Robins Report Podcast

Talk about anything to do with Cheltenham Town, CTFC 500 Club, League 1, ex players & Managers

Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin

horlickfanclub
Posts: 3755
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
I agree Si Robin. Perhaps you could start a podcast based on sensible reason as opposed to gloom peddling gossip.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
tunnelvision wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 11:03 At the start of this season I was feeling quite optimistic for once. Decent squad (so I thought!), good pre-season performances and good support, both home and away. Seemed to be a feel good factor about the club. How quickly that's all turned to sh!te.

Listening to the latest podcast, I've rarely felt so despondent (other than the Buckle era). Covered issues that I hadn't really thought about that much. Got me questioning what the point was of supporting the Robins, as seems like we're only going in one direction and will never be able to sustainably improve the club's long term prospects. And there was me thinking that we might get a comfortable mid-table finish this season! :roll:

Of course, there are some mitigating factors to our poor start. Losing our star striker, first team coach, DOF, analysts etc, doesn't help with the stability of the club. Unfortunately, for a small club like ours, we're always going to be raided by bigger clubs whenever we achieve some success. However, I can't remember a time when we've lost so many backroom staff. Is that a symptom of our success, or is there something more systemic going wrong within the club?
On the point I have bolded above. This is what prompted me to start the ‘what is the purpose of CTFC’ thread.

Given our limitations and ebbs and flows, should the point of supporting CTFC simply be to have a good time supporting our team with fellow supporters, win, lose or draw in L1, L2 or NL?
Robin
Posts: 15691
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
horlickfanclub wrote: 10 Sep 2023, 11:54 The Finance Director came from the Trust so you could say that two Directors have come from that source. Queries regarding ground redevelopment should go to the Borough Council as nothing will happen until they have a plan for the Cakebridge Place area. This has been explained so many times.
The club need to be looking to convince the council to purchase cakebridge place, we cannot just sit along and hope for the best. We will likely need the bulk of that land for ground development otherwise we will never move forward.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Robin wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 13:51
horlickfanclub wrote: 10 Sep 2023, 11:54 The Finance Director came from the Trust so you could say that two Directors have come from that source. Queries regarding ground redevelopment should go to the Borough Council as nothing will happen until they have a plan for the Cakebridge Place area. This has been explained so many times.
The club need to be looking to convince the council to purchase cakebridge place, we cannot just sit along and hope for the best. We will likely need the bulk of that land for ground development otherwise we will never move forward.
That also requires someone being willing to come up with the cash to buy the Cakebridge Place land.

(And presumably the current stadium site as well given it is Council owned).

Who’s wallet are you raiding?
User avatar
Shade
Posts: 16135
Joined: 27 Sep 2010, 13:02
Location: Cheltenhamshire
Not being funny but you'd think that one of the rich majority shareholders might stump up for something long-term beneficial to the club like purchasing land that the club can redevelop on, otherwise what's the point of them being a majority shareholder? And I know that Mr Keswick supposedly took a back seat because he was fed up of being told to put his hand in his pocket all the time, but surely this is exactly the kind of thing that you would?

I'm not one for ever saying anyone should produce money for anything but, as I say, what's the point of them owning a chunk of the club if they're not investing in its long-term future? I also say this not knowing whether they would or have offered - they may have offered but CBC are still sat on their asses doing sweet FA, as per.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Shade wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 14:24 Not being funny but you'd think that one of the rich majority shareholders might stump up for something long-term beneficial to the club like purchasing land that the club can redevelop on, otherwise what's the point of them being a majority shareholder? And I know that Mr Keswick supposedly took a back seat because he was fed up of being told to put his hand in his pocket all the time, but surely this is exactly the kind of thing that you would?

I'm not one for ever saying anyone should produce money for anything but, as I say, what's the point of them owning a chunk of the club if they're not investing in its long-term future? I also say this not knowing whether they would or have offered - they may have offered but CBC are still sat on their asses doing sweet FA, as per.
Yes, though of course they would then need to stump for the stadium is well.

Even if we buy the land for £1million, a new stand complex is going to be close to ten times that.

As of a November 2019 FOI request, the Council spent “£557,000 which includes the costs for acquiring the private properties, associated legal fees and statutory homeless and disturbance payments, the demolition and asbestos removal costs and fees associated with working up initial plans to consider the options to redevelop the site.”

