NUFC media bans - Telegraph now banned from club

[BottledDog]

Petty my arse. The press profit from us like any other media organisation. This isn't going to stop anyone writing s*** about us, you just have to look at the Journals posturing to see that.

Seems like you're just getting in a tiz over it because you don't enjoy the idea of us trying to increase revenues (without hitting us supporters in the pocket I might add) as long as you see it as an Ashley backed initiative. All power to his elbow.

 

I can't imagine it is going to be any big gain in revenues though. Fair enough.

 

Well, I'd agree with you there.

[Tiresias]

I just think it's a bit of a baring of the fact having lots of cash gets you all the way with journalism and not years of diligent building of contacts and trust 

[Elliottman]

From my view, apart from a few snidey remarks, the Journal and Chron has been exactly the same. By that, I mean s****. Much prefer reading the articles from .com or the Mag, something like that.

 

nufc.com's "articles" (using the term very loosly) are awful,  waste of internet bandwidth tbh.

 

I was just on about getting updates about the club more than anything. Each to their own like, at least they don't read like they've been written by a five year old.

[Mick]

If we're that skint that we have to charge papers for reporting, why don't we charge a fee for the lucrative advertising we give away around the ground?

[Raconteur]

I just think it's a bit of a baring of the fact having lots of cash gets you all the way with journalism and not years of diligent building of contacts and trust 

Welcome to 2013

[morpeth mag]

It's a question of who needs who more. The newspapers need football for circulation but clubs need the press to ensure coverage of the game. I personally think it's a bad/short term move by nufc as the printed press is under enough threat already from the net based media, the exclusives on offer are poor copy and in this recession seats at games need to be sold. Clubs make so much from TV, taking money from the press seems petty. So it comes back to an attack on the coverage of the nufc protests. I hope this will give us a free press willing to report on all events with an open mind.

[jdckelly]

It's a question of who needs who more. The newspapers need football for circulation but clubs need the press to ensure coverage of the game. I personally think it's a bad/short term move by nufc as the printed press is under enough threat already from the net based media, the exclusives on offer are poor copy and in this recession seats at games need to be sold. Clubs make so much from TV, taking money from the press seems petty. So it comes back to an attack on the coverage of the nufc protests. I hope this will give us a free press willing to report on all events with an open mind.

do they? its not like people will suddenly forget about the existence of football because the papers didn't cover it. Not with massive tv and radio coverage

[Tiresias]

They are by and large no longer needed for literal news, there's too many avenues for that, albeit at some level that does requite people collating and publishing it. What the written media really needs to sell itself on is the comment and analysis. There's lots of really poor writing about, especially at local level, the Chron and the Journal I'd love to be great but the sports section can barely string sentences together at times. I don't expect them to have people whose prose alone keeps one reading (that a few of the nationals do have writers like that) but it still seems as unambitious as the club itself in just writing what any old pub bore could.

 

Slightly deviating from the point 

[jdckelly]

They are by and large no longer needed for literal news, there's too many avenues for that, albeit at some level that does requite people collating and publishing it. What the written media really needs to sell itself on is the comment and analysis. There's lots of really poor writing about, especially at local level, the Chron and the Journal I'd love to be great but the sports section can barely string sentences together at times. I don't expect them to have people whose prose alone keeps one reading (that a few of the nationals do have writers like that) but it still seems as unambitious as the club itself in just writing what any old pub bore could.

 

Slightly deviating from the point 

level of real analysis in the newspaper industry in general isn't all that impressive.There are good journalists here and there (for example Caulkin) but too many of the likes of Martin Samuel who just attack and twist things to fit their own grudges (see avb "analysis and comment"). Local press obviously will have lower standards but surely they can get better than Lee Ryder. 

[Guest Roger Kint]

If we're that skint that we have to charge papers for reporting, why don't we charge a fee for the lucrative advertising we give away around the ground?

 

Yeah thats it obviously

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

in many way i think ashley is miles ahead with his ideas, he just executes them so fucking badly it's unreal

[AyeDubbleYoo]

in many way i think ashley is miles ahead with his ideas, he just executes them so fucking badly it's unreal

 

There's some truth to this, he's not shy of bringing principles from business straight into football. He's just totally oblivious to the PR effect.

