesco, Sainsbury or whoever than you do with the club. Do you know as much about what's going on there than you do about the happenings at the Vic?
"If the club won't talk or comment, then they cannot assume the high morale ground."
Would the club be more likely to be open with the paper if they thought their respeonses get a more balanced hearing.
I don't think it's an issue of moral high ground for either side.
Where's the moral high ground in having to issue an apology and pay damages?
The trialist report is just the latest in a succession of such "stories".
From the way the ending of the loans.co.uk sponsorship was reported you'd never think another sponsor was in place or that, as far back as I can recall, we've never had a sponsor who's signed up for a new deal after their initial 2-year term ended.
The fact that we were selling shirts without a sponsor on the front before the Vialli season because the club didn't tie up the deal with Toshiba in time was a story. This wasn't.
++++++++++++++++++++
+
Herbie - I think there is fault on both sides and no one's benefitting.
"I will have a wager with you now that the club is asking the paper to carry pictures of and promote the new kits it is about to release."
I will wager that putting the pictures of the new kit on its website and sending out a mass email will reach more people than the paper ever could.
I will also wager that the paper might be happy to run the pictures of the kit in the hope that might shift a few copies to fans who're interested to see what it looks like, but wouldn't otherwise buy it.
"I pay good money to the club, I think therefore I have a right to know why things are being done. I feel exactly the same with regard to other institutions to which I give a goodly portion of my money."
I suspect that you spend significantly more with Tesco, Sainsbury or whoever than you do with the club. Do you know as much about what's going on there than you do about the happenings at the Vic?
"If the club won't talk or comment, then they cannot assume the high morale ground."
Would the club be more likely to be open with the paper if they thought their respeonses get a more balanced hearing.
I don't think it's an issue of moral high ground for either side.
Where's the moral high ground in having to issue an apology and pay damages?
The trialist report is just the latest in a succession of such "stories".
From the way the ending of the loans.co.uk sponsorship was reported you'd never think another sponsor was in place or that, as far back as I can recall, we've never had a sponsor who's signed up for a new deal after their initial 2-year term ended.
The fact that we were selling shirts without a sponsor on the front before the Vialli season because the club didn't tie up the deal with Toshiba in time was a story. This wasn't.
Herbie, says...
12:20pm Thu 5 Jul 07
Jonathan - you are right, there is fault on both sides.
Where I can't agree with is that you appear to suggest that, generally, the WO should tone down their reports or be prepared to write from an angle that the club are happier with, in return for the club agreeing to be more forthcoming.
That just can't happen, as then the club have the paper over a barrel.
My point about the new kit pictures was that the club do not want to talk to the paper, but do then expect them to carry a story and pictures when it suits them.
What if the paper carry the new kit, but are critical of the design? Does the club then not givem them details of the away kit in retaliation?
The club is just too sensitive. As I said in a previous post, the paper don't always help themselves and the trialist story is a prime example.
But the club have fallen out with other sectors of the media this season - they had a spat with BBC 3 Counties and also the Telegraph for instance.
The cause? They were critical.
The club, for whatever reason, exude an air of being beyond reproach.
As for Tesco/Sainsburys point, I probably do spend more - but I don't have any emotional attachment to a supermarket! I pay more to the bank that I have a mortgage with tha I do WFC, but I don't go there every second Saturday and stand in the freezing cold, shouting my heart out!
I don't have to buy WFC season tickets, merchandise, programmes etc. I accept that's my choice, but because I choose to spend my spare money in that way, then the least they can do is communicate in an honest and open way, even on issues and matters which they might find thorny (and as discussed, you can't expect the club website to be the organ for that).
Where I can't agree with is that you appear to suggest that, generally, the WO should tone down their reports or be prepared to write from an angle that the club are happier with, in return for the club agreeing to be more forthcoming.
That just can't happen, as then the club have the paper over a barrel.
