Jump to content

Tell us your views


Recommended Posts

Sorry but i'm with Coco on this one. The rugby have just as much right to have just as much room in the Chron as us. There have been several full page adverts advertising games so far this season. Their publishing may seem slow because of this wonderful thing we are using now, the internet. If something is posted on the official site at 10:30am on a friday that it will have missed the print deadline meaning it would have to be Monday's edition it appears in. Sponsorship isnt a one way thing where they just give us money, we give them stories, personally i enjoy reading the articles in the Chron because there is some sort of substantial text on the club. The official website doesnt publish stories as long as the Chron's. The Chron gives updates on injuries, the official site doesnt.

 

Oh and on the stadium, Coco is again right, the local rag shouldnt be biased towards any point of view. (SEE RUGBY SECTION)

 

Oh but sorry Coco, dont agree with you on Ricketts, you yourself admitted he had a good first half at weekend :grin:

 

I dont think anyone said they didnt.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sheridans_world
This has to be the funniest thing to appear on the offical website :) I cant wait for the results :)

 

The chron dosent give a dam about this football club. Its to busy flying the flag of the ruined rugby club.

 

I read it online to catch the local news, but I never by it, why would you ??? You can get the MEN for free!

 

 

Nice dodge on the rest of what i said though...

Edited by sheridans_world
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do I know little about ? Didnt the chron have an opinion ?? Didnt it very harshly highlight the rugbys plight and suggest the big old meanies at Oldham Athletic were picking on them ??

 

 

 

 

Well for a fact it wasn't Latics pitch to kick the Rugby off, the company the council set up owned the stadium and bought the special pitch for both teams to use, the rugby gave rent to Latics, Moore put the rent up to an incredible figure which a club with 2000 fans couldn't afford (by the way, Moore tried to buy the Rugby club off Hamilton before all this trouble but was told to clear off, seems like Hamilton was quite a bright guy eh?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice dodge on the rest of what i said though...

 

Hey!!! I didnt dodge!! I had nothing more to add. I have my opinion, and you have yours!!

 

The qoute you highlighed wasnt on about column inchs.....it was refering to the chron constantly sideing with the rugby club on a great many issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for a fact it wasn't Latics pitch to kick the Rugby off, the company the council set up owned the stadium and bought the special pitch for both teams to use, the rugby gave rent to Latics, Moore put the rent up to an incredible figure which a club with 2000 fans couldn't afford (by the way, Moore tried to buy the Rugby club off Hamilton before all this trouble but was told to clear off, seems like Hamilton was quite a bright guy eh?).

 

 

Stick to the point sonny......I was pointing out that the chron DID have an opinion and it back the Rugby and not the Football club!!!!

 

So its ok for the chron to have an opinion some of the time then ?? As long as it backs the bloody rugby!!!!

 

As for what happened with the stadium I know every bloody bit of it, and it isnt as clear and straight forward as you just pointed out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to remember they are an newspaper for the whole of Oldham not just for the club and as such they have to take into consideration the whole of the borough not just the club they have to be neutral they can not be seen to be either in favour of the stadium or against

 

And the club has done more for the club than most local newspapers have done for their local clubs. What is it you would like to Chron to do for the club?

 

The sports writers are obviously right behind the club but the "news" section and its editor couldn't give two hoots. There's something ungrateful and unpleasant about that. Could it be that the staffers in "news" (quick, there's a cat stuck up a tree!) resent the fact that if there were no OAFC, there'd be no Chron?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think OAFC0000 has got his point a bit muddled here when he says he'd like the Chron to be more pro-active in the Stadium cause. IMO, The Chron spins the most negative slants on any of the news about us having a new stadium....not sure if that's bias or just shoddy journalism....for example...

 

This about 95% of responses from local residents didn't want the stadium. Went with a big negative headline on the front page with it. And never once said how many didn't respond in the poll, which was a hell of a lot and meant that 95% polled weren't against it, just those who responded. Bit like how 95% of people who phone Jimmy Wagg on a matchday phone to complain......that's just not helpful one bit. Also like how they reported the Ferney Farm debacle whilst the club were on pre-season, leaving them with the land owners pulling out etc. And for those saying how the club leak news later in the day nowadays, I personally believe that's done on purpose now because of past strained relations. A number of years ago it was very rarely was the case but it's fact that the club got that sick and tired of the Chrons bad press of the Latics (have people forgotten the meetings Sean Jarvis had to have with them to try and "work things out"). And things like the forums we have.....anything aired in them is saved for up to 6 days sometimes! If it's a Weds night, they save it for their "Boundary Bulletin" piece the following Tuesday. Poor! Add to that they even copied most of an article from the Programme recently. It's just gash journalism IMO.

