Photographergate

It really is a strange set of events that panned out at Millwall and has subsequently gone back and forth somewhat surrounding the spat between Dan Westwell and Billy Davies.

What initially started as a strange press release from Forest about the actions of Westwall, alluding to inappropriate action. Davies had been seen haranguing the photographer after the match and on initial investigation it all seemed like Billy war with the Post had reached a new level of idiocy.

And then a lot more same to light. For instance that Westwell had been banned from Mansfield in 2007 and been in court for making rude gestures at former chairman of the Stags Keith Haslam. Now Haslam was a very unpopular figure and quite what those gestures were or were not trying to incite is unclear.

Bu even so that’s many years ago against a much disliked chairman at a club... but then there’s more. Westwell then claimed he had been treated harshly at Chester City and made to sit alone, despite many witnesses pointing out quite the contrary, and that pictures of him sitting alone were fabricated post match with other photographers.

This is taken from a Chester City forum about the incident where he apparently was intimidated and made to sit alone. (Link Here)

“As a Football Club we are very disappointed with the tact taken by Mr Dan Westwell, he seems to have circum navigated some of the facts, at present we are considering an Official response to the article but as fans of CCFC I think you should be made aware of the facts. I must point out that we have no axe to grind with Mr Westwell but simply would like the full facts to be known.
Mr Westwell was arrested for an alleged Public Order Offence and bailed until 9th February 2007 over an incident at Mansfield's Field Mill ground the previous Saturday.
He applied for two press badges for the Chester City v Mansfield game and was originally granted them.
We were advised by Mansfield Police to consider the granting of these press badges, because of the above incident but they did recommend that we should allow him in.
After considering all the facts at our disposal we decided that Mr Westwell could be allowed into the ground and was given two Complimentary tickets,he was not allowed pitchside but was allowed to take still photography from behind the perimeter wall from the West Stand.
Mr Westwell was not "constantly watched" by stewards and nor was he put in an area of The West Stand away from other fans. “

Already it seems a man with a very strange agenda. And this isn't going away, here are some quotes taken from something published today on a site that calls itself the home of regional journalism, so we know whose side they will be on. (Link)

“Nottingham Forest later issued a statement on their website describing Dan’s conduct as “unprofessional” but Post editor Mike Sassi said that the allegation is completely unsubstantiated.
“Dan Westwell is a professional sports photographer who has an excellent reputation for his pictures and his journalism,” he told the paper.

In the comments section itself on that site, what appears to be Dan commenting says this

"During the second half I was sat along the touchline in between the half way line and 18 yard box taking photos of the game & Forest bench (as I was doing it for the paper in Nottingham and ironically, giving some pics to Forests programme too!). Billy Davies sent one of his staff out to tell me to stop taking pics of him so I said “ok fair enough” and went back to sit on my camera case along the 18 yard line. Within a few minutes I’d got Jonathan Greening standing behind me watching me edit my pics on my laptop and one of the subs standing 2 yards in front of me blocking my view of the pitch.At full time Billy Davies came straight over to me rather than the Forest fans and started screaming in right in my face “WHERE ARE YOU FROM? WHERE ARE YOU FROM?” The stewards had to pull him away from me. The Millwall fans were going mad & the stewards moved me ‘for my own safety’ even though the Millwall fans were telling BD where to get off and asking me what that was all about. The police asked me as well. I saw a photographer & asked him if he got pics & he got some of Billy right in my face which have gone all over the place now. That is it. Forest then tried to cover their own back (and embarrassment) by making a statement 24 hours later (!) saying I was being unprofessional, this was after Davies himself said in his post match interview that the incident was “nothing”! However they didn’t state what I was doing to make that observation! And they still haven’t done

Which is interesting as it’s practically verbatim word for word said elsewhere. I have been fairly critical of Davies in the past and his methods with the media, but this puzzles me., I can’t believe he’d go nuts at a photographer for nothing, and neither do I think that he did is excusable, you just move on, but I can't help wondering what else there is to this to bring about Davies reaction, and coupled with some liberal use of the truth before it seems odd.

It seems he might not be the most reliable man to listen to with his side of the story, but hell, what can he be doing other than potentially trying to antagonise Davies into a reaction shot or something. Both sides just seem daft on this. Davies for getting involved and the Photographer for gleefully playing this all out in public.

