Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 18:46:19 GMT
But it wasn't making a loss.
It might not have been making a huge profit, but at the very least it was paying for itself.Only having full page adverts, at a higher price, which might exclude engagement with local businesses, sounds like bad business - time will tell. If it does go online only then that is the end really; I can't see the point in it. What would you get that you can't already see on the website? Would people really flick through it before kick-off and at half-time? Would anyone subscribe to it? Would anyone remember to open it, or even be bothered to? Interesting that book sales are back up on a high, and vinyl records sales have apparently been rising over the past few years. You know this for a fact do you? Do you think it could be making more? The programme has been an award winner for sure but could it be actually complementing towards the player budget? Don't want to get involved in someone else's argument, I'm able to start plenty of my own, but do you know for sure that it wasn't contributing to the club's funds? I don't mean that in a nasty way, it's just a question, was the thing making money? I'm not sure that's really the main point anyway, at least it's not for me. No problem at all with trying a different line with advertising etc, if it doesn't work out, as long as we maintain relationships with the existing contributors and advertisers, we can always go back, for me the problem is that, if what's being suggested on here by some is correct, Keith was put in a position where he felt the best course of action was to walk away. Surely someone with Tom's communication skills could have carried Keith along with the idea and found plenty for him to do to keep him involved?
|
|
badhand
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 182
|
Post by badhand on Jul 29, 2018 19:10:21 GMT
You know this for a fact do you? Do you think it could be making more? The programme has been an award winner for sure but could it be actually complementing towards the player budget? Don't want to get involved in someone else's argument, I'm able to start plenty of my own, but do you know for sure that it wasn't contributing to the club's funds? I don't mean that in a nasty way, it's just a question, was the thing making money? I'm not sure that's really the main point anyway, at least it's not for me. No problem at all with trying a different line with advertising etc, if it doesn't work out, as long as we maintain relationships with the existing contributors and advertisers, we can always go back, for me the problem is that, if what's being suggested on here by some is correct, Keith was put in a position where he felt the best course of action was to walk away. Surely someone with Tom's communication skills could have carried Keith along with the idea and found plenty for him to do to keep him involved? There was a statement from the club regarding the programme at the beginning of May.
Amongst other things, it stated that the programme made a profit, not a huge one, but enough to be worthwhile to continue production.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 29, 2018 19:24:24 GMT
But it wasn't making a loss.
It might not have been making a huge profit, but at the very least it was paying for itself.Only having full page adverts, at a higher price, which might exclude engagement with local businesses, sounds like bad business - time will tell. If it does go online only then that is the end really; I can't see the point in it. What would you get that you can't already see on the website? Would people really flick through it before kick-off and at half-time? Would anyone subscribe to it? Would anyone remember to open it, or even be bothered to? Interesting that book sales are back up on a high, and vinyl records sales have apparently been rising over the past few years. You know this for a fact do you? Do you think it could be making more? The programme has been an award winner for sure but could it be actually complementing towards the player budget? You know this for a fact do you? Do you think it could be making more? - Yes. Just found the article, came back to share the link, and see Badhand has beaten me to it! www.bristolrovers.co.uk/news/2018/may/piratecontinues/- Perhaps it could. Time will tell.The programme has been an award winner for sure but could it be actually complementing towards the player budget? - I'll reserve judgement until I see the 2018/19 issue on the opening game (the £2 pre-season game effort yesterday wasn't a good sign though). One thing I would say is there are aspects of having an unique programme that it's difficult to put a price on: the knock-ons of links with the fanbase, the community, and local businesses.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 19:26:40 GMT
Don't want to get involved in someone else's argument, I'm able to start plenty of my own, but do you know for sure that it wasn't contributing to the club's funds? I don't mean that in a nasty way, it's just a question, was the thing making money? I'm not sure that's really the main point anyway, at least it's not for me. No problem at all with trying a different line with advertising etc, if it doesn't work out, as long as we maintain relationships with the existing contributors and advertisers, we can always go back, for me the problem is that, if what's being suggested on here by some is correct, Keith was put in a position where he felt the best course of action was to walk away. Surely someone with Tom's communication skills could have carried Keith along with the idea and found plenty for him to do to keep him involved? There was a statement from the club regarding the programme at the beginning of May.
Amongst other things, it stated that the programme made a profit, not a huge one, but enough to be worthwhile to continue production.
Fair enough. People seem convinced by Tom at this stage, so maybe he can turn it into something even more profitable? Everything I hear about Keith suggests that he would want what's best for Rovers, so it sounds like there's some kind of communication problem with him not being fully convinced that the new format and everything it involves is the way ahead?