They have probably incurred more costs since then, and will want to make a profit so I don’t think £1million is far from the mark.
Robin
Posts: 15691
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:19
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 14:12
Robin wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 13:51
horlickfanclub wrote: 10 Sep 2023, 11:54 The Finance Director came from the Trust so you could say that two Directors have come from that source. Queries regarding ground redevelopment should go to the Borough Council as nothing will happen until they have a plan for the Cakebridge Place area. This has been explained so many times.
The club need to be looking to convince the council to purchase cakebridge place, we cannot just sit along and hope for the best. We will likely need the bulk of that land for ground development otherwise we will never move forward.
That also requires someone being willing to come up with the cash to buy the Cakebridge Place land.

(And presumably the current stadium site as well given it is Council owned).

Who’s wallet are you raiding?
Might as well pack up and plan to move ground if we don't make this purchase because Whaddon Road is not fit for purpose and in it's current state is a weight around our neck. Unable to generate non-match day revenue which developing Cakebridge place would enable, current capacity is too small (one of the smallest in the league) with not enough seats.

The board and chairman should be moving heaven and earth to stump up the money required to purchase the land either via our two biggest benefactors or external investors who could potentially use some of the land for themselves.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
Si Robin wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 11:53 I think Owen made the point on the Trust/Club pod that came out yesterday. These issues only seem to get magnified when we're not doing well.

If we were mid-table right now, having won a couple of games, then no-one would be questioning the board or shareholders and no-one would be doing deep dives into how much influence the Trust have, etc...

We've started shite, had a lot of injuries, and the football has been dire. I agree it's dragged down all of the optimism from pre-season, but we're not down yet and there's still 40 games to go.
Hi, from my side, my random thoughts were not aligned to our poor start on the pitch. It was from reading the thread concerning the SLO and the board member being unable to comment due to collective responsibility and then on this thread the questioning as to why it cost 200k and not 100k to get on the board. Seemed the answer was because the trust had 200k. It was these two connected things that got me wondering what the Trust have achieved or hope to achieve by having a voice on the board. Given that that voice could be easily drowned out by the big hitters. As I said just a random thought when reading here. If covered on these podcasts then apols, as I don't do any podcasts
horlickfanclub
Posts: 3755
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
No shareholder has a controlling stake. If i decided to spend my riches on purchasing the ground from the Council to include the Cakebridge Place site I could be outvoted by others so unable to develop in my own way. So no point without first buying up shares to control the Company. Add that cost to the purchase cost and the development cost.
I would then own a controlling interest in the Company and the site but would not own the Bowls club or Parklands so limiting future growth.I would probably have lost the support and time of co Directors along the way.
Problems can be overcome so hopefully in five years time the buyout and build would be complete . Will I start the masterplan? No . Who would want to get involved and put up with all the "social" flack and on air lambasting if the team lost a few games? Not me. I'm keeping my fortune under the garden shed and hope the rats don't find it.

P.S. If we beat Exeter and Peterborough and Stevenage I might change my mind. Supporters can sway in a light breeze.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
horlickfanclub wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 10:11 No shareholder has a controlling stake. If i decided to spend my riches on purchasing the ground from the Council to include the Cakebridge Place site I could be outvoted by others so unable to develop in my own way. So no point without first buying up shares to control the Company. Add that cost to the purchase cost and the development cost.
I would then own a controlling interest in the Company and the site but would not own the Bowls club or Parklands so limiting future growth.I would probably have lost the support and time of co Directors along the way.
Problems can be overcome so hopefully in five years time the buyout and build would be complete . Will I start the masterplan? No . Who would want to get involved and put up with all the "social" flack and on air lambasting if the team lost a few games? Not me. I'm keeping my fortune under the garden shed and hope the rats don't find it.

P.S. If we beat Exeter and Peterborough and Stevenage I might change my mind. Supporters can sway in a light breeze.
Good point.

It also depends on the motivation of those with the money I guess. If I won more than £50 million in the Lottery I’d give £10m to CTFC - probably via the Robins Trust. I would do this anonymously and ring-fenced purely for a stadium/stand development. As the funder I would expect some right to influence the development, again via the Robins Trust. Once the stand is built I wouldn’t be bothered about owning it so the Trust could keep ownership of it.