Staff Member Has Day Off – Media Create Storm

In what is potentially one of the weirdest evolutions of the media vs. Forest war is the slight aside at the end of the Daily Mail column by Charles Sale, who seems to be developing a bit of a thing for Jim Price.

Whereas it’s all gone quiet from the Guardian, the Mail has twice in a few days mentioned Forest, both times by Sale about essentially Jim Price role. Wow, keeping up to date with the news there Daily Mail.

So whereas before they beefed out a piece by re hashing the same old stuff we know what Price is ain a position some regard as being essentially a de facto Director when he shouldn’t be, negating the fact that his job title isn’t director or anything suchlike. It’s tired and hardly new ground.

Well they have no tried to further create a storm of controversy by suggesting a member of staff Jane Carnelly, who is the Football Administrator, who essentially makes sure the club basically fit within the rules, amongst things has quit. Based on the fact the mail must have tried to contact her and was told she wasn’t at work that day.

This was spun out into another anti Jim Price thing, sort of attributing her role and suggesting Jim price is taking over, as if one by one everyone is being fired and Jim price assumes their roles. Wait till he’s in the club shop!!

Even if she has left, and why would the club cover up such a departure, then is it a problem? People change jobs; it’s not as if it’s a core job role or an integral board member jumping ship. It’s an administrator. No doubt very good at her job and respected, but to start making out there are huge ruffles at Forest based on this is ridiculous.

A club spokesman said she just wasn’t at work today, unless that guys the Iraqi Information Minister, the Mail are probably being their good old hateful selves. It’s already clear lately they don’t care too much about reality and making leaps of imagination from the whole Milliband thing.

Remember it’s the Mail who suggested that the al-Hasawis were going to employ cheap Middle Eastern players, buying players themselves and we should be worried. Nothing to see here folks.

The Guardian Hit Back

The Guardian through an article by David Conn have hit back at Forest this week. With an ongoing spat between the club and the Newspaper, following Daniel Taylors supposed incorrect use of press passes, the Guardian were banned from the City Ground. Taylor followed this with a piece that largely pointed the finger of blame at Jim Price.

Well now the Guardian has now followed up by basically suggesting that Jim Price, who is rapidly becoming the infamous Jim Price, would not pass the fit an able person test to be a director of a club. This is following his suspension from law following the collapse of the Scottish law Firm Ross Harper.Now that’s as maybe, by the letter of the law then therefore he wouldn’t be allowed to be a director that much is apparent. But the thing is he is not a director but an advisor. Now this is possibly a mere technicality of his job title, but the fact remains he is not a director.

Therefore it doesn’t directly apply to him.

Now maybe the lines blur and there are a great many shades of grey here, the role he plays s very much a middle man between Fawaz and the various parties they negotiate with. He isn’t the money man, and it’s not as if he’s a Munto Finance esque character, or any other of the various nefarious characters to infest football in the past. He’s just a mid management guy.

He plays active roles in negotiations and has enough jurisdictions within the club to apparently have signed contracts on behalf of Nottingham Forest, but at the end of the day what does it matter?

Ok people will point out the Ross Harper's demise and suspension as being factors which should have us worried. The practices that allegedly occurred there aren’t really directly related to his Forest role. The main element of this report just seems to be muck raking by (much respected) reporters and a Newspaper reacting to its slight.

Which is laughable. We aren’t going to sell a lot of papers for the Guardian. We aren’t big news. The world cares about the Premier League and the Championship is pretty much a side show, so why the Guardian should be doing this? Well for one maybe they do actually have grievances and want to bring up that that all isn’t glorious at the head of Forest. Coupled with the post match press conference in which Billy Davies alluded to and was angry with the “carry on Kuwait” headlines and wouldn’t answer some questions, one asks why the club would put this out on their official YouTube channel. Well probably because it can and does now, as practice, but also in part so fans can see that post match the journo’s all wanted to ask off the pitch questions. The "Carry On Kuwait" thing of course refers back to a sub heading that came from Daniel Taylor in an Observer column where he was pretty much suggested the whole Fawaz – Billy thing was doomed, Davies was a “belligerent” presence and that we should watch this one closely”. Essentially it’s this kind of thing that is being punished by Forest and now the Guardian are playing a tit for tat game of trying to point out why they are in the right.

