Sentinel barred from press conference

[robf]

Wow, 0-60 mph.

 

Maybe banning them is enough in Smurf's eyes? Not everyone runs straight to the nearest court room if there is a dispute.

 

Nope, some act like toddlers and throw their toys out of the pram...

[robf]

I know your a journo Rob but don't be soft! He's dealt with it and I presume from your profession, you know how expensive defamation cases costs?

 

some people will literally whinge about anything- this thread is a beaut of an example.

 

Was a journalist. Ironically I work in the legal sector now.

 

I don't think it's whinging. I think it will harm the club and I believe it's petty and deserves the criticism.

[Rudge's Flat Cap]

Personally I love having a Chairman who stands up for little old Port Vale. Whether it's the police, the council and now The Sentinel, we've previously just been a push over.

 

He may be stubborn, but he stands up for the Vale and isn't afraid to ruffle some feathers.

 

Many fans on here are bizarrely hugely anti-Smurthwaite. He may have his faults but we've improved season on season. Some fans have short memories. Only a few years ago we were in the bottom half of League 2. If he were to walk out the door tomorrow, there'd be nobody else and we'd be in Administration for a third time.

[Yukon]

Nope, some act like toddlers and throw their toys out of the pram...

 

Point is, it's his pram, his toys and his rules.

 

I couldn't;t care less if the Sentinel are inconvenienced

[Yukon]

Was a journalist. Ironically I work in the legal sector now.

 

I don't think it's whinging. I think it will harm the club and I believe it's petty and deserves the criticism.

 

So you know exactly how much a libel case would cost and how long it would take? It's woefully unrealistic to suggest he'd bring legal action

[robf]

I wasn't guessing, why would Smurf randomly ban the Sentinel without them doing something that he didn't like?

 

That response actually does nothing to suggest you are aren't guessing and again is massively judgemental. We have a chairman prone to controversial incidents (e.g. recently making a fans forum a "closed" meeting) - that would suggest there is precedent to him issuing a random ban for no reason.

 

But like you, I don't know the real story so stop trying to make out you do.

 

Whatever the reason (if indeed there is one) he should act professionally with other professional organisations. End of.

[Regal Beagle]

Nope, some act like toddlers and throw their toys out of the pram...

 

So suing them would be more mature than telling them not to come to a press conference?

[robf]

So you know exactly how much a libel case would cost and how long it would take? It's woefully unrealistic to suggest he'd bring legal action

 

Not a problem for a multi-millionaire I would suggest...

 

If it's lies then it's entirely in his interests to claim damages and get a retraction. That would be FAR more damaging than a ban as the Sentinel would have to print up an apology.

 

But my original message was to dispute the word LIES - in that - if it was as simple as that surely legal action for a rich football club owner would be a formality. But the fact that it hasn't happened suggests this isn't actually lying but more likely to be something more complex with the truth depending on whose side you listen to...

[Regal Beagle]

That response actually does nothing to suggest you are aren't guessing and again is massively judgemental. We have a chairman prone to controversial incidents (e.g. recently making a fans forum a "closed" meeting) - that would suggest there is precedent to him issuing a random ban for no reason.

 

But like you, I don't know the real story so stop trying to make out you do.

 

Whatever the reason (if indeed there is one) he should act professionally with other professional organisations. End of.

 

How many times have I said on this thread that I have no idea what the dispute is?

 

The only thing that is certain is that there is a dispute.

 

I'm not claiming to be in the know, I'm just using a little bit of common sense and I don't automatically think the worst of Smurthwaite at every single opportunity.

 

He should act professionally, but how do you know that he hasn't tried to resolve the issues with the sentinel?

 

You are a big advocate of the sentinel being a big asset to Vale, but not if you are the owner of PVFC and they've done something that means you cannot trust what they print. The first thing you would do is remove them from the club.

[Jacko51]

On numerous occassions Norman has stated quite categorically that he speaks his mind and is not concerned if people don't like it. By banning the Sentinel surely he has denied the newspaper the right to speak its mind? I don't get it - it sounds very much like double standards to me.