 

Finally, according to the last time this subject was aired (over on JK) no other local "borough" paper carries news on the Red Scum or Man S.h.i.t.t.y. Yet the Chron does. We know Bury, Rochdale etc have them fans living amongst them, but them papers take the decision to promote/highlight their home town team not others down the road. Doesn't help our cause to alter the mindset of the apathetic public, one bit!

 

The Chron really really could be more positive and helpful. Not so much biased, but the negative slants they spout about us is a joke at times. Especially when their circulation drops (can't remember the percent, but I know it's above 50%!) during when the football season ends.

 

PS Coco....Chris Moore didn't try to buy the Rugby....he tried to loan them £50,000....whether that was in an attempt, as Hamilton claimed it was, to buy the club "through the back door"....no-one will ever know. It'll be conjecture. And Hamiltons hardly the honest of people either.....so we should leave that one there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think OAFC0000 has got his point a bit muddled here when he says he'd like the Chron to be more pro-active in the Stadium cause. IMO, The Chron spins the most negative slants on any of the news about us having a new stadium....not sure if that's bias or just shoddy journalism....for example...

 

This about 95% of responses from local residents didn't want the stadium. Went with a big negative headline on the front page with it. And never once said how many didn't respond in the poll, which was a hell of a lot and meant that 95% polled weren't against it, just those who responded. Bit like how 95% of people who phone Jimmy Wagg on a matchday phone to complain......that's just not helpful one bit. Also like how they reported the Ferney Farm debacle whilst the club were on pre-season, leaving them with the land owners pulling out etc. And for those saying how the club leak news later in the day nowadays, I personally believe that's done on purpose now because of past strained relations. A number of years ago it was very rarely was the case but it's fact that the club got that sick and tired of the Chrons bad press of the Latics (have people forgotten the meetings Sean Jarvis had to have with them to try and "work things out"). And things like the forums we have.....anything aired in them is saved for up to 6 days sometimes! If it's a Weds night, they save it for their "Boundary Bulletin" piece the following Tuesday. Poor! Add to that they even copied most of an article from the Programme recently. It's just gash journalism IMO.

 

Finally, according to the last time this subject was aired (over on JK) no other local "borough" paper carries news on the Red Scum or Man S.h.i.t.t.y. Yet the Chron does. We know Bury, Rochdale etc have them fans living amongst them, but them papers take the decision to promote/highlight their home town team not others down the road. Doesn't help our cause to alter the mindset of the apathetic public, one bit!

 

The Chron really really could be more positive and helpful. Not so much biased, but the negative slants they spout about us is a joke at times. Especially when their circulation drops (can't remember the percent, but I know it's above 50%!) during when the football season ends.

 

PS Coco....Chris Moore didn't try to buy the Rugby....he tried to loan them £50,000....whether that was in an attempt, as Hamilton claimed it was, to buy the club "through the back door"....no-one will ever know. It'll be conjecture. And Hamiltons hardly the honest of people either.....so we should leave that one there.

 

Totally agree with all of that!

 

Also I was going to point out about the loan to Coco but I didnt want to put 50p in him.....he would be going all day :P

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think OAFC0000 has got his point a bit muddled here when he says he'd like the Chron to be more pro-active in the Stadium cause. IMO, The Chron spins the most negative slants on any of the news about us having a new stadium....not sure if that's bias or just shoddy journalism....for example...

 

This about 95% of responses from local residents didn't want the stadium. Went with a big negative headline on the front page with it. And never once said how many didn't respond in the poll, which was a hell of a lot and meant that 95% polled weren't against it, just those who responded. Bit like how 95% of people who phone Jimmy Wagg on a matchday phone to complain......that's just not helpful one bit. Also like how they reported the Ferney Farm debacle whilst the club were on pre-season, leaving them with the land owners pulling out etc. And for those saying how the club leak news later in the day nowadays, I personally believe that's done on purpose now because of past strained relations. A number of years ago it was very rarely was the case but it's fact that the club got that sick and tired of the Chrons bad press of the Latics (have people forgotten the meetings Sean Jarvis had to have with them to try and "work things out"). And things like the forums we have.....anything aired in them is saved for up to 6 days sometimes! If it's a Weds night, they save it for their "Boundary Bulletin" piece the following Tuesday. Poor! Add to that they even copied most of an article from the Programme recently. It's just gash journalism IMO.