Again neither side is looking exceptionally good in all of this, but with Forest beating Derby on Sunday and potentially with another win tonight’s it’s just badly timed as Forest look set to be flying high again.
Maybe it has been said, but watch this one closely.

The Guardian Ban and Ongoing Media Relations

Well it’s not new news and I’m sure everyone has seen that this news has been revealed by guardian/Observer correspondent and Forest fan Daniel Taylor. It’s based on the fact that Taylor apparently wanted free tickets to the game on a Press Pass but as he wasn’t reporting on that game wasn’t allowed one.

Now this is where a lot of debate begins, and I didn’t want to wade in, but hey ho, it’s a slow news day. On the one hand I can see some fans view that why should journalists essentially turn up to watch a game for free. Furthermore essentially as a means to watch his own team. Taylor cites that as part of his job and for his profession watching a lot of football is necessary, and that is something I can certainly see.

However, when it’s to watch the team you follow things might seem a bit murky. It’s on the surface an abuse of a perfectly good system. That said I’m sure x amount of other club won’t mind, and at the end of the day you’d want to foster a good spirit between a journalist who supports your team as he will always more inclined to report favourably.

Well yes and no. Taylor hasn’t always reported favourably on Davies, and Jim Price for that matter. He has commented on some of the previous debacles of the Fawaz regime (the Brighton credit card, George Boyd etc) but I regard this as good. If he weren’t a Forest fan these might not get mentioned at all in the national press or if they were handled by some less sympathetic, and although it’s negative it’s still nice to get national attention. Bear in mind that on discussing many a matter at the top levels of football Taylor will frequently refer back to a Forest context, this I have seen on more than one occasion (and I make no apologies for explaining I am, if anything though still rarely, a Guardian/Observer reader.

But then there is how the regime under Price deals with the media, which until now I didn’t see as overly bad, but now is getting silly. When it’s a provincial row between the local rag and the local radio, I didn’t worry, but if you start getting the Nationals attention for you act then this is only going to affect how the whole nation perceives your club.

Now ok, right now some of you are probably thinking “I don’t care” well that’s all well and good, but if we have aspirations of top level football with it will come more attention and scrutiny from the national media. Again you might not care, but think on the pressure that might develop if everyone’s concentrating on crazy Forest and what mad japes they got up to this week, and how that could negatively affect the whole vibe within the club. If the world of football is laughing at you, then if things aren’t going right, then there is ammo to be chucked. The feeling will translate to the stands, to the players, and essentially it affects the whole persona and representation of the club. What I’m trying to say is think Blackburn.

Now, it shouldn’t be that way. We got bad press last season, some of it warranted for various bad decisions and odd ball moments. The whole McLeish era (and era feels an odd word to use for such a brief period) is basically pretty much the period I’m referring to, but also the not very well timed dismissal of O’Driscoll, the culling en masse of back room staff, this wasn’t well handled, and so the media represented it as such.

Now the club seem to be trying to punish the media for publishing negative news. I sort of get the angle they may have taken, that they think well top stop all this negative attention we’ll just cut off the head of the snake to avoid it. But that is so incredibly naive and short sighted as to be ridiculous. What the hell do they think the media will do instead, go meekly into the night with their tails between their legs? Of course not, it will in fact create a worse impression and create worse press. This is from a Forest fan in Daniel Taylor, what if he wasn’t a fan of the club, think of the negativity then? Ok Taylor had good links with the past regime which were largely culled, but he still would want the best for the club. He can’t enjoy painting us in a bad light as much as some Twitter trolls would have you believe otherwise.

I’m not going to quite go on a Vital-esque crusade of “truth” against Jim Price. I find that angle frankly ridiculous and unhealthy. I just want the club to realise the path it’s chosen in alienating and shunning the media is a ridiculously bad decision. A lot of people are saying well we can control that now with Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, we can put our own content out and not worry about the national media, it’s obsolete, but that’s again ridiculously short sighted. We don’t want some kind of nightmare world where only good press is published. Does this mean that us bloggers have to worry about having season tickets removed for writing bad things? How far would it go to an Orwellian nightmare? That’s a long stretch to go to, but it almost does feel like Price and Davies have the “Thought Police” out, and will ban anyone who dare publish anything anti club.

