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.