My point about the new kit pictures was that the club do not want to talk to the paper, but do then expect them to carry a story and pictures when it suits them.
What if the paper carry the new kit, but are critical of the design? Does the club then not givem them details of the away kit in retaliation?
The club is just too sensitive. As I said in a previous post, the paper don't always help themselves and the trialist story is a prime example.
But the club have fallen out with other sectors of the media this season - they had a spat with BBC 3 Counties and also the Telegraph for instance.
The cause? They were critical.
The club, for whatever reason, exude an air of being beyond reproach.
As for Tesco/Sainsburys point, I probably do spend more - but I don't have any emotional attachment to a supermarket! I pay more to the bank that I have a mortgage with tha I do WFC, but I don't go there every second Saturday and stand in the freezing cold, shouting my heart out!
I don't have to buy WFC season tickets, merchandise, programmes etc. I accept that's my choice, but because I choose to spend my spare money in that way, then the least they can do is communicate in an honest and open way, even on issues and matters which they might find thorny (and as discussed, you can't expect the club website to be the organ for that).
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
12:46pm Thu 5 Jul 07
"Where I can't agree with is that you appear to suggest that, generally, the WO should tone down their reports or be prepared to write from an angle that the club are happier with, in return for the club agreeing to be more forthcoming."
I have never suggested that the paper should tone down their reports or write them from a particular angle.
On the contrary, I expect them to report the facts without any angle or slant, something every responsible professional journalist should do.
There will inevitably be some stories that put the club in a bad light and some that put it in a good light, but it should be the facts themselves that should do it, never the way they're presented to the reader.
"My point about the new kit pictures was that the club do not want to talk to the paper, but do then expect them to carry a story and pictures when it suits them."
On what basis do you state that the club "expect" the paper to publish the kit? I assume that they, along with other media bodies, are sent an invitation to a launch of the kit and they will choose whether or not to attend the event and to feature the kit in the paper.
As I've already said, I suspect it's no skin of the club's nose whether or not they do, but I suspect they will to possibly shift a few copies and to fill some space on the back pages.
"What if the paper carry the new kit, but are critical of the design? Does the club then not givem them details of the away kit in retaliation?"
The fact that you'd expect the paper to have a view, whether negative or positive, on a kit design says it all. Have they "dumbed down" so much?
"As for Tesco/Sainsburys point, I probably do spend more - but I don't have any emotional attachment to a supermarket!"
Make up you mind please. You first say that the amount you spend at the club entitles you to know what's going on and then in your next post you say it's not about the money.
I have never suggested that the paper should tone down their reports or write them from a particular angle.
On the contrary, I expect them to report the facts without any angle or slant, something every responsible professional journalist should do.
There will inevitably be some stories that put the club in a bad light and some that put it in a good light, but it should be the facts themselves that should do it, never the way they're presented to the reader.
"My point about the new kit pictures was that the club do not want to talk to the paper, but do then expect them to carry a story and pictures when it suits them."
On what basis do you state that the club "expect" the paper to publish the kit? I assume that they, along with other media bodies, are sent an invitation to a launch of the kit and they will choose whether or not to attend the event and to feature the kit in the paper.
As I've already said, I suspect it's no skin of the club's nose whether or not they do, but I suspect they will to possibly shift a few copies and to fill some space on the back pages.
"What if the paper carry the new kit, but are critical of the design? Does the club then not givem them details of the away kit in retaliation?"
The fact that you'd expect the paper to have a view, whether negative or positive, on a kit design says it all. Have they "dumbed down" so much?
"As for Tesco/Sainsburys point, I probably do spend more - but I don't have any emotional attachment to a supermarket!"
Make up you mind please. You first say that the amount you spend at the club entitles you to know what's going on and then in your next post you say it's not about the money.
Herbie, says...
1:29pm Thu 5 Jul 07
Jonathan
Beware! You're starting to sound like our old friend Gordon!
I can't see how the paper can win on the presentation of a story. The Bassett story was seen by some as negative, and yet others didn't see a problem with it all.
