Shels Programme

Quote:

---

Originally posted by James
would paying the money for the prog even though i knew b4hand it was crap then entitle me in your eyes to comment on it peadar???

---

Take things out of perspective why don't you James?!
What I said was that I was I had more right to be disgusted than someone who hadn't bought one, not that my opinion was more vaild. If you didn't spend money then you lost nothing and therefore are less likely to annoyed by how much of a waste of money it was. Can people read posts a second time if they're having difficulty understanding them please.
It will save a lot of needless responses.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cityace
Well mabye no-one would have said anything because thats the way their supposed to be?

---

Cityace, what do you mean by this - I'm a wee bit confused.
What way are they supposed to be?

Donie

i think he meant that you would expect a certain minimum standard of said product and then not have to praise or comment on said product just cause it met this min standard

i mean you dont normally go commenting on a product unless there is something wrong or something very very right

like:
wow that was lovely bowl of corn flakes ...compared to the bowl of cornflakes i had in dublin :)
if the flakes are chite then you'd comment.. other then that c'flakes are c'flakes :D like

:ball:

Have to agree with you Donie - the programmes here in Ireland have to a huge gap to fill - in terms of the history of clubs, player info and such.

Most of them are just full of boring articles though - I don't buy tham at away games because I don't want to read all the little bits of useless info about other clubs.

Maybe if all programmes had player i/vs and were interesting to read I might change my mind.

As for the Shels programme. I didn't buy it but it wasn't as good as I've seen them to be in the past.

The thing that I object to about the programme was that there were, I think, three articles in it. Each of the articles was a resume of the last few games since the last programme, from a different fan's point of view. Yet naturally, all three articles are remarkably similar.

A bit more variety would not have gone amiss.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by James
i think he meant that you would expect a certain minimum standard of said product and then not have to praise or comment on said product just cause it met this min standard

i mean you dont normally go commenting on a product unless there is something wrong or something very very right

like:
wow that was lovely bowl of corn flakes ...compared to the bowl of cornflakes i had in dublin :)
if the flakes are chite then you'd comment.. other then that c'flakes are c'flakes :D like

:ball:

---

Couldnt have put it better myself.

I was trying to think of a metaphor but couldnt.:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by James
i think he meant that you would expect a certain minimum standard of said product and then not have to praise or comment on said product just cause it met this min standard

i mean you dont normally go commenting on a product unless there is something wrong or something very very right

like:
wow that was lovely bowl of corn flakes ...compared to the bowl of cornflakes i had in dublin :)
if the flakes are chite then you'd comment.. other then that c'flakes are c'flakes :D like

:ball:

---

There are no minimum standards at all in programme production. The much-vaunted UEFA Club Licensing, for example, makes to mention whatsoever (AFAIK) of clubs (a) having to produce a programme/information sheet/whatever for their fans or (b) minimum standards for same. Personally, I think this is an omission by UEFA and the fans are the losers because of it.

As for minimum standards, well, I think even the worst NL programme today is infinitely better than, say, ten years ago. Can we say the same for the football?

Thus, if in your mind's eye you can imagine a 'minimum standard' programme, why is there no encouragement/appreciation/praise (or same given so grudgingly) when a club (not necessarily CCFC) goes well beyond 'minimum standards'? Pats have in the past, Rovers also, and there are other examples. Programmes it seems to me merit a mention when they are poor quality, and that's fair enough in anyone's language. But I'd argue that that shouldn't be the only case when editors/contributors' efforts go beyond the perceived norm.

Most prog eds are simply doing it for the love of it, because they love their club.

This argument about programme quality is a complete mirror image of what barstoolers use against the NL.

To take James's cornflakes a bit further: to apply the same logic to the games we see, should we only talk about poor games, only the ones that don't reach the standard we expect, and never the really good or great ones? That would be banal....

Donie

Well I splashed out my €1.50 last night, but didn't really read it until today. Outside of a few catty comments towards City, it was simply a review of the last few games and some memories of a Shels fan from one guy.
Of no real interest to visiting fans, just another memento of the season. I didn't mind the money, they didn't charge a proper amount so I did not expect a proper programme. I suppose Shels are concentrated on the tournament and the UEFA cup, if they treat a league fixture with such contempt they will hardly bother their arse getting a programme together for it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by patsh
Outside of a few catty comments towards City,

---

Yeah I bought the programme (I always do, I'm a bit of an anorak when it comes to programmes) and I thought it was very poor but in fairness the price was reduced to reflect this.

But on the point of the digs at city I've noticed this also in the Pats programme. Do we have a policy of avoiding insulting our visitors in the programme Donie?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bert

But on the point of the digs at city I've noticed this also in the Pats programme. Do we have a policy of avoiding insulting our visitors in the programme Donie?

---

maybe they just leave that to the fanzine???

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bert


But on the point of the digs at city I've noticed this also in the Pats programme. Do we have a policy of avoiding insulting our visitors in the programme Donie?

---

The general editorial line on City Edition is to be positive. That's our philosophy if you like, not something we've been contracted to by CCFC. That said, we don't have a policy of avoiding insulting visiting teams/players/supporters/tea ladies. I just don't quite see the point, to be honest about it. Space is too valuable for it to become an insult vehicle. People have football forums for that if they wish and, as Joe pointed out, fanzines also. Anyway, we'd probably put 451 out of business if we got into that line of work, eh James? :D :D

An important issue here is responsibility , on different levels.

