Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Andy Larkin

Archant - your role in all of this stinks

Recommended Posts

Tramped to the shop… bought EDP… slumped to floor in massive disappointment at what I read on front cover.

And then I read it again… and again… and again, and can''t actually come to any conclusion on whether this is good or bad or a half-way house.

The EDP/EEN (Archant) standard of reporting on this whole issue has been nothing short of shocking.

If you take away the 180 point headlines, there is nothing of any substance in anything you have covered in this whole sorry debacle. In fact all they have done is lamely reproduced statements from both the protagonists.

By putting no meat on the bones of anything you have turned this whole issue into a civil war between the Delia Out/Cullum In factions.

Whatever happened to investigative reporting? Why can you not bring your considerable resources to bear and actually collar these parties for a full and honest disclosure of what this deal means… what the legal technicalities are in bringing this turgid, sorry excuse of a takeover to a conclusion.

We, that is the fans, are treated like idiots by one and all.

The club tell us zip, Cullum adorns your front pages with a sanctimonious smug grin on his face, also telling us jack shit… and you merely assist the both of them in keeping us completely in the dark.

Get out of your Archant Ivory Towers… get your bloody reporters out on the beat and start living up to their job descriptions… DO SOME INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING BACKED UP BY FACT NOT SUPPOSITION.

And mark me, when the great unwashed start kicking off outside the City stand (as they surely will thanks to you whipping up this frenzy) and the horses are called in… don''t you dare stand back and pass comment, because your role in this will have been every bit as big as both the board and Peter Cullum.

I happen to walk my dog past Peter Franzen''s house every morning… I might doorstep him as he picks up his milk bottle off his doorstep… just to show him how its done!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They certainly have been guilty of shoddy journalism - but which news outlet is completely free of that charge.

Fox news - "Fair & balanced"...... FFS

They appear to have been cynical in the extreme, and to cap it all may well have been strung up & played out by the Cullum machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they told us what they know.... if they didn''t then there would be uproar anyway.you can never win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EDP''s part in this has been massive from the off - it was the initial article in the EDP that got everyone interested, and that itself was a shoddy piece of journalism as it didn''t question at all any motives/how things could work.  We now get a similar thing.  I used to think the EDP was a decent paper, but it just seems to be a cheap rag incapable of actually doing any proper journalism - it just reports what it is fed - or at least has done in this debacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In retrospect we would have been a lot happier if we hadn''t known about Cullums interest. It''s all Archants fault.

The club know that the way they treat us is better for our wellbeing. When we are kept in the dark we are much happier.

Getting too excited is bad for 20,000 NCFC supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fellas"]Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.
[/quote]

The initial report was quite atrocious reporting by any standards.  If questions were asked of Mr Cullum and he did not answer then those questions and his refusal to answer them should have been a key part of the original first report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lets have a big newspaper bonfire..........all EDPs burn whilst we tribal dance around the inferno to Take Thats Relight my Fire? just a thought..........

............................

....I''ll get me coat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="camuldonum"]

[quote user="Fellas"]Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.[/quote]

The initial report was quite atrocious reporting by any standards.  If questions were asked of Mr Cullum and he did not answer then those questions and his refusal to answer them should have been a key part of the original first report.

[/quote]Fair point Camul. I agree that the standard of journalism has been poor (and has been for a while). But it''s harsh to critise them for not providing facts when it seems nobody knows the facts and that probably goes for Cullum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="camuldonum"]

[quote user="Fellas"]Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.
[/quote]

The initial report was quite atrocious reporting by any standards.  If questions were asked of Mr Cullum and he did not answer then those questions and his refusal to answer them should have been a key part of the original first report.

[/quote]

Quite right Cam.  The initial article showed no sign of journalistic ability at all: a few pertinent questions should have been asked and weren''t, and that they weren''t led to a piece that could have been written by Cullum himself.   Unless and until they were, the story should have been spiked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Fellas"]Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.[/quote]

Fellas… thats just not true. They are supposed to be an objective newspaper (or thats what they have always trumpeted themselves as)… they are simply trotting out the press releases of both parties… if they were serious about properly reporting this issue they could have investigated so, so much more and got their financial expert explaining the pitfalls of the affair. Instead they have done nothing but feed the flames. Its simply idle reporting, cynically aimed at selling their publications.

Look how Celia posted that little titbit last night. It was cynical and got us all rushing out to the shops to put 48p or whatever it is into their coffers.

For a regional newspaper, you would have thought that they cared that little bit more about their readership… alas they are just another snout in the trough organisation.

As a major regional publication (after all Archant are one of the major players in regional newsprint with the way they buy up all of the opposition), you would have thought that this story would be covered over ten pages in their rag, what do we get instead… scraps. You should have seen how the MEN covered the Glaizer take over at Man Utd… it was like Watergate for them and they reported it properly, with reasoned, balanced arguments, not just rehashes of press releases or love-ins with who they thought would be the likely victor.

