|
|
Post by funkymagic on Aug 31, 2010 11:01:38 GMT 1
Anti New Terry the Terrier articles?
|
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Aug 31, 2010 11:35:14 GMT 1
I've heard, albeit second hand, that this is true. Apparantly they wrote something that Town (don't know who, rumoured to be SJ) didn't agree with, so they have withdrawn the Examiners rights and priveliges for the time being and they have to go through the Media Dept for any info!! Surely they didnt write a piece on how ridiculous that new mascot is ? :  : |
|
chriseastwood
Iain Dunn Terrier
Ooh to be a, Ooh to be a TERRIER!!
Posts: 541
|
Post by chriseastwood on Aug 31, 2010 11:51:46 GMT 1
I've heard, albeit second hand, that this is true. Apparantly they wrote something that Town (don't know who, rumoured to be SJ) didn't agree with, so they have withdrawn the Examiners rights and priveliges for the time being and they have to go through the Media Dept for any info!! Surely they didnt write a piece on how ridiculous that new mascot is ?  They held a poll last week for supporters to ring in with their preference - old or new mascot! |
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Aug 31, 2010 11:58:11 GMT 1
They also had an article either last week or the week before regarding the new mascot saying that there were people trying to campaign for the old mascot to return because the new 1 is rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venezuelan Pete on Aug 31, 2010 12:03:01 GMT 1
They also had an article either last week or the week before regarding the new mascot saying that there were people trying to campaign for the old mascot to return because the new 1 is rubbish. I assume that is the story that has caused this supposed banning. Ridiculous, if so. If not, I'd be interested to hear what the truth is... |
|
|
|
Post by Mirfield Lass on Aug 31, 2010 12:28:14 GMT 1
I told Lady Terrier what I knew but she has beaten me to it on here. I was told that the fall out was down to something the examiner had printed re the new mascot.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Aug 31, 2010 12:32:29 GMT 1
I told Lady Terrier what I knew but she has beaten me to it on here. I was told that the fall out was down to something the examiner had printed re the new mascot. Well to be fair, it is shit, it looks like a fox not a terrier, and just generally looks stupid. The old mascot, while not great, was far better. At least it looked like it had a dogs head! Says alot that on Saturday our fans were chanting "what the fucking hell is that" and "foxy, give us a  , foxy foxy give us a ". |
|
|
|
Post by Mirfield Lass on Aug 31, 2010 12:37:11 GMT 1
I was on the Patrons trip to Peterborough and Sean Jarvis was in the pub doing a q&a and a few of us told him what we thought - couple of comments were it's thundercat and mine was an anorexic fox lol
|
|
|
|
Post by BLUE&WHITE on Aug 31, 2010 13:00:20 GMT 1
And his reaction was?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Porrohman on Aug 31, 2010 13:06:35 GMT 1
You're barred ! :  : |
|
htfc1908
David Wagner Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 2,779
|
Post by htfc1908 on Aug 31, 2010 14:48:01 GMT 1
This can't be right :ranting: its all Lee Clarks fault ya know  After much deliberation who the new scapegoat would be after Theo? possibly McCombe, Kay, No it looks like its Lee Clark : : |
|
|
|
Post by htafc4life on Aug 31, 2010 15:30:38 GMT 1
I told Lady Terrier what I knew but she has beaten me to it on here. I was told that the fall out was down to something the examiner had printed re the new mascot. Well to be fair, it is shit, it looks like a fox not a terrier, and just generally looks stupid. The old mascot, while not great, was far better. At least it looked like it had a dogs head! Says alot that on Saturday our fans were chanting "what the fucking hell is that" and "foxy, give us a , foxy foxy give us a ". It does look stupid, but I mean it's a mascot. Who cares? |
|
|
|
Post by digwon on Aug 31, 2010 17:30:02 GMT 1
West Yorkshire Team 3 Charlton Athletic 1
|
|
|
|
Post by stevvy on Aug 31, 2010 17:32:19 GMT 1
Just got this from SJ (who's fine with me posting this here):
There seems to be a lot of rumours flying around at the moment on all matters!
However just to put the record straight and from the 'horses mouth' - the Examiner enjoy EXACTLY the same rights as every other media that come to our games.
We as a club are trying to become increasingly proffessional in our approach and control the flow of information that comes from the club. It is apparent in the past it may be the case that some of the media may have got away with the likes of 'picking up interviews' without the clubs consent or knowledge.
If the Examiner would like to obtain special priveledges i.e some sort of exclusivity then surely they should be paying for them or returning the favour to the club? Afterall our interest is about Huddersfield Town moving forward as an organisation and of course up the football hierachy.
The door always remains open for the Examiner to talk to us if they think they have an issue.