Again, I’m not anti Davies and Price, I’m just disappointed with the methods being taken by them in handling media affairs. What they have done has turned this club round into challengers, with Fawaz’s cash, and with Davies managing, Price clearly has done well in the transfer market, so I can’t criticise that side, but what I don’t like is trying to control a media profile of the club through careful manipulation of who it allows in. It’s a dangerous game. And one that doesn’t need playing at all. It just seems they think they are being immensely clever whilst actually very stupid.

Media Relations Disintegrate

In a new turn of the battle between club and media, the Post have gone live with an article today that talks about how Forest have now decided on a complete media blackout. No interviews, no post match reactions, no pre game build up interviews.

The Post in an article that is meant to be revealing though, just write it in a manner that is more than ever so bitter. They say “No post-match reaction on Radio Nottingham, no player reaction in the Post, either online on in Monday's newspaper.” But just remember that Radio Nottingham have started using Paul Taylor recently in its coverage. Relations between those two are good.

I tend to think that the club can do as it pleases. But that it should as part of its club – fan relations should at least entertain the local media’s overtures to providing staff for PR. However, they have no obligation, other than the stipulated pre and post match press conferences. They are set down in stone by the League. But for the rest, well media access is a privilege, not enshrined in stone.

However, the post write such a one sided piece on this suggesting that basically in ignoring a paper that is regularly out of touch, and has in the past been critical of Davies, suggests it’s the fans the club is letting down.

It forgets the majority of fans have access to the internet, which Forest have finally started to realise the potential of, utilising YouTube for club fan communications.

Why have the Post done this? Because for circulation they rely on Forest, whether for sales or to click links. If they aren’t getting Forest news then they aren’t selling papers to Forest fans. So they need to suggest the club is almost making an evil play.

The Post clearly points the finger at Price, who is becoming a divisive figure. That divide isn’t 50/50 though. As long as the club do well, the majority of fans don’t care, save for Vital who are on a bizarre rampage of “truth” about which no-one cares.

But why have Forest have done this? Well, you already have to see what Radio Nottingham did this week. The club have clearly decided that all media is going to be shunned. And for me it’s not a huge surprise, when you consider the generally bad press that was being chucked around in February.

I’m not excusing the club though; it is quite a petulant response. Throwing the toys out of the pram, but to be honest they hold the power here. They hold what the media wants in the interviews and access. In not providing that, it severely restricts what might or might not get out, especially if you consider if you believe Twitter just how many leaks there must be at Forest.

It could backfire though. Without those column inches being filled by articles related to players and suchlike, the Post will have to fill them somehow, and it has already started to do so by the article in question. It will be merely a first of many.

What I really dislike is the Posts angle on it though that the club are letting the fans down. I don’t agree there at all. Not in the modern era where newspapers are a dying breed. The Post has had a revamp, as many local papers have done, and all because they are struggling.

Is this a game of cat and mouse? Undoubtedly. Both know that the Post without decent Forest news won’t get revenue. Both will know the struggles of local papers. The club really would do well to keep the Post on side and use them more wisely. But their attempts to do this are fairly extreme. Their attempts to control what is in the media, well it’s slightly clandestine to be honest.

The Post will contend that this is all Forest, and can’t understand why the club would make this move. They point out “Since Davies – and Price – returned, the paper has been nothing but supportive.” Making out that they are the innocent party, but neither side is.

But remember these words the Post printed back in 2011 “But the simple fact is, Nottingham Forest had to Part Company with the outspoken Scotsman. They had no choice at all... His position had become entirely, emphatically untenable.”

That’s not supportive in the slightest, and makes no mistake Davies will remember such lines and have taken note. Now yes a different time and a different era, but would you maintain good relations with a paper that revelled in your dismissal?

To be honest both sides are in the wrong. Forest should use the media, and the Post shouldn’t take its access to the club as a right. I’m not saying what we get is a sense of propaganda to be fed, but you can understand with all the negative press coverage in the past year why they might do this. They clearly think new Media is the way forward. Hence the al-Jazeera deal. But in the mean time they need to remember traditional forms of communication are still used. And they clearly forget that now the Post are embittered towards Forest.