[Guest icemanblue]

I'm not sure that he's oblivious at all, to be honest. He just couldn't give a fuck about PR. Never has.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'm not sure that he's oblivious at all, to be honest. He just couldn't give a fuck about PR. Never has.

 

Yeah, sorry, that's kind of what I meant.

[Guest icemanblue]

Yeah? Should have fucking said that, then. Shouldn't you?

[The Fish]

I don't think it's a question of generating revenue at all. It's control and brand-promotion. the "exclusive" interviews with players will feature on Sports Direct News 1st and foremost, any paper carrying those quotes will then have to print "Sports Direct" in their columns and boom Mike Ashley's real love gets greater penetration.

 

Who actually gives a sh!t about the majority of fluff interview pieces? The most read articles will be opinion pieces by Caulkin, Bird or whomever and generally the only quotes that're carried in those pieces are from the Pressers, or the pre/post-game interviews that are contracted into the TV, Radio and Highlight deals. I can't imagine Newcastle are going to eject all but Sky, BBC etc. from the pressers.

 

And say for example the Sun pays for access, then run a story condemning the behaviour of the owner, will their access be revoked?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah? Should have fucking said that, then. Shouldn't you?

 

Fuck you!

[Interpolic]

From my view, apart from a few snidey remarks, the Journal and Chron has been exactly the same. By that, I mean s****. Much prefer reading the articles from .com or the Mag, something like that.

 

nufc.com's "articles" (using the term very loosly) are awful,  waste of internet bandwidth tbh.

 

What a load of absolute fucking drivel.

[magorific]

The press DO already pay to cover NUFC - all papers pay an annual accreditation fee (per reporter) to the Football Data Co - a Premier League-run cash cow.

[LRD]

The press DO already pay to cover NUFC - all papers pay an annual accreditation fee (per reporter) to the Football Data Co - a Premier League-run cash cow.

 

Still remember them ridiculously charging for listing of PL fixtures.

[Parky]

Only a matter of time before NUFC is banned from itself.

[Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast]

 

 

And say for example the Sun pays for access, then run a story condemning the behaviour of the owner, will their access be revoked?

 

They surely won't be as dumb as to bite the hand that's feeding it. Exclusivity is very important to news organizations.

 

It does sound stupid to me. We won't make a lot of money out of it but if it can stop players from giving interviews left,right and centre which will be mistranslated and misquoted giving rise to storms in teacups then it's probably a good thing for the club.

[TK-421]

It does sound stupid to me. We won't make a lot of money out of it but if it can stop players from giving interviews left,right and centre which will be mistranslated and misquoted giving rise to storms in teacups then it's probably a good thing for the club.

 

So, presuming they are still here, will this stop Colo and Cabaye from speaking to papers in Argentina and France respectively when away on international duty, or does this only cover UK publications?

 

[Cronky]

Only a matter of time before NUFC is banned from itself.

 

Very poor, by your standards, Parky.

[David Icke - Son of God]

It does sound stupid to me. We won't make a lot of money out of it but if it can stop players from giving interviews left,right and centre which will be mistranslated and misquoted giving rise to storms in teacups then it's probably a good thing for the club.

 

So, presuming they are still here, will this stop Colo and Cabaye from speaking to papers in Argentina and France respectively when away on international duty, or does this only cover UK publications?

 

It would be unworkable if they tried to extend it to international duty and sponsors events.

 

I don't think the club have a problem with foreign media even when they are (mis)quoting players. They've went out of their way to accommodate French TV and press, they already get better access than the British media. This is all about the English newspapers and their relationship with the owner. It's a cackhanded attempt to try and exert some control over them.

 

I don't agree with it but if we had anything about them they'd use this opportunity to overhaul their own digital content strategy. This is a battle all clubs are going to have with the press at some point in the next decade because the media landscape is changing so much. That would require some investment though and we know how Mike feels about that.