Flitcroft Interview in Baggers' 'The Valiant'

[tommy mac]

10 hours ago, Guppys left peg said:

Honestly in terms of Vale the tenner I’ve spent subscribing to The Valiant is the most value for money I’ve got on spending on this club for a long time.. Baggers coverage of Vale is unrivalled anywhere else. This model is the future in how clubs will be covered it just so happens we are ahead of the curve for once.

i havent subscribed because we shouldnt have to not putting anthing in the sentinal will not bring any floating fans in the ground 

 

[Fosse69]

I’ve just looked at seats sold and the paddock is shockingly bad 
Hamil and lorne street pretty much full 

How many sold in the Paddock?

Sent from my SM-A715F using onevalefan mobile app

[Packmoor_vale]

1 minute ago, Fosse69 said:

How many sold in the Paddock?

Sent from my SM-A715F using onevalefan mobile app
 

Don’t know not counting everyone but not many 

[Rory]

The paddock is the new bycars.

[Vtid]

55 minutes ago, Packmoor_vale said:

I’ve just looked at seats sold and the paddock is shockingly bad 

Hamil and lorne street pretty much full 

still a bit of time yet, it's a shame about the paddock. i've always sat in there most of my life. i prefer the view at the side of the pitch, wasn't much availability when i booked my tickets for paddock as they were reserved so i've ended up in the railway stand up the back. Even better view up there for me but no atmosphere whatsoever. Hopefully we sell a few more & we can all make some noise. Should be a great night either way i fancy us giving boro a game to be honest 

[Powerline]

4 hours ago, tommy mac said:

i havent subscribed because we shouldnt have to not putting anthing in the sentinal will not bring any floating fans in the ground 

 

I can understand this view, but the reality is, it’s this or nothing.

Like it or not we’ve got to face the fact it’s not profitable for reach plc to employ someone to solely cover the vale. We aren’t a big club. Local journalism is struggling so they’ll be cutting costs where they can. 

So, there’s two options: 

1. Don’t employ someone to specifically cover vale. Include pretty basic match reports (maybe even provided by the club) along with a real barebones coverage, but this is provided in the paper/on the website.

2. Use their current model where we have a dedicated Port Vale journalist, writing 3/4 high quality articles a week - for £10 a year.

Personally it’s a no brainer to me and I’d go for the second every time, but like I said I do understand the frustrations behind having no free coverage. 

[Loggerheads Sage]

7 hours ago, Powerline said:

I can understand this view, but the reality is, it’s this or nothing.

Like it or not we’ve got to face the fact it’s not profitable for reach plc to employ someone to solely cover the vale. We aren’t a big club. Local journalism is struggling so they’ll be cutting costs where they can. 

So, there’s two options: 

1. Don’t employ someone to specifically cover vale. Include pretty basic match reports (maybe even provided by the club) along with a real barebones coverage, but this is provided in the paper/on the website.

2. Use their current model where we have a dedicated Port Vale journalist, writing 3/4 high quality articles a week - for £10 a year.

Personally it’s a no brainer to me and I’d go for the second every time, but like I said I do understand the frustrations behind having no free coverage. 

It's only £10 this year though isn't it? To entice you, sure it was £40 next season.  And no doubt increasing every year 

[EricHamesis]

8 hours ago, Loggerheads Sage said:

It's only £10 this year though isn't it? To entice you, sure it was £40 next season.  And no doubt increasing every year 

Yes, but no one is committed to paying for next year.

I was opposed to the idea, but have since signed up.

£10 is less than 20p a week. 

£40 is less than a pint of beer a month, or the petrol to get me to 1 home game.

[Fosse69]

It's only £10 this year though isn't it? To entice you, sure it was £40 next season.  And no doubt increasing every year 

Depends on how many subscribe. At a £ per week, 4 issues that would be 25p a read. Good value. How many 1000 subscribers? Nothing is for free, how many people buy newspapers nowadays? Just full of tittle-tattle and advertising?

