The best programme

[pineapple stu]

Originally posted by A face
A few of you here are involved in putting programmes together.

Between you, could give a little review of the other programmes from what you know but include the first division.

I've done mine up above. Don't know anything about the First Division (yet... ), although I remember Athlone's was just black and white photocopied (I stand corrected on that now if any Athlone fan corrects me!) when we played them in the relegation/promotion play-off.

Basically, I think the Premier breaks down as follows -

Good - UCD, Cork, Derry

OK - Shels, Rovers, Pat's

Very poor - Longford, Bohs

Appalling - Drogheda (they only had half the results filled in in their cross section table, and their season line-outs didn't say who they played in the second round of the Cup and had results with no line-outs and line-outs with no results!!!)

[Schumi]

Originally posted by TheRealRovers
Your missing 12 first division clubs from that list

Polls can only have 10 options max. The majority of people won't have seen any 1st division programmes either.

[SÓC]

From all the Programs in the League that I've seen I'd put Citys on Top, the quality and the content is excellent.

UCD which, if you consider the resources the lads have, is a great achievement, now if only they'd stop gloating about their Dublin Daly score

The Pats one is quite good but one of the regular articles is quite annoying.

Bohs has gone backwards

Longford is a decent enough, but the ones I have are oldish

Shels is normally ok but the one recently was a joke

Drogs and Waterford were shockingly bad.

Rovers would be above Bohs and Shels but below Pats.

[Dodge]

Originally posted by pineapple stu

Good - UCD, Cork, Derry

OK - Shels, Rovers, Pat's

Very poor - Longford, Bohs

Don't mean to be rude lads, but the UCD one isn't good. The presentation is appaling and the articles are hit and miss.

Cork's is the best followed by Rovers. Ours looks the best but the content isn't great but its is only 2 euro so gets extra marks for VFM

[Juz the Hoop]

Shamrock Rovers - Didn't see. Usually good if not spectacular. Bobby Best does a very good job though.

Eh its Robert Goggins that edits the Rovers programme Bobby best is the photographer. IMO we still have the best prog but I have to say I was very impressed with Corks. Especially since my name was mentioned 3 times in it.

BY the way CCFC commercial director isnt bad looking from the photo and she looked decent when on the pitch at half time

KOH

JUZ

[pineapple stu]

Originally posted by Juz the Hoop
Eh its Robert Goggins that edits the Rovers programme Bobby best is the photographer.

I'm aware of that! Just saying that his pictures bring a bit of quality to the programme and I wouldn't mind having someone like him on ours.

[pineapple stu]

Originally posted by Dodge
Don't mean to be rude lads, but the UCD one isn't good. The presentation is appaling and the articles are hit and miss.

Wouldn't agree with that (obviously). We can't realistically afford glossy paper - no ads - but if you reckon that glossy paper is what makes a programme good, that's ridiculous. In terms of inside presentation, I would argue that it's neat, that there's farily few stupid typos or apostrophe errors, that it's largely free of silly ranting at the opposition team and that there's no pages which are filled because we use size 20 font. As I recall, we did have a slight problem with the printers on the Pat's issue in that they shrunk the margins to the side, causeing the text boxes to get dragged away to the right, which messed up any articles with pictures - that was a once off.

As for the articles - you were praising one on the Sligo forum recently! We try to get a fair few articles in, so there's bound to be something you don't find too interesting, but then that's better than reading three pages about how the home team don't like you, isn't it?

[Dodge]

No, glossy paper isn't the only thing, colour is a huge factor though. Some fanzine's have a higher production quality than the UCD programme. The Declan hughes article on Socrates was great (that would be the hit of "hit and miss") and of course I'll give credit where it's due but to call yourselves one of the best in the league is ridiculous.

And it was one article on UCD in the Pats programme, not unlikle WeAreRovers complaining about an article on Rovers in the UCD programme (to be told freedom of speech, club take no responsibility etc)

[James]

agree with the ucd prog like a fanzine in terms of presentation paper quality its poor, dont think much of it or the articles are that great either from what ive seen.. nothing spectacular (declan hughes though normally has an ok piece)

city pats and rovers for me
$hel$ is crap, drogs the same and waaaterford
longford not upto much like boez and ucd
derry above average

[Macy]

tbh I only buy the town programme, and I think it's okay - although it did go through a bad patch earlier in the season... Normally at away games I try and get a Fanzine rather than the programme...

Ultimately I feel the main role of a programme is to provide funds for the club, so I'd offset production values for increased money going into the club....

