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.

Bournemouth Match Report

Cherry’s Pip At The Last
Well I said it. I said that ridiculous Post piece could haunt us. And it truly did. I hope the author, the now infamous True Red and the Post can look at themselves for knowing that did play a part in rallying the Bournemouth fans and players into performing. They have admitted as much in a piece in Bournemouths local paper. I know one person was protesting (a little too) loudly that it was a joke, but even so, it gave Bournemouth a focus.

My friend turned to me during the game and said we’re going to be punished for these missed chances and truly we were. Although some have suggested the ref was bad, any decision he made didn’t truely affect the game for me, but merely added to frustrations of the fans at our incompetence in front of goal.

The match stats speak loudly. We had 21 shots to their 14, but had the same amount on target. We had the lionshare of possession. But the one stat that matters is that bounrmeouth “lowly little Bournemouth” left the City Ground with a point.
To be fair Bourneouth looked very good on the attack, hitting the post in the first half. I was extremely worried when Pugh and Pittman lined up a free kick, thinking yes they are going to score. When the Cherries did equalise I wasn’t as much shock and surprised as just frustrated that we had failed to kill them off.

This said I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments of Colin Fray post match when asked about the mis firing striker.s He said that two weeks ago no-one was suggested the team lacked firepower when Henderson had scored in a few games succession. As usual with the fans the last result is the only in mind, and we forget he bigger picture, you just see we toiled in that game and so we need new players.

I felt a little sorry for Cox, he was obviously trying, and looked exhausted when took off. He was taking shots when passes wre better because hes desperate to score and desperate to be that man we turn to for goals. But Saturday, and a lot of the last 6 months it just wasn’t his day.

Bournemouths offside trap worked wonders. It frustrated Henderson and Cox. Constantly catching us offside, again returning to the views of my friend, he was watching Cox at one stage when we had possession deeper and noticed for around 10-12 seconds Cox remained in an offside position had the ball been played long to him. I’m all for playing on the shoulder, and using that, but remaining offside and trying to step back at the last minute to be onside just sn’t effective for me.

Not with the high line Bournemouth put out, obviously looking at how we play, with
teams usually standing a bit deeper at the City Ground, allowing those balls to be played, they riskily wielded a high line that stopped us. I have no idea if this is their normal game.

To be honest had they not scored that late goal this debate wouldn't exist. We'd be talking about a professional win with a glorious goal by Lansbury. Instead we focus as always with Forest on the negatives. And yes thats what sticks in the mind, but at the end of the day had we held on 90% of peoples moaning and perception of this game would change.

Is the Post to blame? They didn't help, but at the end of the day they weren't missing the chances. It contributed in a sense that it focussed Bournemouths mind pre game. It enthused their fans. It's been pointed out since the game by penty that it was a rallying cry. But that said, had we been able to finish it'd be completely irrelevant. Whats to blame is a collective failing to score enough goals. But move on, these games happen and theres no need to beat ourselves up as much as some fans have been

The Ever Increasing Dumbing Down of the Post

I genuinely had to cringe today at an article that the Post put out on its website and one assumes in Print too. And increasingly so these days. Badly thought out, hobbled together and just completely ridiculously written. And worse of all I have to thank a Bournemouth fan for pointing it out to me, because it shows us in a bad light against our next opponents.

The article, admittedly not an actual journalistic one, but one of the ever increasing ly used Post bloggers, basically all but suggested Saturday is a foregone conclusion, Bournemouth are basically a pub team showing up to be beaten at a glorious magnificent stadium that will make their lowly fans cower in disbelief at the history.

It’s the kind of opinion pieces that make me cringe.

Yes we have had a wonderful history. Yes Bournemouth don’t, and yes they have smaller attendance figures than us. But to basically point out that this is as good as it gets its horrendously arrogant and utterly obnoxious.

Bournemouth has earned their chance to be in the Championship. They started the season as equals and in Eddie Howe have a good young manager. That piece suggested that seemed to be holding Burnley back. Bournemouth are on the rise.

This small time Bournemouth are in 8th place 6 points behind the Reds. Not a horrendous place to be. The making out that Howe is a failed Burnley manager though not entirely incorrect isn’t really looking at facts. Howe left there a year ago. It’s not like they immediately became world beaters after he left. He took over the Cherries after they finished mid table, and took them up. He knows what he’s doing.