But that is because my motivation in that situation is charitable and not business-driven. If I was motivated by investment and return then I’d have different expectations, as you say.
andgarod
Posts: 1230
Joined: 19 May 2015, 18:31
Ihearye wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 09:00
Si Robin wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 11:53 I think Owen made the point on the Trust/Club pod that came out yesterday. These issues only seem to get magnified when we're not doing well.

If we were mid-table right now, having won a couple of games, then no-one would be questioning the board or shareholders and no-one would be doing deep dives into how much influence the Trust have, etc...

We've started shite, had a lot of injuries, and the football has been dire. I agree it's dragged down all of the optimism from pre-season, but we're not down yet and there's still 40 games to go.
Hi, from my side, my random thoughts were not aligned to our poor start on the pitch. It was from reading the thread concerning the SLO and the board member being unable to comment due to collective responsibility and then on this thread the questioning as to why it cost 200k and not 100k to get on the board. Seemed the answer was because the trust had 200k. It was these two connected things that got me wondering what the Trust have achieved or hope to achieve by having a voice on the board. Given that that voice could be easily drowned out by the big hitters. As I said just a random thought when reading here. If covered on these podcasts then apols, as I don't do any podcasts
I dont usually do podcast easpecially 2hr one but its raining and car is having an MOT so though I would give the special a listen
My take away points were
SLO sent in reports over a number of years- no acknowledgement
Never any feedback

Reason no personnel too busy

Someone has been appointed with responsibility to be major contact with SLO

My comment this does not mean that the board are going to do anything

3 directors are or were fan elected directors - element of poacher turned game keeper
but do they deal with the 3 big shareholders?

So if the board are too busy then surely this is justification for a CEO
How much would a CEO be
Or have a few people seconded in from local or national companies
or Volunteers from local companies
or perhaps we challenge Anneka or some of these other organizations who want free publicity and have a TV programme

Another point was that one of the directors is trying to tap up people for the SLO job - really!

It boils down to little old cheltenham
National league club mentality living the dream

I am a trust member and have been since it started all the family are trust members
The car passed its MOT so that was a listen worth doing haha
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
andgarod wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 11:45
Ihearye wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 09:00
Si Robin wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 11:53 I think Owen made the point on the Trust/Club pod that came out yesterday. These issues only seem to get magnified when we're not doing well.

If we were mid-table right now, having won a couple of games, then no-one would be questioning the board or shareholders and no-one would be doing deep dives into how much influence the Trust have, etc...

We've started shite, had a lot of injuries, and the football has been dire. I agree it's dragged down all of the optimism from pre-season, but we're not down yet and there's still 40 games to go.
Hi, from my side, my random thoughts were not aligned to our poor start on the pitch. It was from reading the thread concerning the SLO and the board member being unable to comment due to collective responsibility and then on this thread the questioning as to why it cost 200k and not 100k to get on the board. Seemed the answer was because the trust had 200k. It was these two connected things that got me wondering what the Trust have achieved or hope to achieve by having a voice on the board. Given that that voice could be easily drowned out by the big hitters. As I said just a random thought when reading here. If covered on these podcasts then apols, as I don't do any podcasts
I dont usually do podcast easpecially 2hr one but its raining and car is having an MOT so though I would give the special a listen
My take away points were
SLO sent in reports over a number of years- no acknowledgement
Never any feedback

Reason no personnel too busy

Someone has been appointed with responsibility to be major contact with SLO

My comment this does not mean that the board are going to do anything

3 directors are or were fan elected directors - element of poacher turned game keeper
but do they deal with the 3 big shareholders?

So if the board are too busy then surely this is justification for a CEO
How much would a CEO be
Or have a few people seconded in from local or national companies
or Volunteers from local companies
or perhaps we challenge Anneka or some of these other organizations who want free publicity and have a TV programme

Another point was that one of the directors is trying to tap up people for the SLO job - really!

It boils down to little old cheltenham
National league club mentality living the dream

I am a trust member and have been since it started all the family are trust members
The car passed its MOT so that was a listen worth doing haha
This part of your post confuses me? Murry asked someone he knew, who is a big Cheltenham fan, if they would be up to doing the job. I'm not sure why that shocks you or is seen as a bad thing?
User avatar
longmover
Posts: 2608
Joined: 23 Jan 2012, 18:55
andgarod wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 11:45
Ihearye wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 09:00
Si Robin wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 11:53 I think Owen made the point on the Trust/Club pod that came out yesterday. These issues only seem to get magnified when we're not doing well.