 

Finally, according to the last time this subject was aired (over on JK) no other local "borough" paper carries news on the Red Scum or Man S.h.i.t.t.y. Yet the Chron does. We know Bury, Rochdale etc have them fans living amongst them, but them papers take the decision to promote/highlight their home town team not others down the road. Doesn't help our cause to alter the mindset of the apathetic public, one bit!

 

The Chron really really could be more positive and helpful. Not so much biased, but the negative slants they spout about us is a joke at times. Especially when their circulation drops (can't remember the percent, but I know it's above 50%!) during when the football season ends.

 

PS Coco....Chris Moore didn't try to buy the Rugby....he tried to loan them £50,000....whether that was in an attempt, as Hamilton claimed it was, to buy the club "through the back door"....no-one will ever know. It'll be conjecture. And Hamiltons hardly the honest of people either.....so we should leave that one there.

 

Agree with nearly all of this BB and would reply in more depth but am about to pick up lad from school before trekking over Pennines for tonight.

 

I do want to nail the misapprehension that a local paper has to remain neutral. Absoulutely not!! look the length and breadth of the country and local papers are taking active roles in supporting/opposing positions on issues. Campaigning is at the core of modern local news media. It's not about births, deaths, and marriages but about taking an active position for the beneit of the community. And, IMO. the benefit of the Oldham community is served by a vibrant football club witha better stadium.

 

Anyway will have my scarf in back window as we drive thru Leeds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do want to nail the misapprehension that a local paper has to remain neutral. Absoulutely not!! look the length and breadth of the country and local papers are taking active roles in supporting/opposing positions on issues. Campaigning is at the core of modern local news media. It's not about births, deaths, and marriages but about taking an active position for the beneit of the community. And, IMO. the benefit of the Oldham community is served by a vibrant football club witha better stadium.

 

No-one is complaining about the stadium being improved it’s all that goes with it so we can fund it, all the flats/houses etc/.

Any decent journalist has to remain impartial when writing an article presenting all the facts to the reader to enable them to form their own opinion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moore made a serious offer to takeover the club, it was rejected, not long after they were kicked out of bp, and not long after that Harbin was poached.

 

 

Wasn't how it happened Coco....loan was offered...Hamilton said he was trying to buy the club through the back door. We'll agree to disagree.

 

Not getting into the financial debate of them playing on the pitch (you believe the rugby pay their way, I don't).....infact, none of this is what the original subject is!

 

And as for the Harbin "poaching" comment....wtf???? Damn....look at Man S.h.i.t.t.y poaching Lee Nobes....I reckon they're trying to ruin us!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, on the risk of getting back on topic,

 

The Rarely Wrong is a NEWSpaper.

 

It carries news. Were it to become an OPINIONpaper, it would lose all credibility, and its raison d'etre.

 

OPINIONS are what messageboards of this ilk are for. NEWSpapers are for NEWS.

 

Whilst I agree that The Rarelt Wrung :wink: could do more to promote the club, it cannot, as has been said before, appear to be taking sides in the main body of text. Were support to come through the "Editorial" - which is a NEWSpaper's traditional vent for OPINION, then well and good.

 

That's my opinion, anyway.

:chubb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's over to you Mr. Sideburns :grin: ..............................................................................

 

Let me make it clear that when I write 'rarely wrong' it's a compliment - on rare occasions I've pointed out where the Chron has been wrong. If it was wrong on a regular basis I would criticise it and would say 'often wrong'.

 

I draw attention on OWTB to what's in the rarely wrong Chron as a service to readers. Many people don't buy it (or don't live where it's sold) and don't bother (or are not allowed at work) to look at the digital version on t'internet, but if they read OWTB they are up to date with what the newspaper is saying about Latics. I've never been stopped from doing this, so I conclude that the powers that be (on here and at the Chron) are content that OWTB is not affecting sales of the newspaper. In fact sometimes it prompts people to write to the rarely wrong Chron, which in turn promotes more interest through the often read letters' column.

 

I think the rarely wrong Chron does the bare minimum to support Latics. Without the Club to report upon, its readership would plummet, as the majority of the stay-at-home Latics' fans are avid readers of anything to do with THEIR Club. So the opinions they form about Latics are based mainly on what they read in the local newspaper. That's where negative slants on stories (because bad news sells more newspapers than good news) can do irreparable damage.