1) There is a legal side to 'official' publications. City, for instance, were sued in the past for a quite innocuous (IMO) comment made in print by the then editor about a problem that had arisen with the building of the Donie Forde Stand. Cost the club quite a few bob for a few simple, innocent words written lightheartedly. Thus the programme does have to ensure it is 'onside' all the time, so to speak.

2) Fanzines avoid this by using aliases/anonymity/being 'unofficial'. Fanzines have an important role to play IMO and, just like proggies, there are good and bad ones out there...

3) Petty squabbling/trading insults etc may be variously described as enjoyable/a necessary part of the game/a total waste of time depending on where you're coming from. I appreciate it's part of life, I just don't feel it does anything for our game's image in attracting sponsorship or new supporters. There are places for it, enough of them, so I think the programme can get on and do its own thing.

4) Pat Dolan and Brian Lennox, unlike most of their predecessors, actually write their own programme notes. I may edit a word here or there if it looks dodgy or likely to be misinterpreted, but generally if they want to be a bit more outspoken or specific than usual they will have thought fairly carefully about how they want to say it. Pat does a very decent piece, IMO, usually well worth the read whereas I'd normally skip other managers' notes as just so much anodyne waffle.
Brian throws in the odd very interesting bit from behind the scenes but I think if he opened up just a wee bit more he could give us some excellent insights into the background of the club and the league. I think he's just a bit cautious over the legal thing as he was at the club when the Stand problem arose if I recall correctly. He's never slow to voice his opinions all the same...! I think the club and the programme are very well served by Pat and Brian at the moment, to be fair.

Donie

The Donie forde I got the program up at the shels match on Thursday Night and the first thing I said was that was slapped together it was not a good one but it was there all the same and I agree with wath you have said on your last pice above.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Donie Forde
Anyway, we'd probably put 451 out of business if we got into that line of work, eh James? :D :D

---

dream on gerrry :rolleyes:

I take it the Shels programme didn't say "Pat Dolan is a tactical retard" then...? :D

I'm with The Donie F on a lot of this. I write for the Pats programme and in fairness, they let me away with murder in terms of slagging the opposing team, manager or fans. But then my page is basically an SEI perspective, so it's almost to be expected that the flavour will be more of the terraces than of the directors' box - I know I can't go as far as I could in a fanzine so I live with that. The rest of the articles are generally more, erm, respectful of the opposition.

However, there are about eight or nine articles in the Pats one and it must be a nightmare for the editor (as it is for the writers) to come up with something fresh every fortnight and to avoid articles overlapping in terms of content.

Bear in mind that most people writing for programmes aren't professional journalists and have to do it in their spare time, so it's very possible for some half-arsed piece to make it through quality control when a deadline looms.

As for the preponderance of ads, they're a commercial necessity, both in terms of financing the programme itself but also for raising money for the club.

One final point: most programmes will inevitably be slanted more towards the home fans. They're gonna make up the majority of the crowd and they're the ones who are the regular buyers, so it wouldn't make sense to make it more interesting for the few hundred away fans. It's also probably the main vehicle any club has for communicating news and developments to their supporters, most of which will be of little interest to away fans.

I reckon people should recognise the limitations under which programmes are produced, be sensible about their purpose and learn to appreciate the fact that we have programmes at all.

Dr.Nightdub I agree in what you are saying but I got the program last thursday night and as I say on the last post I sent on this the program was only on 6 pages of A4 paper and then folded in all. I think the program was a bit of a let down from a pro club. I thought that it would be a lot better.
Yes it gives the club money but the thing is the standerd of it was a bit poor that is all I am saying. Plus there was only about 1 or 2 ads on it I thought they would have a lot more in it.

Has anyone written/rang/informed Shels program eds of this and let them know, i mean you'd think it important that they are up to speed on things ... if you know what i mean. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr.Nightdub
One final point: most programmes will inevitably be slanted more towards the home fans. They're gonna make up the majority of the crowd.

---

except if you're playing shels and they got a big and very important friendly 'dublin tournament' on that weekend :cool: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Donie Forde
* I think Shels have consistently produced a fairly decent programme over the years and there may have been reasons why last nite's was a bit lightweight...

---

IMO, the Shels programme mirros shels attitude 100%. It's usually fully of haughty arrogance towards the rest of the league, I have at least 3 shels programmes myself that contained exactly the same pen pics for city players even though they were in different seasons and were totally out of date. The attitude of shels towards the rest of the league (and my opinion on it) are well known by now, so having a joke of a programme that encompasses nothing other than rambling inanities and bizarre and unfounded arrogance should be no surprise to anyone.

and yes I did buy it :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dodge
Sheliban above said it was the worst away support in Tolka this year, so how many travelled and how many both programmes.

---

not going to get into a squabble over this, but how the hell do shels think they have the right to have a go at anyone over crowds when:
1. They changed the match to a time making it very difficult for City fans to travel.
2. They could only muster a max of 2000 for what was more or less a top of the table clash.
3. They were outsung by that "worst away support" for almost the whole game.

On top of this there is the fact that they moved city fans around 3 times inside the ground because they didn't have a clue what was going on. Their attitude stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Éanna
I have at least 3 shels programmes myself that contained exactly the same pen pics for city players even though they were in different seasons and were totally out of date.

---

Not saying that this was the case here but programmes depend on the away club to provide player profiles. I'm involved with the UCD programme this season and Drogheda didn't bother to send us any profiles and pointed us to profiles on their website which were a year out of date.