If we were mid-table right now, having won a couple of games, then no-one would be questioning the board or shareholders and no-one would be doing deep dives into how much influence the Trust have, etc...

We've started shite, had a lot of injuries, and the football has been dire. I agree it's dragged down all of the optimism from pre-season, but we're not down yet and there's still 40 games to go.
Hi, from my side, my random thoughts were not aligned to our poor start on the pitch. It was from reading the thread concerning the SLO and the board member being unable to comment due to collective responsibility and then on this thread the questioning as to why it cost 200k and not 100k to get on the board. Seemed the answer was because the trust had 200k. It was these two connected things that got me wondering what the Trust have achieved or hope to achieve by having a voice on the board. Given that that voice could be easily drowned out by the big hitters. As I said just a random thought when reading here. If covered on these podcasts then apols, as I don't do any podcasts
I dont usually do podcast easpecially 2hr one but its raining and car is having an MOT so though I would give the special a listen
My take away points were
SLO sent in reports over a number of years- no acknowledgement
Never any feedback

Reason no personnel too busy

Someone has been appointed with responsibility to be major contact with SLO

My comment this does not mean that the board are going to do anything

3 directors are or were fan elected directors - element of poacher turned game keeper
but do they deal with the 3 big shareholders?

So if the board are too busy then surely this is justification for a CEO
How much would a CEO be
Or have a few people seconded in from local or national companies
or Volunteers from local companies
or perhaps we challenge Anneka or some of these other organizations who want free publicity and have a TV programme

Another point was that one of the directors is trying to tap up people for the SLO job - really!

It boils down to little old cheltenham
National league club mentality living the dream

I am a trust member and have been since it started all the family are trust members
The car passed its MOT so that was a listen worth doing haha
I'm inclined to agree with you here, the SLO is an EFL directive, being 'too busy' just isn't good enough, this is a league one football club not the tombola stand at the local school fair. This constant 'bumbling' by well meaning part timers is really putting me off this football club, I'm sick of it.
andgarod
Posts: 1230
Joined: 19 May 2015, 18:31
So asking a big cheltenham fan if they are interested in SLO
not a problem if they are the best person for it and he might be
I am a big ctfc fan 18 stone 6ft FA qualified coach former treasurer of local club
etc etc
The afore mentioned director does not know me. I have never spoken to him nor he to me
So how does he know I am not the best SLO applicant

How did Buckle get the manager job - he was available although at the time in USA but he used to have a drink with one of the directors
That is the way little old cheltenham works
Who does the SLO represent the fans,the trust and is having a mate on the board just seem a little to comfortable just saying
Then what happens to the podcast
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
Why would the podcast be affected?
andgarod
Posts: 1230
Joined: 19 May 2015, 18:31
Having listened to the special someone ( the director ) says he asked someone and says something like didnt I
Someone then replies no comment
If this person became SLO does the podcast become
the trust mouthpiece or
the club mouthiece or
remains as a few people on social media
just asking
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
It's implied that Owen was asked - Owen is a contributor to the pod. He's predominantly the host, but it is not his podcast. I'm sure he's not interested in the role and, if he was, being an SLO does not mean he can't be impartial on his views on the pitch.

We have had discussions surrounding links to the club before (early last season) and my personal view is, and was, that we're better served being completely independent from them. I know for a fact that one director accused us of being too negative after the Oxford game, and I referenced this on the pod after the Northampton game - pointing out that if he thought we were negative after Oxford then he may wish to avoid this one.

I would not like to be part of something whereby I'm unable to criticise the club for fear of us upsetting someone on the board. We're all fans and I like to think we're not too reactionary but also not afraid to call it as we see it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have a relationship with the Club and Trust. We had a fantastic interview with David Bloxham last year, and we promote Trust statements when asked to.
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
andgarod wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 13:09 Having listened to the special someone ( the director ) says he asked someone and says something like didnt I
Someone then replies no comment
If this person became SLO does the podcast become
the trust mouthpiece or
the club mouthiece or
remains as a few people on social media
just asking
The best SLO candidate also needs to be a willing candidate. So if everyone who is willing applies I am confident the best will be chosen, regardless of size or whether they know MT or not.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
andgarod wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 12:54 So asking a big cheltenham fan if they are interested in SLO
not a problem if they are the best person for it and he might be
I am a big ctfc fan 18 stone 6ft FA qualified coach former treasurer of local club
etc etc
The afore mentioned director does not know me. I have never spoken to him nor he to me
So how does he know I am not the best SLO applicant