If the WO runs a story to say we failed to sign Freddie Eastwood, some will say it is negative to run such a story, others will say they have a right to know.
Unless things have changed, the club will ask the WO to take pictures of the new kit. There won't be a general launch (in the Championship, it isn't a big enough draw). The club will then hope the paper uses the pictures to promote the kit in an effort to get early sales on board. I really do not think the WO will sell many extra copies (if any) because they have a picture of the new kit. However, the club will be able to reach those fans who don't visit the website, don't have net access, don't live close to the club to pop in but do subscribe to the WO etc.
Why shouldn't the paper express an opinion on the kit? They are there to spark debate as much as anything else. I'm not saying they would have an opinion - but I don't see why they shouldn't. If they ran a story saying it was the best kit ever, the club wouldn't complain then.
My point on money remains the same. I spend enough with the football cluib (coupled with the emotional attachment) to have a right to know what is going in.
What is irrelevant really is that I spend more or less with Tesco, and more or less with Boots. I buy products from those retailers because I have to. They are essential items.
I choose to spend some of my spare cash at Watford FC. I wish to know what those who take my money are doing, thinking and planning. Then I can decide whether to keep spending it there, or to stop and join a golf club or take flying lessons.
And if I decided to spend it at a golf club instead, I would then want to know what they were doing with my money.
I also pop along and watch my local Sunday football team, but as I pay nothing for the privilege, I don't feel I can really go and harangue the manager or the club secretary if I don't like what they're doing.
If, however, I sponsored their kit with some of my spare cash, then I probably would.
Beware! You're starting to sound like our old friend Gordon!
I can't see how the paper can win on the presentation of a story. The Bassett story was seen by some as negative, and yet others didn't see a problem with it all.
If the WO runs a story to say we failed to sign Freddie Eastwood, some will say it is negative to run such a story, others will say they have a right to know.
Unless things have changed, the club will ask the WO to take pictures of the new kit. There won't be a general launch (in the Championship, it isn't a big enough draw). The club will then hope the paper uses the pictures to promote the kit in an effort to get early sales on board. I really do not think the WO will sell many extra copies (if any) because they have a picture of the new kit. However, the club will be able to reach those fans who don't visit the website, don't have net access, don't live close to the club to pop in but do subscribe to the WO etc.
Why shouldn't the paper express an opinion on the kit? They are there to spark debate as much as anything else. I'm not saying they would have an opinion - but I don't see why they shouldn't. If they ran a story saying it was the best kit ever, the club wouldn't complain then.
My point on money remains the same. I spend enough with the football cluib (coupled with the emotional attachment) to have a right to know what is going in.
What is irrelevant really is that I spend more or less with Tesco, and more or less with Boots. I buy products from those retailers because I have to. They are essential items.
I choose to spend some of my spare cash at Watford FC. I wish to know what those who take my money are doing, thinking and planning. Then I can decide whether to keep spending it there, or to stop and join a golf club or take flying lessons.
And if I decided to spend it at a golf club instead, I would then want to know what they were doing with my money.
I also pop along and watch my local Sunday football team, but as I pay nothing for the privilege, I don't feel I can really go and harangue the manager or the club secretary if I don't like what they're doing.
If, however, I sponsored their kit with some of my spare cash, then I probably would.
Jonathan, Borehamwood says...
10:22am Fri 6 Jul 07
"If the WO runs a story to say we failed to sign Freddie Eastwood, some will say it is negative to run such a story, others will say they have a right to know."
The fact that the player has failed to sign a particular player is newsworthy.
It has been an undeniable fact that the club tried and failed to sign Sam Parkin and Collins John, amongst others.
However when the only basis for a claim that we were ever interested in a player is a rumours web-site or an agent who's trying to get a better deal for his client, the paper's on shakier ground.
"Unless things have changed, the club will ask the WO to take pictures of the new kit. There won't be a general launch (in the Championship, it isn't a big enough draw)."