Then there’s the embarrassing part where their history is described as basically being all about Harry Redknapp and that’s it. Ok, so he played a huge part and their famous victory over Manchester United, and is the reason most people will have heard of the club, but it completely smacked of someone knowing this fact about Bournemouth and completely padding a childish piece of writing about the club. The attendance thing also negates Bournemouth is a smaller town than Nottingham.

What the hell the Post think they are doing these days make me wonder. I get in this day of cost cutting that this will be seen as a cheap way to expand their product. Using bloggers to write pieces means less journalists on a retainer, the fans think they have an input and its encourages people to read as they might get published. Overall cheaper and clearly must have felt a great idea to the new operators. But just putting out any old thing that appears in their submitted list isn’t going to make people read what was once a revered source of news and debate.

This will sound somewhat bizarre from a fellow blogger though. I don’t want the Post to have that service. It’s a newspaper and its website. You expect or at least would like journalists with journalistic integrity. Ex player pieces though widely criticised at least offer a different insight. This felt more like a drawn out Facebook status that seemed like a good idea at the time. If the writer is older than 20 I’ll be amazed.

I don’t like arrogance in football fans. The idea we shouldn’t even bother having to face you, and that’s a mere triviality is silly. That isn’t what makes football, football. Anyone on any day can and does beat their opponent.

I just wish that the Post would at least consider filtering some of the more dross pieces submitted to it. Maybe it’s that bad writing that is stopping people buying their paper. It’s a new site. Not a trumped up blog site. It hardly makes you think Forest have made a bad decision by shunning the paper if it employs such cheap shoddy ways of adding content. Leave the badly written blogs to us, and stick to actual trained Journalism please.

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.

Kenny Burns Should Shut the Hell Up

Ok, so he was a vital part of the machine that took this club to its greatest glories. That much I accept, but the ridiculous rent- a-quote that Kenny Burns, and also Garry Birtles have become just gets annoying. They of course have a view on everything, and yeah I know their business is to sell papers, or get hits on the Posts website, and therefore they adopt strong stances but sometimes I just think "Enough!"

Burns - possibly blathering

Burns has come out and said he was shocked that Miller played, and scored in the weekend’s friendly v Hibernian. Well seeing as Miller is registered with Forest, costs us a lot of money and based on his past career elsewhere isn’t all as bad as people like to think, I’m not shocked at all. In fact Miller played in a few friendlies last summer too.

What bothers me is the need of Burns and Birtles to pass judgement in this way. Maybe it’s how it was edited, but the sentiment is there, where you have an ex pro at the club passing judgement and calling someone’s presence into question. I’ve come round to the way of thinking the perhaps Miller has some kind of role to play yet. I may be wrong. But I think it would also be very foolish of Billy to let these guys go without at least taking a look.

Miller and Derbyshire were both given those chances, and both appeared to be trying to least take the opportunity to prove they aren’t has been's (or never were’s) had they not done so then yes, write them by all means. But Miller has at least put himself out there and scored, now whether that is to put him in the Forest pecking order, or whether it be to put himself in the shop window isn’t clear, but by all means use this potential weapon.


How must he think, after scoring in a game, that Kenny Burns was shocked he ever played, despite being possibly the top earner in the squad and having commanded 7 figure transfer fee’s two years ago. Miller never really got a fair crack of the whip. He was lumped alongside all other McClaren signings as wasteful and consigned to the back of our minds.

Birtles and Burns have increasingly frustrated a lot of level headed fans. Being asked their view on everything and always coming out with near gibberish. Birtles makes it worse with his work for Sky, whereby you know that he talks twaddle as well as types it before the editor.

Also Burns doesn’t always think before he speaks. I may be wrong, and I don’t know this for sure, as it’s what I heard, but was he not sacked by the club as being a post match speaker after being very critical of the regime running it at the time (Nigel Doughty) this really being biting the hand that feeds you, so he has form on stupid remarks

I know you get outspoken ex players at every club who get asked their view on every matter under the sun, but I am firmly of an opinion that if it’s something that could have a detrimental effect, then if they really do love the club, then shut your traps. What you say might well have negative results, which no doubt you’ll revel in as you get to get phoned up even more for your views on whatever is occurring. It was a bloody friendly!! Why not experiment with these guys and see how they look? There’s nothing at stake.