It simply aint good enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seen Waghorn''s stance.  It could have been written by Neil Doncaster:


http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=3692&w=25&a=0&part=1


Look at this for spin:

Despite the widespread conviction that said loans would simply be renegotiable with Britain''s 40th richest individual, one suggestion was that in these credit crunched times both insitutions would have insisted on getting their cash back and getting themselves out of football

Are you trying to trell me Britains 40th richest man couldnt get a 20 million loan?  Pull the other one, his own company could loan the money to NCFC!

In summing up Waghorn says:

At the end of the day, for a man with £1.7 billion to his name, he could simply have written a cheque for £20 million, handed it to Roeder and found himself a nice comfy seat in the directors'' box.

He could have loaned the club 2 million and got 2 seats Rick.  If that is what he cared about.  But the 20 million might not have made its way to Roeder on the past actions of our current Boardroom.

Words mean nothing Rick, actions define us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree very poor - and especially today''s headline - "CULLUM - DEAL IS OFF"

Read the text and neither he nor the board are saying that.  They both say "talks" have been terminated with immediate effect.  No one says the deal is off.

I''ve threatened to report Archant to the PCC before for misleading headlines (eg. turning the fans against Leon McKenzie - "Leon: Fans Turned On Me" when Leon said nothing of the sort) and this time I''ve had enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="camuldonum"]

[quote user="Fellas"]Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.
[/quote]

The initial report was quite atrocious reporting by any standards.  If questions were asked of Mr Cullum and he did not answer then those questions and his refusal to answer them should have been a key part of the original first report.

[/quote]

Fair point Camul. I agree that the standard of journalism has been poor (and has been for a while). But it''s harsh to critise them for not providing facts when it seems nobody knows the facts and that probably goes for Cullum.
[/quote]

You may be "Delia''s plaything" as suggested by some (many?) but you are actually Norwich City PLC.  Mr Cullum said he was prepared to invest into your company provided he could become the majority shareholder.  Your club is covered by Stock Exchange rules and the City Code and the way to acquire a majority shareholding of a PLC is for someone to buy out the shareholders.

The original report did not explain how he was going to acquire a majority shareholding.  It still doesn''t. The next time Archant ring Mr C they could ask: "Did you want Delia and her husband to transfer their shares to you for nothing, aside from your £20m investment?" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with the debt thing, CJF, is not that Cullum couldn''t get the loans, but that if he was only going to put £20m in, it wouldn''t remain £20m for much longer if it was needed to pay off a £16m of debt, would it.  Were his own company to loan the £16m to the club, it would surely effectively increase his offer to £36m.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Branston Pickle wrote the following post at 11/07/2008 11:37 AM:

Problem

with the debt thing, CJF, is not that Cullum couldn''t get the loans,

but that if he was only going to put £20m in, it wouldn''t remain £20m

for much longer if it was needed to pay off a £16m of debt, would it. 

Were his own company to loan the £16m to the club, it would surely

effectively increase his offer to £36m.

But it would still be there as a loan no matter what?  Who is to say the current company who we loan the money from wouldnt just change the name on the deal?  It is a total smokescrean.  Either way the club would still owe 20 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]Look at this for spin and Bullsh** central:

Despite the widespread conviction that said loans would simply be renegotiable with Britain''s 40th richest individual, one suggestion was that in these credit crunched times both insitutions would have insisted on getting their cash back and getting themselves out of football

Are you trying to trell me Britains 40th richest man couldnt get a 20 million loan?
[/quote]

The implication of that story was that they didn''t want to loan to a football club as it is high risk.  Yes HE could get the loan.  The question is whether he is prepared to transfer the loan from the club to being his own personal loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="camuldonum"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="camuldonum"]

[quote user="Fellas"]Well they can only report what people are willing to tell them. It was clear both parties didn''t want to tell them jack. Not much they can do about that.[/quote]

The initial report was quite atrocious reporting by any standards.  If questions were asked of Mr Cullum and he did not answer then those questions and his refusal to answer them should have been a key part of the original first report.

[/quote]Fair point Camul. I agree that the standard of journalism has been poor (and has been for a while). But it''s harsh to critise them for not providing facts when it seems nobody knows the facts and that probably goes for Cullum.[/quote]

You may be "Delia''s plaything" as suggested by some (many?) but you are actually Norwich City PLC.  Mr Cullum said he was prepared to invest into your company provided he could become the majority shareholder.  Your club is covered by Stock Exchange rules and the City Code and the way to acquire a majority shareholding of a PLC is for someone to buy out the shareholders.