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 29, 2018 20:19:19 GMT
I do know as a personal friend of three decades or more that Keith Brookman loved editing the matchday programme and dealing with the 25 plus contributors and took great pride in producing an award winning publication. This was taken away from him and given to someone in a print design company and was done without any consultation with him. This was disrespectful and wrong in many peoples eyes and many contributors have now decided not to continue writing for the Pirate. Mike - Is this part confirmed? The role of editor was definitely taken away from Keith? I've only seen you and LPGas on page 1 mention this so far. So would Keith have had no part to play in the programme, or would he just have become a contributor (albeit contributing a bit more than others)? The reason I ask is because it's one thing for the printer and designer to change, but quite another for Keith to lose his role. Cheers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2018 20:41:40 GMT
You know this for a fact do you? Do you think it could be making more? The programme has been an award winner for sure but could it be actually complementing towards the player budget? Thanks to those above who fact-checked this for us. As for more; everything profitable could theoretically be more so. Whether that's the main point is a matter of economic philosophy. As for complementing (or contributing) towards the player budget; doubtful. If anyone can make a print publication return a profit of £1/year, good. That's better than many national print newspapers at the moment. Football programmes are a dying medium. Anyone who can keep one alive, make any nominal profit (not loss), and win awards - they're alright by me. The programmes are good for enthusiasts, collectors, souvenir-hunters, friends and family brought to their first matches. Don't expect them to fund quality first team football players.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jul 30, 2018 6:32:23 GMT
I do know as a personal friend of three decades or more that Keith Brookman loved editing the matchday programme and dealing with the 25 plus contributors and took great pride in producing an award winning publication. This was taken away from him and given to someone in a print design company and was done without any consultation with him. This was disrespectful and wrong in many peoples eyes and many contributors have now decided not to continue writing for the Pirate. Mike - Is this part confirmed? The role of editor was definitely taken away from Keith? I've only seen you and LPGas on page 1 mention this so far. So would Keith have had no part to play in the programme, or would he just have become a contributor (albeit contributing a bit more than others)? The reason I ask is because it's one thing for the printer and designer to change, but quite another for Keith to lose his role. Cheers. yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Jul 30, 2018 7:43:05 GMT
Mike - Is this part confirmed? The role of editor was definitely taken away from Keith? I've only seen you and LPGas on page 1 mention this so far. So would Keith have had no part to play in the programme, or would he just have become a contributor (albeit contributing a bit more than others)? The reason I ask is because it's one thing for the printer and designer to change, but quite another for Keith to lose his role. Cheers. yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control Presumably Keith would have still had his job as Media manager or whatever the title, doing all those other bits he used to do as well.
Mike, any idea on any contributors who have declines to write for the programme following Keith's departure?
According to FB, John Thomson was dropped from the programme, but I couldn't see anyone say why or what the reason was
|
|
RG2 Gas
Andy Spring
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 229
|
Post by RG2 Gas on Jul 30, 2018 10:13:56 GMT
yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control Presumably Keith would have still had his job as Media manager or whatever the title, doing all those other bits he used to do as well.
Mike, any idea on any contributors who have declines to write for the programme following Keith's departure?
According to FB, John Thomson was dropped from the programme, but I couldn't see anyone say why or what the reason was
According to a post on Twitter over the weekend, last season that particular programme contributor suggested in the programme itself that Rovers were in a 'relegation battle' some time before Christmas (November or December) and that the management and players who had read the article were 'livid'. I have no idea if any of that is true or if it's the reason they've been asked not to contribute any more (don't blame the messenger!), but it was a reason given up on Social Media on Saturday.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jul 30, 2018 13:07:39 GMT
yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control Presumably Keith would have still had his job as Media manager or whatever the title, doing all those other bits he used to do as well.
Mike, any idea on any contributors who have declines to write for the programme following Keith's departure?
According to FB, John Thomson was dropped from the programme, but I couldn't see anyone say why or what the reason was
About five have decided not to contribute so far
|
|
|
Post by fanatical on Jul 30, 2018 16:15:26 GMT
You know this for a fact do you? Do you think it could be making more? The programme has been an award winner for sure but could it be actually complementing towards the player budget? Don't want to get involved in someone else's argument, I'm able to start plenty of my own, but do you know for sure that it wasn't contributing to the club's funds? I don't mean that in a nasty way, it's just a question, was the thing making money? I'm not sure that's really the main point anyway, at least it's not for me. No problem at all with trying a different line with advertising etc, if it doesn't work out, as long as we maintain relationships with the existing contributors and advertisers, we can always go back, for me the problem is that, if what's being suggested on here by some is correct, Keith was put in a position where he felt the best course of action was to walk away. Surely someone with Tom's communication skills could have carried Keith along with the idea and found plenty for him to do to keep him involved? I was really asking the questions for two purposes 1. It was said the programme was not making a loss, so if that is the case does the Club feel it should make a profit? and 2. I used the word 'complementing' purposely because rather than just making a profit to boost the playing budget, I have a view that the mention in print of the many advertisers, sponsors, etc helps encourage more funds to come via the advertisers, sponsors etc which may well help to increase the monies which become available for the playing budget.
|
|
|
Post by One F in Dunford on Jul 30, 2018 16:20:58 GMT
Presumably Keith would have still had his job as Media manager or whatever the title, doing all those other bits he used to do as well.