Sent from my SM-A715F using onevalefan mobile app

[Powerline]

11 hours ago, Loggerheads Sage said:

It's only £10 this year though isn't it? To entice you, sure it was £40 next season.  And no doubt increasing every year 

Personally I’d still pay £40. But if people aren’t willing to then they can always cancel after year 1

[ValeFanInBrum]

On 09/12/2023 at 12:50, Valiiant said:

 

Utter delusion at the top. We have two clowns making the big decisions at the football club and a lady who too easily has the wool pulled over her eyes running it.

A laughing stock.

I still think it was an absolute masterstroke from DF to talk himself into the DoF role when he originally came for the manager's job: the bloke has made himself golden in Carol's eyes it would seem

[Guitar Ray]

20 hours ago, Powerline said:

I can understand this view, but the reality is, it’s this or nothing.

Like it or not we’ve got to face the fact it’s not profitable for reach plc to employ someone to solely cover the vale. We aren’t a big club. Local journalism is struggling so they’ll be cutting costs where they can. 

So, there’s two options: 

1. Don’t employ someone to specifically cover vale. Include pretty basic match reports (maybe even provided by the club) along with a real barebones coverage, but this is provided in the paper/on the website.

2. Use their current model where we have a dedicated Port Vale journalist, writing 3/4 high quality articles a week - for £10 a year.

Personally it’s a no brainer to me and I’d go for the second every time, but like I said I do understand the frustrations behind having no free coverage. 

Perhaps you can explain how other newspapers manage?  I can go online and read the latest on Stevenage or FGR for example.  It doesn’t take a genius to come up with the idea that the Sentinel could employ just one reporter who’s job it is to cover both Stoke and Vale.

[Emile]

To be fair I enjoy not having to go on that terrible website anymore. 

[jimbo57]

21 hours ago, Powerline said:

I can understand this view, but the reality is, it’s this or nothing.

Like it or not we’ve got to face the fact it’s not profitable for reach plc to employ someone to solely cover the vale. We aren’t a big club. Local journalism is struggling so they’ll be cutting costs where they can. 

So, there’s two options: 

1. Don’t employ someone to specifically cover vale. Include pretty basic match reports (maybe even provided by the club) along with a real barebones coverage, but this is provided in the paper/on the website.

2. Use their current model where we have a dedicated Port Vale journalist, writing 3/4 high quality articles a week - for £10 a year.

Personally it’s a no brainer to me and I’d go for the second every time, but like I said I do understand the frustrations behind having no free coverage. 

I've just read a 2 page Exeter v Vale match report by Clive Youlton - I don't see his name on any other news report, and never have???

 

[Trumpingtonvale]

1 hour ago, Guitar Ray said:

Perhaps you can explain how other newspapers manage?  I can go online and read the latest on Stevenage or FGR for example.  It doesn’t take a genius to come up with the idea that the Sentinel could employ just one reporter whose job it is to cover both Stoke and Vale.

Doesn’t take a genius just a reporter who can be in two places at the same time for matches and press conferences that occur concurrently. I’d have assumed it’s simple economics, Stoke have more fans (time in the Prem. created a huge global audience and potential interest in following them from afar and that is still reflected in interest in online news stories etc), ergo more potential ‘readers’ of the on-line pages so the pages attract more advertisers/pop-ups which means the Sentinel/their owners can keep posting articles for ‘free’.  Perhaps the Vale articles didn’t generate enough hits to sell the advertising space so the Sentinel decided not to replace Mike when he left and they can’t afford to pay him now so subsidise that with a ‘fee for story account’?  
 

I agree it stinks that a ‘local’ newspaper doesn’t equally or even adequately cover the two local (3 if you count Crwho) league teams, have any fans written letters to the editor (of the Sentinel/their owners) to complain or threaten a boycott? It would certainly be interesting to see what happens with coverage if the two Stoke-on-Trent teams end up in the same league in the next year or two but in the meantime it is what it is and it’s each fan’s choice to determine the value of The Valiant to them.