How did Buckle get the manager job - he was available although at the time in USA but he used to have a drink with one of the directors
That is the way little old cheltenham works
Who does the SLO represent the fans,the trust and is having a mate on the board just seem a little to comfortable just saying
Then what happens to the podcast
Sorry, you are not at all suitable, wouldn't fit in the hut
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 13:26 It's implied that Owen was asked - Owen is a contributor to the pod. He's predominantly the host, but it is not his podcast. I'm sure he's not interested in the role and, if he was, being an SLO does not mean he can't be impartial on his views on the pitch.

We have had discussions surrounding links to the club before (early last season) and my personal view is, and was, that we're better served being completely independent from them. I know for a fact that one director accused us of being too negative after the Oxford game, and I referenced this on the pod after the Northampton game - pointing out that if he thought we were negative after Oxford then he may wish to avoid this one.

I would not like to be part of something whereby I'm unable to criticise the club for fear of us upsetting someone on the board. We're all fans and I like to think we're not too reactionary but also not afraid to call it as we see it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have a relationship with the Club and Trust. We had a fantastic interview with David Bloxham last year, and we promote Trust statements when asked to.
you young folk and your podcasts - they will never catch on , mark my words! I guess I could put one on , during the drive to Cairnryan - it would put my better half to sleep ----- bliss
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
Having turned 39 two weeks ago, I thank you for calling me young.

Mark will love it aswell :D
Red Duke
Posts: 1922
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 09:15
Location: North West
tunnelvision wrote: 11 Sep 2023, 11:03 At the start of this season I was feeling quite optimistic for once. Decent squad (so I thought!), good pre-season performances and good support, both home and away. Seemed to be a feel good factor about the club. How quickly that's all turned to sh!te.
It was the same for me. I was so optimistic when travelling to Shrewsbury but came away thinking that the performance had relegation written all over it.

Subsequent performances have not allayed my concerns and I definitely fear the worse now. The only crumb of hope is that the loan players can turn it round.
andgarod
Posts: 1230
Joined: 19 May 2015, 18:31
Red Duke I take heart from Cambridge and Oxford both looked like relegation candidates with only a few games to go
True we threw Oxford a helping hand but they both survived so importantly dont get cut a drift like our friends up the hill and as I said 5th from bottom on the final whistle will have set another club record
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 15:00
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 13:26 It's implied that Owen was asked - Owen is a contributor to the pod. He's predominantly the host, but it is not his podcast. I'm sure he's not interested in the role and, if he was, being an SLO does not mean he can't be impartial on his views on the pitch.

We have had discussions surrounding links to the club before (early last season) and my personal view is, and was, that we're better served being completely independent from them. I know for a fact that one director accused us of being too negative after the Oxford game, and I referenced this on the pod after the Northampton game - pointing out that if he thought we were negative after Oxford then he may wish to avoid this one.

I would not like to be part of something whereby I'm unable to criticise the club for fear of us upsetting someone on the board. We're all fans and I like to think we're not too reactionary but also not afraid to call it as we see it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have a relationship with the Club and Trust. We had a fantastic interview with David Bloxham last year, and we promote Trust statements when asked to.
you young folk and your podcasts - they will never catch on , mark my words! I guess I could put one on , during the drive to Cairnryan - it would put my better half to sleep ----- bliss
An irrelevant point here but I do find it odd how podcast has become the official descriptor for what is basically an audio or radio show/series.

I guess ‘radio show’ doesn’t sound as snazzy and pedants would complain that it has never actually been on the radio.

I probably listen to more radio and podcasts than I do watch TV. I find it a much more engaging medium.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 15:56
Ihearye wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 15:00
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 13:26 It's implied that Owen was asked - Owen is a contributor to the pod. He's predominantly the host, but it is not his podcast. I'm sure he's not interested in the role and, if he was, being an SLO does not mean he can't be impartial on his views on the pitch.