Mike, any idea on any contributors who have declines to write for the programme following Keith's departure?
According to FB, John Thomson was dropped from the programme, but I couldn't see anyone say why or what the reason was
About five have decided not to contribute so far Do contributors who write an article in the programme receive a complimentary match ticket? If that is the case perhaps the owners are trying to save on costs.
|
|
|
Post by badbloodash on Jul 30, 2018 18:46:04 GMT
About five have decided not to contribute so far Do contributors who write an article in the programme receive a complimentary match ticket? If that is the case perhaps the owners are trying to save on costs. Good job it wasn’t sausage rolls 🌯
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 18:54:54 GMT
I used the word 'complementing' purposely because rather than just making a profit to boost the playing budget, I have a view that the mention in print of the many advertisers, sponsors, etc helps encourage more funds to come via the advertisers, sponsors etc which may well help to increase the monies which become available for the playing budget. That's very clever. I think. I'm still not sure it makes sense. But it's a good point now I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 30, 2018 19:01:16 GMT
Mike - Is this part confirmed? The role of editor was definitely taken away from Keith? I've only seen you and LPGas on page 1 mention this so far. So would Keith have had no part to play in the programme, or would he just have become a contributor (albeit contributing a bit more than others)? The reason I ask is because it's one thing for the printer and designer to change, but quite another for Keith to lose his role. Cheers. yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control Thanks Mike, appreciate it. It's been difficult to draw a considered opinion, with all the various threads on the other forum - trying to separate fact from fiction, Chinese whispers (someone even saying a scandal involving a player was going to reviled revealed), the ITKers posting riddles. I take it you, and the other contributors (as would have Keith), have a person at the new publishers you just submit / email your articles to?
|
|
|
Post by The Concept on Jul 30, 2018 19:15:47 GMT
yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control Presumably Keith would have still had his job as Media manager or whatever the title, doing all those other bits he used to do as well.
Mike, any idea on any contributors who have declines to write for the programme following Keith's departure?
According to FB, John Thomson was dropped from the programme, but I couldn't see anyone say why or what the reason was
To be honest I don't understand the big fuss on facebook about John Thomson no longer being a contributor. John seems a great bloke, I've enjoyed reading John's books, I like the his Pirate Pundit stuff, but he is only one of several contributors to the programme. Contributors have always come and gone over the years; there must have been hundreds that have written a page. Some do a season, some do a few years, some have a long running article. People seem to think it bad he received the news via email - I think that is a perfectly reasonable way. If I contributed one season, I wouldn't assume I would automatically be writing again the next year, and probably only expect an email if they wanted me back the next year. Keith on the other hand wrote most of the programme, was editor, helped grow the programme, along with all the other bits and bobs, and responsibilities, he picked up and evolved over his time.
|
|
Angas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,068
|
Post by Angas on Jul 30, 2018 21:09:00 GMT
Makes no sense to me why they took all that away from him. I'd like to know the rationale behind it. Seems absolutely pointless and what a shoddy way to treat someone who's given so much over so many years.
Poor show BRFC. And, if this is the way things are going to be done from now on, why would any employee at any level feel inclined to show loyalty if an appealing offer came their way. Clearly everyone is dispensable, so why stick around if there's something better to be had.
|
|
|
Post by PessimistGas on Jul 31, 2018 1:55:46 GMT
Makes no sense to me why they took all that away from him. I'd like to know the rationale behind it. Seems absolutely pointless and what a shoddy way to treat someone who's given so much over so many years. Poor show BRFC. And, if this is the way things are going to be done from now on, why would any employee at any level feel inclined to show loyalty if an appealing offer came their way. Clearly everyone is dispensable, so why stick around if there's something better to be had. Meh. Things change, things are moving in the right direction. Build a training ground and build a stadium fit for the 21st century. Anything else is a sideshow.
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,430
|
Post by harrybuckle on Jul 31, 2018 7:41:38 GMT
yes his role would have been just as a contributor, no editorial control Thanks Mike, appreciate it. It's been difficult to draw a considered opinion, with all the various threads on the other forum - trying to separate fact from fiction, Chinese whispers (someone even saying a scandal involving a player was going to reviled revealed), the ITKers posting riddles. I take it you, and the other contributors (as would have Keith), have a person at the new publishers you just submit / email your articles to? In fact there is a meeting of the contributors those who remain that is as loads have resigned tonight at 6pm at the Mem.
I am attending with an open mind and not agreed yet to continue. After 41 years of contributing I have a big decision to make.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jul 31, 2018 8:22:33 GMT
I smell another boycott...
|
|