Kind regards
Sean
|
|
cheesyhtfc
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 1,647
|
Post by cheesyhtfc on Aug 31, 2010 17:42:47 GMT 1
Seems fair enough to me, fair play to SJ for clarifying it
|
|
|
|
Post by terryerryerryers on Aug 31, 2010 17:55:46 GMT 1
Seems fair enough to me, fair play to SJ for clarifying it Exactly Another lesson to all the billy big bollocks' around that think they have a divine right to criticise everyone and anyone when they know the sweet FA about the situation |
|
|
|
Post by marshterrier on Aug 31, 2010 17:57:21 GMT 1
I've paid £10 for DATM to have exclusivity on all news coming out of Town.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2010 18:00:11 GMT 1
I've paid £10 for DATM to have exclusivity on all news coming out of Town. I'm paying you too much  |
|
|
|
Post by smj1 on Aug 31, 2010 18:01:14 GMT 1
Needs to be a bit more than that ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by marshterrier on Aug 31, 2010 18:01:34 GMT 1
I've paid £10 for DATM to have exclusivity on all news coming out of Town. I'm paying you too much We're going to need another t-shirt run :nodding: |
|
|
|
Post by marshterrier on Aug 31, 2010 18:02:10 GMT 1
Needs to be a bit more than that ;-) £20 and as much Boothy Mix as you can possibly eat?! |
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Aug 31, 2010 18:02:41 GMT 1
We must of retained the rights to interview the old Terry unbeknown to the Examiner.
Both sides of the argument are now clearer but you would think that we would work some form of "special" relationship with the local rag over the others. How many times do other members of the media actually want to interview a town player in comparison to the examiner.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunflower on Aug 31, 2010 18:05:28 GMT 1
It's pathetic from both sides.....
|
|
|
|
Post by smj1 on Aug 31, 2010 18:14:20 GMT 1
Good point (even though I am unsure what 'their' side of the argument is?)
We are happy to have a special relationship with the local media if its in the interest of the Club (and before anyone comments we appreciate the importance of balanced reporting!)
Our focus is the success and development of the Club.
At one end of the scale we could ban all interviews and put them in the programme and in so doing increasing revenues for the Club but common sense has to prevail and find the right balance. Equally we can't be always giving away our crown jewels!
Not sure how we are being pathetic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2010 18:25:53 GMT 1
im disappointed the club feel the need to act like this -a football club is the centre of a community not just a money making enterprise, many older fans will only have the Examiner. I see Mr Lawn throwing his toys out of the pram at every MB criticism at Valley Parade, publishing made up attendances, kicking Radio Leeds out etc and think what a pr*k
It seems we are going down the same road
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2010 18:28:35 GMT 1
Good point (even though I am unsure what 'their' side of the argument is?) We are happy to have a special relationship with the local media if its in the interest of the Club (and before anyone comments we appreciate the importance of balanced reporting!) Our focus is the success and development of the Club. At one end of the scale we could ban all interviews and put them in the programme and in so doing increasing revenues for the Club but common sense has to prevail and find the right balance. Equally we can't be always giving away our crown jewels! Not sure how we are being pathetic? Seems fair enough to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Walton-on-the-Hill Terrier on Aug 31, 2010 18:40:17 GMT 1
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here but it's clear that the club has been exasperated by regularly being linked in the press (national papers and in the HDE), with this player and that, some of which may have a basis of truth, but some are probably fantasy. Maybe Town are just trying to stop this impression of "big-spending Huddersfield" once-and-for-all? Maybe it has not done Town any favours in negotiations? The message I've always heard from SMJ in meetings has been a consistent one, that the club is striving to become more professional, more ambitious, in all respects. Maybe Town felt the need to reinforce this with the Examiner.
SMJ, if you're reading this, I'm the Surrey-based fan that made a comment about Town's profile gaining ground in Fulham/Chelsea-land!
|
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Aug 31, 2010 18:41:19 GMT 1
Good point (even though I am unsure what 'their' side of the argument is?) We are happy to have a special relationship with the local media if its in the interest of the Club (and before anyone comments we appreciate the importance of balanced reporting!) Our focus is the success and development of the Club. At one end of the scale we could ban all interviews and put them in the programme and in so doing increasing revenues for the Club but common sense has to prevail and find the right balance. Equally we can't be always giving away our crown jewels! Not sure how we are being pathetic? depends what you've fallen out about sean. If its because the 'special relationship' is that they can only write ( and radio Leeds can only say) positive stuff about the club then that can't be right surely? The danger is the club will look very precious, like the manager did in his slightly embarressing post match interview the other day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2010 18:44:10 GMT 1
Good point (even though I am unsure what 'their' side of the argument is?) We are happy to have a special relationship with the local media if its in the interest of the Club (and before anyone comments we appreciate the importance of balanced reporting!) Our focus is the success and development of the Club. At one end of the scale we could ban all interviews and put them in the programme and in so doing increasing revenues for the Club but common sense has to prevail and find the right balance. Equally we can't be always giving away our crown jewels! Not sure how we are being pathetic? depends what you've fallen out about sean. If its because the 'special relationship' is that they can only write ( and radio Leeds can only say) positive stuff about the club then that can't be right surely? The danger is the club will look very precious, like the manager did in his slightly embarressing post match interview the other day. That's only your opinion though Slaps, opinion was pretty divided on Clarks post match comments. Many including myself saw nothing wrong with it. You have an unhealthy habbit of thinking your opinion is the right one and the only one that matters |
|
|
|
Post by smj1 on Aug 31, 2010 18:47:58 GMT 1
Firstly epsomterrier 33 - it was a pleasure meeting you at the Patrons do - and exactly - improved communication
Captain slapper - as I said - we appreciate balanced reporting - no 'gags' are imposed.
|
|
: 
, foxy foxy give us a 
: 