[robf]

So suing them would be more mature than telling them not to come to a press conference?

 

Erm, yes, of course it would. If they printed "lies" then the right course is to seek legal advice and claim damages. That is a mature and sensible response.

[Regal Beagle]

Not a problem for a multi-millionaire I would suggest...

 

If it's lies then it's entirely in his interests to claim damages and get a retraction. That would be FAR more damaging than a ban as the Sentinel would have to print up an apology.

 

But my original message was to dispute the word LIES - in that - if it was as simple as that surely legal action for a rich football club owner would be a formality. But the fact that it hasn't happened suggests this isn't actually lying but more likely to be something more complex with the truth depending on whose side you listen to...

 

 

Oh so it isn't a random banning now, and my "guess" was in fact more than just a "guess" and pretty much the only inferance you can make from the events so far.

 

Suing the sentinel could cause irreparable damage to our relationship with the sentinel. Why would he do that?

[Ville viljanen number 1]

I'm sorry rob but your always quite negative about mr smurthwaite, it should be a day of positivity. We should be all getting behind the new managerial team and chairman, instead of concentrating in this minor issue.

[Barry B]

Sorry to disagree with some of you but I think this is petty and spiteful by Norman Smurthwaite.

 

I personally have no problem with the Sentinel's reply but for those that do - that message would never have happened if the club had allowed the PRESS to attend a PRESS CONFERENCE.

 

It's simply common sense to get on with organisations that can benefit you. Can the club really expect the Sentinel to rush to push things that may be to Vale's advantage such as season ticket offers, match promotions and the likes if they are being treated like this? I disagree with those who say we "don't need" the Sentinel - all football clubs need the media just as much as the media need them - it's a two-way street.

 

If the press are merely being professional in wanting to attend a press event then the club should act professionally too.

 

You don't have to like them but you should always be professional and in this case the owner is not being professional at all and letting personal grudges get in the way.

 

If I'm reading this correctly - it seems that the Chairman has "banned" MB from attending and NOT "The Sentinel"?

Whatever has happened between MB and NS , it will be VERY difficult to "forgive and forget" and for the 2 of them to work together and since the Chairman isn't going anywhere, IF the Sentinel want to attend the Press Conference...what's stopping them sending another Journalist instead of MB?

I agree with RobF - Port Vale HAS to find a way of working with ALL the local media channels in order to leverage our cause for support and community "buy-in" to al that Vale stands for. The answer is to remove MB and NS from the situation - Vale to handle ALL media via their Media / Marketing Spokesperson and for the Sentinel to appoint another journalist and for them both to "play nicely" together. Let's make a fresh new start and get the Vale earning some positive mind-share across ALL the media channels available to us.

[robf]

Oh so it isn't a random banning now, and my "guess" was in fact more than just a "guess" and pretty much the only inferance you can make from the events so far.

 

Yukon posted that Smurthwaite claims the Sentinel printed lies. Note my use of the word "claims" - in that it's his opinion - he is claiming that is the problem. There are no facts that have been presented on either side just opinions. So, for all we know Norman Smurthwaite could be:

 

1. Totally right about the lies and justified in banning the Sentinel

2. Could be making it all up and banning the Sentinel for some delusional reason

 

WE DON'T KNOW THE FACTS THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT!!!

 

I feel I am balanced in my criticism of Norman and if you look through my blog posts you will see both praise and criticism. However, when he deserves to be criticised I think he deserves to be criticised, simple as...

 

Suing the sentinel could cause irreparable damage to our relationship with the sentinel. Why would he do that?

 

1. Of course it wouldn't, stop being so melodramatic. The Sentinel would acknowledge an error and continue to cover the club - scores of other legal cases against newspapers haven't resulted in the newspaper withdrawing coverage of that person or organisation.

2. And banning them from a press event won't cause "irreparable damage"? Really?