We have had discussions surrounding links to the club before (early last season) and my personal view is, and was, that we're better served being completely independent from them. I know for a fact that one director accused us of being too negative after the Oxford game, and I referenced this on the pod after the Northampton game - pointing out that if he thought we were negative after Oxford then he may wish to avoid this one.

I would not like to be part of something whereby I'm unable to criticise the club for fear of us upsetting someone on the board. We're all fans and I like to think we're not too reactionary but also not afraid to call it as we see it.

That's not to say that we shouldn't have a relationship with the Club and Trust. We had a fantastic interview with David Bloxham last year, and we promote Trust statements when asked to.
you young folk and your podcasts - they will never catch on , mark my words! I guess I could put one on , during the drive to Cairnryan - it would put my better half to sleep ----- bliss
An irrelevant point here but I do find it odd how podcast has become the official descriptor for what is basically an audio or radio show/series.

I guess ‘radio show’ doesn’t sound as snazzy and pedants would complain that it has never actually been on the radio.

I probably listen to more radio and podcasts than I do watch TV. I find it a much more engaging medium.
I too am an exponent of the radio, a much better form of communication than TV. That being said (without trying to offend anyone), I don't see the attraction in listening to well meaning amateurs giving their opinion. I get plenty of that among my social circle and family :)
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
As an amateur, I'm not offended. Given we've a member who is a professional pundit though, I'd say at least one could take offence.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 20:01 As an amateur, I'm not offended. Given we've a member who is a professional pundit though, I'd say at least one could take offence.
It was just a generic comment on podcasts as a manifestation rather than the one mentioned on here :)
paperboy
Posts: 2537
Joined: 05 Jul 2011, 22:56
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 20:01 As an amateur, I'm not offended. Given we've a member who is a professional pundit though.
Really?😀
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
He gets paid to give his views - is that not a professional?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 07:29
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 20:01 As an amateur, I'm not offended. Given we've a member who is a professional pundit though, I'd say at least one could take offence.
It was just a generic comment on podcasts as a manifestation rather than the one mentioned on here :)
Most podcasts I listen to are done by professionals. Mostly professional journalists.
horlickfanclub
Posts: 3755
Joined: 04 Aug 2011, 11:02
Si Robin wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 08:13 He gets paid to give his views - is that not a professional?
Does the podcast pay a fee ?
Si Robin
Posts: 5051
Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 10:29
No - we're all doing it for fun. That doesn't mean that the one who is paid to be a pundit elsewhere isn't a professional though.

If a League 1 footballer plays in a charity match, does that mean he's not a professional on that day?
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
horlickfanclub wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 10:04
Si Robin wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 08:13 He gets paid to give his views - is that not a professional?
Does the podcast pay a fee ?
BBC Radio Gloucestershire (or the production company) pays him to commentate/pundit on football matches.
User avatar
Ihearye
Posts: 3022
Joined: 05 Jan 2018, 08:08
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 09:57
Ihearye wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 07:29
Si Robin wrote: 12 Sep 2023, 20:01 As an amateur, I'm not offended. Given we've a member who is a professional pundit though, I'd say at least one could take offence.
It was just a generic comment on podcasts as a manifestation rather than the one mentioned on here :)
Most podcasts I listen to are done by professionals. Mostly professional journalists.
Semantics again, but most 9f not all of the journalist's I read are indeed paid for this input. If that then makes their nput more worthy than any other educated person, I personally say no.
Being paid to do a task does not make you good at it
Off track I know, but a conversations
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
Posts: 29399
Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Ihearye wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 11:20
RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 09:57
Ihearye wrote: 13 Sep 2023, 07:29

It was just a generic comment on podcasts as a manifestation rather than the one mentioned on here :)
Most podcasts I listen to are done by professionals. Mostly professional journalists.
Semantics again, but most 9f not all of the journalist's I read are indeed paid for this input. If that then makes their nput more worthy than any other educated person, I personally say no.
Being paid to do a task does not make you good at it
Off track I know, but a conversations
That depends on the podcast. If it is an economics podcast then yes I would rather listen to someone who has the appropriate training and expertise and credentials - FT or Economist writers, or leading academics, for example.

If the series is a multi-year investigation into a global criminal network by an investigative journalist then unless someone else wants to do it, then they are by default the best. If they aren’t good at it the podcast won’t last very long.
Post Reply