[James]

ok so dave but if ya offset production values..then surely less ppl will buy the product
ppl i hope, just aint gona buy something like sheep just cause its there (or are they!). if the quality of the product is good, sales will/shud match
simple enough imo

all very well the rols of prog to provide funds for club but isnt it also there to inform fans .. its the only regular official mouthpiece most clubs (especially those with no official website have, and this is something the city programme does excellently with good notes from all ppl involveed in the club from the chairman to the manager to both the commercial and community liason manageresses
as well as pieces from both supporters clubs and the family enclosure

[Macy]

I didn't necessarily mean put any old rubbish, but say the Town one going to more pictures, colour etc with the same written content and added cost and lose money - that's no help in the long run...

I think the need for all the club notes in the programme obviously shows that those areas aren't getting their message across through the media in general (i.e. not doing their jobs)....

[patsh]

Originally posted by Macy
Ultimately I feel the main role of a programme is to provide funds for the club, so I'd offset production values for increased money going into the club....

But surely the better the quality, the more people are likely to buy it, thus increasing revenue to the club?

[James]

Originally posted by patsh
But surely the better the quality, the more people are likely to buy it, thus increasing revenue to the club?

exactly my point like

[Macy]

Only up to a point.... No good selling 2000 top of the range pop up programmes at €2 if there's more money to be made selling 1500 at €2 with an adequate production.....

[James]

depends on who ya talk too
the person producing may well favour as high a quality product as possible
to the club who may well only think bottom line and $$$

me personally i'd say you make it as high a quality as poss given constraints and then long term will be more beneficial.. with increased sales and a more loyal and wider fan/customer base

i take your point though

[Dodge]

Originally posted by Macy
Ultimately I feel the main role of a programme is to provide funds for the club, so I'd offset production values for increased money going into the club....

But is that the main reason, or is the programme more of a PR exercise? If so the higher production quality would be a good thing. If it projects a better image of the club, which helps attract sponsers well then losing a small percentage on sales isn't a bad thing.

A lot of programmes don't serve either function well and are done by programme fans for the sake of it with little thought put in to it (Shels being the prime example)

[pineapple stu]

Originally posted by Dodge
And it was one article on UCD in the Pats programme

Actually, there was the SEI (I think) column and the Archives piece which both directly slagged UCD, if not another piece.

The Pat's programme contained a manager's and chairman's column (both wastes of time in my opinion as they are ridiculously repetitive), various reviews on underage and junior teams and four (I think) columns, each of which rehashed the previous week's action. There were also nearly 25 pages of ads/ground details, etc. which made it hard to find reading material. That's obviously great for the club, but it lets the programme down a bit.

The UCD programme against Pat's had that Socrates article, Clive Delaney interview, look at UEFA's Fair Play award (to be drawn the next week), looks at the leagues in France, Germany, Holland and Kazakhstan, a look at the new Silver Goal rule and other stuff. There were 7 pages of ads, etc. out of 28 pages. In terms of content, then, I don't think it can be argued, admittedly using those two specific examples alone, that the Pat's programme is better than UCD's.

If you think that what makes a programme is having lots of nice colourful pictures to look at, then that's obviously you're opinion and you're entitled to it - obviously ours isn't as colourful as yours. The point was argued earlier that programmes should strive for better quality (i.e. of paper, colour, etc.) over anything else - this isn't true. UCD made a big loss on the programme last year precisely becuase we went for glossy paper, and only average glossy paper at that. Profit is the key factor, not revenue. Being colourful might get a few extra sales in the short term, but long-term, if you have a programme with no or repetitive content, your sales are going to suffer.

Personally, I couldn't care less if a programme is glossy and has lots of colour in it - I buy a programme for a good and interesting read. On that basis, I have UCD's as one of the better efforts in the league.

[Dodge]

Ok we're getting into personal opinion here but both the Pats one and the UCD one had roughly 20 pages of content. The pats one is full colour, the UCD isn't. Although we have more ads, they are matched by content so it isn't an absurd amount.

The article isn't an SEI one, its just written by someone involved in the SEI organising...

I don't want to sound like I'm having a go at the UCD programme, I just think that your self praise was misplaced. You like it and thats fine and I hope it does make UCD money. I just thought I'd give my view on it.

I also said our's wasn't great, but it serves its purpose in terms of PR, informing supporters of club events and the ads bring in much revenue.

[James]

Originally posted by Dodge
You like it and thats fine and I hope it does make UCD money. .

agreed
i hope it makes UCD money too

one thing on this
other clubs programmes the money / profit goes to the respective clubs

is it true that the with the UCD programme, the profits alledgely go to the editors/ppl involved in its production? - just a rumour i heard btw
*not an allegation.. yet*