Michael Bailey

[Ulfotto 644]

Although it is not something I actively want to happen but you wonder if Norwich have another forgettable season and Ipswich get promoted by some miracle then the Athletic will probably want a “Ipswich Town” reporter step forward Mr Michael Bailey

[lake district canary 4,547]

I feel that Michael Bailey could be destined for bigger things, maybe Sky or one of the bigger sports channels. He's personable and knowledgeable and is comfortable in front of a camera. The Athletic may be just a stepping stone, who knows....

[shefcanary 2,466]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I feel that Michael Bailey could be destined for bigger things, maybe Sky or one of the bigger sports channels. He's personable and knowledgeable and is comfortable in front of a camera. The Athletic may be just a stepping stone, who knows....

It certainly will be only a stepping stone if they try to force him to act as the Binners Athletic correspondent!

[WD40 720]

I agree the Athletic couldn’t justify having a full time Norwich correspondent if we were no longer a yo yo team and stuck in chumps for foreseeable. Also if it’s not a club on the up, it’s not bringing in more fans and therefore subscribers. They’re dollars worth more elsewhere. The pleasing thing for Bailey being they rate him enough to keep him on, but he’ll no doubt be pulled all over the place on different pieces.

[Kingston Yellow 224]

12 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Connor - the master of using 97 words to get a point across which could be achieved under 10.

87 of which are saying the word “interesting”.  Ironically. 

[Yobocop 1,105]

13 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Connor - the master of using 97 words to get a point across which could be achieved under 10.

The ham sandwich analogy 

[WD40 720]

13 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Connor - the master of using 97 words to get a point across which could be achieved under 10.

Absolutely! All of them to be honest are terrible for that but Connor is by far the worst offender. 

[AJ 1,230]

1 hour ago, WD40 said:

I agree the Athletic couldn’t justify having a full time Norwich correspondent if we were no longer a yo yo team and stuck in chumps for foreseeable. Also if it’s not a club on the up, it’s not bringing in more fans and therefore subscribers. They’re dollars worth more elsewhere. The pleasing thing for Bailey being they rate him enough to keep him on, but he’ll no doubt be pulled all over the place on different pieces.

This is pretty much it, Norwich aren't a PL team any longer and not seen as in high contention to get back there so the interest in content for us has gone. Michael is a very good journalist, I've enjoyed the few bits of non Norwich content has done so far and clearly they think he's good enough to work on other content. Good for him. If Norwich can do better then things might change again. 

[Canaries north 151]

3 hours ago, WD40 said:

I agree the Athletic couldn’t justify having a full time Norwich correspondent if we were no longer a yo yo team and stuck in chumps for foreseeable. Also if it’s not a club on the up, it’s not bringing in more fans and therefore subscribers. They’re dollars worth more elsewhere. The pleasing thing for Bailey being they rate him enough to keep him on, but he’ll no doubt be pulled all over the place on different pieces.

So why do they still have a watford correspondent going to every game? Are they a club on the up or with a bigger support? I'm sure the Athletic have always said they would have reporters at every game for every club in the football league. That was the main sales pitch at the start. It seems like Michael has been losing enthusiasm for a while now and it's a shame. My point is you can't be the reporter on one club and dip in and out. Last season I'm sure he took a holiday. I can understand everyone needs a holiday but as a paid football reporter is it right to take one during the season? If he has other things going on then get someone in to cover or take over. As said I will keep my subscription as I do look at a lot more than just Norwich but if that was all I paid for then I would cancel. 

[Canaries north 151]

2 hours ago, AJ said:

This is pretty much it, Norwich aren't a PL team any longer and not seen as in high contention to get back there so the interest in content for us has gone. Michael is a very good journalist, I've enjoyed the few bits of non Norwich content has done so far and clearly they think he's good enough to work on other content. Good for him. If Norwich can do better then things might change again. 

I still thought they had someone for every club at every game right down to the div 2. At least that's what they had at the start? 

[shefcanary 2,466]

Read the whole thread for an explanation over his "absence" and what we can expect from him this season.

 

[NewNestCarrow 203]

15 hours ago, Yobocop said:

The ham sandwich analogy 

I gave up at that point.  It's like he's playing 'Where's Waldo' with any interesting tidbits.

[NewNestCarrow 203]

14 hours ago, Canaries north said:

So why do they still have a watford correspondent going to every game? Are they a club on the up or with a bigger support? I'm sure the Athletic have always said they would have reporters at every game for every club in the football league. That was the main sales pitch at the start. It seems like Michael has been losing enthusiasm for a while now and it's a shame. My point is you can't be the reporter on one club and dip in and out. Last season I'm sure he took a holiday. I can understand everyone needs a holiday but as a paid football reporter is it right to take one during the season? If he has other things going on then get someone in to cover or take over. As said I will keep my subscription as I do look at a lot more than just Norwich but if that was all I paid for then I would cancel. 

I can't imagine anyone would make that kind of massive commitment. Not even the BBC do that.

The Athletic has around 1.3m subscribers and still loses aorund $30m+ per year. Their coverage of 'minor' teams is only going one way.

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

10 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I can't imagine anyone would make that kind of massive commitment. Not even the BBC do that.

The Athletic has around 1.3m subscribers and still loses aorund $30m+ per year. Their coverage of 'minor' teams is only going one way.

They'll have someone on the Payroll for every game, they won't work exclusively  for the Athletic, all they have to do is send their stuff in , they'll  be at matches already, just reporting to more than one outlet. Not all their journos are on an exclusive contract with salary. To keep their  content ' original and exclusive ' all they have to do is change a few words. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[NewNestCarrow 203]

16 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

They'll have someone on the Payroll for every game, they won't work exclusively  for the Athletic, all they have to do is send their stuff in , they'll  be at matches already, just reporting to more than one outlet. Not all their journos are on an exclusive contract with salary. To keep their  content ' original and exclusive ' all they have to do is change a few words. 

I very much doubt that. The Athletic don't publish match reports for all 92 clubs, so why would they pay someone to be in attendance?

[wcorkcanary 4,342]

12 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I very much doubt that. The Athletic don't publish match reports for all 92 clubs, so why would they pay someone to be in attendance?

There's already someone there was my point. If they want info / a report, it's not  difficult.  

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

36 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

There's already someone there was my point. If they want info / a report, it's not  difficult.  

There is the Press Association service, which may cover all matches, and if the Athletic pays the PA to get its service then it can use the reports, bylined accordingly, and then what The athletic would be publishing would be a standard report that other media will be using. So not the kind of exclusive coverage I assume The Athletic boasts about.

And that is certainly not having someone on the payroll. As NewNestCarrow says, nobody has reporters at every match.

[Canaries north 151]

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

I can't imagine anyone would make that kind of massive commitment. Not even the BBC do that.

The Athletic has around 1.3m subscribers and still loses aorund $30m+ per year. Their coverage of 'minor' teams is only going one way.

I am not saying every club has a full time reporter but they certainly used to have someone attached to every club covering them. They might have been part time or paid per game. All I am saying is if all I was interested in was Norwich then I wouldn't pay for a service that doesn't have someone at every game. For me it works but I am disappointed not to even get a match report. Also the bbc doesn't have subscribers to keep happy. 

Edited August 8, 2023 by Canaries north

[Pyro Pete 1,921]

This is why people should take out Pink Un subscriptions.

I like Michael Bailey's reporting a lot, and he's a great bloke. But The Athletic have made no secret of the fact they're in it just to make money, and aim to bleed local journalism dry in the process.

Use it or lose it.