The original report did not explain how he was going to acquire a majority shareholding.  It still doesn''t. The next time Archant ring Mr C they could ask: "Did you want Delia and her husband to transfer their shares to you for nothing, aside from your £20m investment?" 

[/quote]I don''t fully understand your post, I''m sorry, but to be honest nobody actually seems to know anything about the code on here or in the media. I''ve tried to analyse it a bit but my experience in this field is not very great. I''d be very surprised if there is anybody on the books of the EDP to be able to analyse the code very well or who have good knowledge, that said I was expecting archant to maybe bring in some expert analysis, but after all it''s only a small provinical paper. Yes they could have asked Cullum questions, they may well have, he may have said "no comment", he might not have been reachable, after all he is a busy person. The board probably would have just plain ignored the media like they usually do. To be honest this sounds like excuses, i''m sorry for this. The quality of journalism by archant has been poor (and it has been for quite a while).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Typical pious posting that we see on here all the time. Archant is a newspaer group, they''ve sold loads of extra papers and online ads, the fans have acually had exciting, out in the open news about the club''s future, not all the facts but certainly better than, "when is Gow coming"? and can we afford Andy Cole''s bloody  wages? This has been great stuff and I certainly don''t think it''s over. Cullum has used the papers, they''ve loved it, the board look like past it dummies and it''s been interesting. The rest is just details for pseudo accountants, quack lawyers and ''serious'' journalists with ''concerns''. Yawn. Bring on the next headline! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lack of creative pun headlines in the EDP and Evening News is also proving a real concern to me... Did these journos not study the ancient art of punning?

For instance today''s story about Huckerby going to San Jose. The headline? A staid: "Hucks Signs for San Jose"

What is wrong with these people. Surely someone could have had the vision to use something along the lines of: "Huckerby Knows the Way to San Jose" !?

Journalism is dead. And we killed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is the MEN is an award winning local newspaper and is widely known for it''s excellent journalism.  What''s happened to the Pink un?  EDP?  I agree it''s recently been incredibly low brow and poor.  Any doubt from my mind was eradicated by the quite incredibly awful and despicable post last night by Celia. 

Words escape me to be honest.  Hang your head in shame.  Go and buy Heat magazine and realise that their level of journalism is head and shoulders above yours. Then either up your game or move over! [N]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Muddy funster"]

The difference is the MEN is an award

winning local newspaper and is widely known for it''s excellent

journalism.  What''s happened to the Pink un?  EDP?  I

agree it''s recently been incredibly low brow and poor.  Any doubt

from my mind was eradicated by the quite incredibly awful and

despicable post last night by Celia. 

Words escape me to be honest.  Hang your head in shame. 

Go and buy Heat magazine and realise that their level of journalism is

head and shoulders above yours. Then either up your game or move over!

[N]

[/quote]

The MEN has a whole plethora of ex-players and national journalists

within their ranks, inside connections and sources galore. 

Archant would be lucky if they got a quote from Doris the Tea Lady, and

even then the interview would go along the lines of:

ARCHANT: So Doris, what do you have to say about fans'' remarks about the poor quality of the tea recently?

DORIS: I am doing everything within my power to secure better tea for

the fans but there simply isn''t any out there.  We cannot disclose

our budget for obvious reasons, and I cannot comment on recent

speculation linking us with a move for Agnes the Tea Lady from

Newcastle.

ARCHANT: Okay then, see you later for dinner....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="rum-ole-boy"]lets have a big newspaper bonfire..........all EDPs burn whilst we tribal dance around the inferno to Take Thats Relight my Fire? just a thought..........




............................





....I''ll get me coat
[/quote]

Can we dance around it like wild injuns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="andy larkin"] The EDP/EEN (Archant) standard of reporting on this whole issue has been nothing short of shocking. . By putting no meat on the bones of anything you have turned this whole issue into a civil war between the Delia Out/Cullum [/quote]

In truth, I think Archant were stuck for stories so close to the start of the season with no real transfer news to report and willingly assisted Peter Cullum in getting all the fans juices flowing when he offered his story. And offer he clearly did: -there has been no suggestion his story was wrung out of him. It was spoon fed to us all by PC. I queried Archant''s agenda in a post some days ago. In particular, the EDP online poll "Should Peter Cullum be allowed to buy into Norwich City Football Club?" was a complete nonsense. The amswer could only be "yes" - anyone should be allowed to buy into a PLC so why not PC - if indeed he was prepared to buy in. It seems that he wasn''t!.

Too many of us were tantalised by the thought of £20m - not just dangled by Cullum but repeatedly waved at us by Archant. They can make amends now by asking PC the question: "Will you help remedy the hiatus in the transfer market your public statements in our paper have helped to cause".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×