 

The rarely wrong Chron's sponsorship of the Corner Suite and its reduced advertising rates are welcomed by the Club, but the benefits in kind received by the newspaper in stories to fill column inches far outweigh what is paid in sponsorship money (for which it gets tax relief).

 

I realise fully that the rarely wrong Chron feels that it shouldn't get involved in the residential development aspect of the BP redevleopment issue. However TTA have made it clear that that is the essential ingredient to making BP viable. No residential development involving blocks of flats - no redeveloped stadium - no continued meeting of losses of £800,000/£900,000 per year. The able-bodied stay-at-home Latics' fans have placed the Club's future in jeopardy once again and their attention should be drawn by the rarely wrong Chron (on the front page, not in an editorial column, tucked away inside) to the fact that the decision facing the Planning Committee is one that will have a massive impact on the town's future. The Club cannot continue to lose money and IF the Council and people of the town want the Club to continue in existence, the development must go ahead, with the modifications agreed between the Club and the Planners.

 

The time has come for the rarely wrong Chron to stand up and be counted by putting its full weight behind TTA in their efforts to secure the future of the Club. That means upsetting the local residents, but sometimes the good of the town as a whole has to be seen to be put first by those who are able to influence public opinion.

 

I shall be responding along these lines to the Club's request for views on the rarely wrong Chron.

Edited by Diego_Sideburns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er, on the risk of getting back on topic,

 

The Rarely Wrong is a NEWSpaper.

 

It carries news. Were it to become an OPINIONpaper, it would lose all credibility, and its raison d'etre.

 

OPINIONS are what messageboards of this ilk are for. NEWSpapers are for NEWS.

 

Whilst I agree that The Rarelt Wrung :wink: could do more to promote the club, it cannot, as has been said before, appear to be taking sides in the main body of text. Were support to come through the "Editorial" - which is a NEWSpaper's traditional vent for OPINION, then well and good.

 

That's my opinion, anyway.

:chubb:

 

 

Abit like the Sun :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make it clear that when I write 'rarely wrong' it's a compliment - on rare occasions I've pointed out where the Chron has been wrong. If it was wrong on a regular basis I would criticise it and would say 'often wrong'.

 

I draw attention on OWTB to what's in the rarely wrong Chron as a service to readers. Many people don't buy it (or don't live where it's sold) and don't bother (or are not allowed at work) to look at the digital version on t'internet, but if they read OWTB they are up to date with what the newspaper is saying about Latics. I've never been stopped from doing this, so I conclude that the powers that be (on here and at the Chron) are content that OWTB is not affecting sales of the newspaper. In fact sometimes it prompts people to write to the rarely wrong Chron, which in turn promotes more interest through the often read letters' column.

 

I think the rarely wrong Chron does the bare minimum to support Latics. Without the Club to report upon, its readership would plummet, as the majority of the stay-at-home Latics' fans are avid readers of anything to do with THEIR Club. So the opinions they form about Latics are based mainly on what they read in the local newspaper. That's where negative slants on stories (because bad news sells more newspapers than good news) can do irreparable damage.

 

The rarely wrong Chron's sponsorship of the Corner Suite and its reduced advertising rates are welcomed by the Club, but the benefits in kind received by the newspaper in stories to fill column inches far outweigh what is paid in sponsorship money (for which it gets tax relief).

 

I realise fully that the rarely wrong Chron feels that it shouldn't get involved in the residential development aspect of the BP redevleopment issue. However TTA have made it clear that that is the essential ingredient to making BP viable. No residential development involving blocks of flats - no redeveloped stadium - no continued meeting of losses of £800,000/£9,00,000 per year. The able-bodied stay-at-home Latics' fans have placed the Club's future in jeopardy once again and their attention should be drawn by the rarely wrong Chron (on the front page, not in an editorial column, tucked away inside) to the fact that the decision facing the Planning Committee is one that will have a massive impact on the town's future. The Cub cannot continue to lose money and IF the Council and people of the town want the Club to continue in existence, the development must go ahead, with the modifications agreed between the Club and the Planners.

 

The time has come for the rarely wrong Chron to stand up and be counted by putting its full weight behind TTA in their efforts to secure the future of the Club. That means upsetting the local residents, but sometimes the good of the town as a whole has to be seen to be put first by those who are able to influence public opinion.

 

I shall be responding along these lines to the Club's request for views on the rarely wrong Chron.

 

Absolutely spot on to the very last full stop DS! I am wondering who's benefit this is for....is the Chron asking for this as research, or is the club asking for views so they can go to the Chron with our input, for something? Hope this all becomes revealed in the coming months!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...