The club will send a general invite to the media, both local and national, to any kit unveiling.
The fact that new summer signings are always used to model the kit often gives the media their first chance to interview them.
"Why shouldn't the paper express an opinion on the kit? They are there to spark debate as much as anything else. I'm not saying they would have an opinion - but I don't see why they shouldn't. If they ran a story saying it was the best kit ever, the club wouldn't complain then."
The paper should principally spark a debate by providing facts, which can then be debated by its readers, not simply by providing an opinion without factual basis (which any opinion on a kit would inevitably be) for other to agree or disagree with.
On what basis could the paper come to the opinion that a particular kit was or wasn't the best ever?
If the paper want to be considered a serious, professional organ by the club, its readers and former readers, is opinionating on kits the way to do it?
"I choose to spend some of my spare cash at Watford FC. I wish to know what those who take my money are doing, thinking and planning."
When was the last time you first found out about the club's plans from the paper or it told you more than other sources?
The fact that the player has failed to sign a particular player is newsworthy.
It has been an undeniable fact that the club tried and failed to sign Sam Parkin and Collins John, amongst others.
However when the only basis for a claim that we were ever interested in a player is a rumours web-site or an agent who's trying to get a better deal for his client, the paper's on shakier ground.
"Unless things have changed, the club will ask the WO to take pictures of the new kit. There won't be a general launch (in the Championship, it isn't a big enough draw)."
The club will send a general invite to the media, both local and national, to any kit unveiling.
The fact that new summer signings are always used to model the kit often gives the media their first chance to interview them.
"Why shouldn't the paper express an opinion on the kit? They are there to spark debate as much as anything else. I'm not saying they would have an opinion - but I don't see why they shouldn't. If they ran a story saying it was the best kit ever, the club wouldn't complain then."
The paper should principally spark a debate by providing facts, which can then be debated by its readers, not simply by providing an opinion without factual basis (which any opinion on a kit would inevitably be) for other to agree or disagree with.
On what basis could the paper come to the opinion that a particular kit was or wasn't the best ever?
If the paper want to be considered a serious, professional organ by the club, its readers and former readers, is opinionating on kits the way to do it?
"I choose to spend some of my spare cash at Watford FC. I wish to know what those who take my money are doing, thinking and planning."
When was the last time you first found out about the club's plans from the paper or it told you more than other sources?
Herbie, says...
3:51pm Fri 6 Jul 07
Jonathan
I give up! I'm not going to shift you away from your view that the WO is at fault!
We're not going to agree on this.
All I will say is that, reading today's paper, the manager clearly feels he has not communicated well with the WO (and thus the fans).
If he feels that to be the case, I hope his letter today will be the start of better things.
And I shall certainly be looking for the WO to take his positive step, and use it to ensure they cover the club in a way that is informative, entertaining and sparks debate.
Whether what they write is positive or negative will always be debated - certainly by us two!!
I give up! I'm not going to shift you away from your view that the WO is at fault!
We're not going to agree on this.
All I will say is that, reading today's paper, the manager clearly feels he has not communicated well with the WO (and thus the fans).
If he feels that to be the case, I hope his letter today will be the start of better things.
And I shall certainly be looking for the WO to take his positive step, and use it to ensure they cover the club in a way that is informative, entertaining and sparks debate.
Whether what they write is positive or negative will always be debated - certainly by us two!!
Dave Bassett
In this section
- Brighton considering O'Toole move
- Win a place on Saracens summer camp
- Watford Observer Plate final rearranged
- Saracens announce Wembley match
- Luca Vialli in Newcastle United frame?
- Russo questions how Rodgers knows Tommy's plans
- Watford game moved due to Sky
- 'Tommy Smith wants to join Reading'
- Watford may avoid Football League tribunal
- England 'can win The Ashes'
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Winston, watford says...
3:28pm Fri 29 Jun 07